Papa John’s founder says report vindicates him of racism, but no one is buying it
Oh, how the once-mighty John Schnatter keeps falling
John Schnatter’s world collapsed after he was forced out as Papa John’s CEO in June 2018. He told a reporter he ate 40 pizzas in 30 days to say the quality of the pizzas had declined. Six months later, his wife divorced him. During it all, Schnatter hired Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer, Patricia Glaser, to fight public reporting that he used the n-word in a conference call with Papa John’s executives and a marketing agency.
Two years later, his lawyers at Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, in partnership with Freeh Group International Solutions, a consulting firm owned by former FBI Director Louis Freeh, released a report of their investigation into Schnatter’s conduct that concluded: “the public comments by Mr. Schnatter were neither intended nor can reasonably be interpreted to reflect any racial bias, prejudice, or disrespect for African Americans or people of color.”
As one can imagine, Schnatter rejoiced. He created a website about the report and styled it with a media contact, a digital copy of the report, and witness interviews. Schnatter also published a statement saying he had been completely vindicated.
“Judge Freeh’s investigation coincides with what I have said all along — that my comments in May 2018, which clearly reflected my total disdain for racism, were reversed and mischaracterized by the media to damage my reputation and harm the company I founded, built, and love,” he said.
Setting aside the delirium, there is no vindication in the report for Schnatter. In fact, just the opposite. Schnatter’s conduct in light of the report is the finest self-own of his downfall. More gluttonous than the 40 pizzas; more egomaniacal than shirking the NFL; more self-centered than his divorce.
Between the call, his conduct, and his absolute beg for people to believe him, Schnatter remains faithful to the very foundation of racism: self-interest.
According to Forbes, who broke the story, Schnatter said “Colonel Sanders called blacks n — — -s” and complained that Sanders never faced public backlash. Schnatter also spoke of his early life growing up in Indiana where “people used to drag African-Americans from trucks until they died,” the story says.
To put the event in context, Schnatter said this during a diversity training exercise, the report says. At the time, the NFL had recently dropped Papa John’s as a sponsor because of Schnatter’s disparaging remarks about players who knelt in protest during the national anthem. In fact, he said the protests were bad for his business.
In the report, the lawyers argue the comments Schnatter made during the conference call were “neither intended nor can reasonably be interpreted to reflect any racial bias, prejudice, or disrespect.”
But, considering Schnatter’s intent completely misses the point. One doesn’t need to intent to inflict harm in order to do so. Furthermore, people who are not racist don’t try to find “tasteful” ways to use the n-word in conversation.
The fact Schnatter found it reasonable to use the n-word in a diversity training setting screams of his intent in the first place. This rationale is a microcosm of the appeal to ignorance by free speech purists who believe certain words should be used without recourse. “No one has proven that words can cause harm. So, therefore, words don’t cause harm,” they say.
Only someone who conflates self-interest with self-expression could make such a claim. But, that’s seemingly at the heart of Schnatter’s lawsuit against Papa John’s seeking damages resulting from his termination. He’s essentially arguing that he was fired for being John Schnatter.
To that end, Schnatter is acting as if his case can be won or lost on paper like an employment law case. Since whomever is prosecuting him would need to find documented evidence of his racism in this scenario, Schnatter feels he is in the clear. However, racism rarely — if ever — reveals itself in this way.
More times than not, racism is shown through the situations one creates for oneself and the analogies one uses to describe the world.
That’s part of the reason why Schnatter’s use of the n-word in an academic point about media attention is so damning. Of all the times he could choose to use the n-word, he chose to do it during a diversity training exercise accompanied by his executive team and a corporate partner agency. He also drew a false equivalence between Jim Crow’s Kentucky and modern American culture as if to say the n-word should be acceptable speech because black people are no longer “dragged from trucks until they died” like during his childhood in Indiana. If that doesn’t scream racist, then nothing ever will.
And now that his lawyers conducted this investigation, Schnatter is begging us to disbelieve our eyes. That somehow everything leading up to the report was a complete fabrication — a ghost created by social media and corporate news organizations.
Once this veneer is lifted, Schnatter believes, one can see his vindication: no one whom his lawyers interviewed would reconfirm his racism. But, this is like the believing in the Wizard of Oz after his curtain opened.
The report admits the investigation was styled like an FBI background check. That means investigators conducted interviews of both Schnatter and his “co-workers, friends, and prominent African Americans, in order to determine any racial bias or prejudicial statements or conduct in [his] professional and personal life,” the 14-page document reads.
It’s important to remember that background check interviews conducted by private citizens are not conducted under oath and there is no consequence for lying. Had it been conducted by federal agents, that would be a different story. It just so happens that a part involved used to be the head of the FBI.
On top of that, it is highly unlikely that any of Schnatter’s powerful associates that investigators spoke to would sign a Examination Under Oath order, especially since the lawyers who published the report represent the subject of its contents. So, there really is no way of verifying the truth of his lawyer’s claims. More than that, there is no way for Schnatter to claim vindication under this premise for obvious reasons.
Instead, Schnatter reveals the very mechanisms of racism: distrust, power, and obscurity.
For Schnatter, it seems there will always be a boogeyman. Whether they wear shoulder pads and helmets or write stories like this one, someone is out to get him. No matter where he turns, trouble seems to follow. Maybe that’s why no one would confirm his racism to investigators? They knew trouble would be hot on their heels if they did.
Regardless, Schnatter was willing to use his power and wealth to obscure the truth of his comments to paint himself as a victim. This is Racism 101. It’s not my fault I’m racist, the other races are heathens! they cry.
Just the same, Schnatter used his influence to buy a team of lawyers who would stick up for him and willingly report the findings of their sham investigation. The cost of this investigation may never be discovered, but it’s likely enough that it could have amounted to a nice pay raise for Papa John’s employees.
Instead, Schnatter engaged in a self-serving act of trying to repair his damaged reputation. For what it’s worth, he will probably get a few paychecks from this stunt. He’ll probably book a slot on Joe Rogan’s podcast, at least. But, for the most part, no one is buying it.
After all, that is what this is really about for Schnatter — not to prove that he really feels a “disdain for racism,” but to make money.
