From Brooke Shields to Sydney Sweeney: How the “GOOD GENES” Ad Reveals Fashion’s Long History of Racism, Eugenics, and Denial
- Jan 20
- 4 min read
When American Eagle (AE) released its GOOD GENES campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney, critics quickly noted how the slogan played into troubling narratives about beauty, desirability, and genetics. AE defended itself by saying it was “just about jeans.” And financially, the campaign was a success, with reports claiming $400 million in sales in one day.
But this narrative, excusing cultural insensitivity in pursuit of profit, isn’t new. In fact, the “genes/jeans” wordplay has a long, troubling history in fashion marketing. American Eagle’s misstep echoes a path paved decades earlier by Calvin Klein.
The Brooke Shields “Genes” Ad: Eugenics Disguised as Marketing
In the early 1980s, Calvin Klein launched its infamous Brooke Shields campaign, widely remembered for its sexual innuendo (“nothing comes between me and my Calvins”). But another lesser-discussed ad in the same series went even further: it directly connected genetics, selective breeding, and natural selection to their denim.
The narration of the 1980s commercial stated:
“The secret of life lies hidden in a genetic code… Occasionally certain changes… bring about evolution. This may occur… by selectively mating, in which a single gene type proves superior and transmits its genes to future generations… by natural selection, which filters out those genes better equipped than others to endure in the environment… which brings us to Calvin’s, and the survival of the fittest: Calvin Klein Jeans.”
Here, the brand was not subtle: it explicitly linked Darwinian eugenics language (superiority, survival of the fittest, selective mating) directly to jeans, and paired it with a teenage model presented as the pinnacle of American desirability.
This was not a passing pun. It was an open play on white, Eurocentric beauty, sexuality, and the idea of genetic superiority.
AE’s GOOD GENES: History Repeated
Fast forward to AE’s 2025 campaign with Sydney Sweeney. While less overt than Calvin Klein’s commercial, the GOOD GENES slogan still leans into the same lineage of exclusivity.
By casting a blonde, blue-eyed Hollywood star as the face of "good genes," AE repeated fashion’s pattern of normalizing specific racialized and gendered ideals, while erasing the deeper histories of denim.
And when challenged, AE fell back on denial: “it’s just about jeans.” But paired with historical precedent, and with denim’s own racial past, that response rings hollow.
Denim and Race: A Fabric with Painful Roots
AE’s defense ignores denim’s fraught history:
Indigo produced by enslaved Africans: Indigo plantations in the South relied on forced labor, with brutal working conditions shaping early denim production.
Jeans as class marker: For centuries, denim symbolized poverty and menial labor, a uniform for the marginalized.
Civil Rights reclamation: It wasn’t until the 1960s that denim became linked to resistance and equality, embraced during marches and protests.
In this light, “GOOD GENES” is not “just jeans.” It glosses over the painful history linking denim to oppression, while celebrating a narrow genetic standard of what “good” looks like.
AE’s Cultural Pattern: This Isn’t New
The GOOD GENES controversy is far from an isolated marketing error. Over the years, AE has faced multiple lawsuits and public scrutiny over workplace discrimination and exclusion, exposing a culture struggling with equity and inclusion:
In 2024, a former employee filed suit alleging discriminatory firing linked to her sexual orientation and disability, highlighting ongoing challenges with LGBTQ+ inclusion and disability accommodation.
The company settled a 2010 transgender discrimination case after state intervention, agreeing to enhance policies and training—while denying wrongdoing.
AEO faces class action lawsuits accusing it of systemic labor violations, including unpaid wages, overtime, and retaliation.
Pending lawsuits also allege disability discrimination and bias in hiring practices.
Each time, AE followed a predictable cycle: launch → backlash → excuse or erasure →
continued profit.
The reported scrubbing of the original GOOD GENES imagery from the internet is simply the latest example of this concealment-over-accountability culture.
This track record underscores a company culture that too often minimizes or dismisses concerns about bias and systemic exclusion, prioritizing brand image and profits over accountability and change. The defensive reaction to GOOD GENES fits this broader pattern.
Corporate Denial and $400M in a Day
What makes this moment particularly revealing is the larger public reaction. Critics justifiably raised concerns. But many more dismissed them, calling them “oversensitive” or suggesting it was “just clever marketing.” And while this denial spread, AE’s stock surged.
This dynamic speaks volumes:
Racism and bias are excused if they’re profitable.
Denial is its own form of complicity.
By framing criticism as “reading too much into it,” the company and its defenders dismiss systemic realities while benefiting from them.
Yamir Bhatt's article that praises AE approach.
HR Perspective: People-First Means Facing History
From a Human Resources and workplace culture lens, the real problem is this: denial is antithetical to accountability. When companies say “it was just about jeans,” two things happen:
Employees get the message that cultural awareness doesn’t matter as long as profits are up.
Customers understand that their voices are less valued than shareholder gains.
A people-first approach would mean:
Embedding checks for diverse perspectives before campaign launches.
Acknowledging uncomfortable histories (like denim’s roots in slavery).
Using controversies to spark learning, not erasure.
What We Excuse, We Endorse
Excusing harm is not neutral, it’s an endorsement.
The Calvin Klein “Genes” ad was explicit. AE’s “GOOD GENES” is more subtle. But both are bound by the same dangerous pattern: using “genes” as code for desirability and superiority, while ignoring the violent histories of race, class, and exclusion tied to denim.
Until companies like AE stop excusing harm with “it’s just jeans,” cycles of denial will continue. The profits might soar, but the human cost, the alienation, erasure, and perpetuation of bias, is paid by employees, communities, and future generations.
↳ Question HR Leaders Should Be Asking: When history shows us a cycle of harm, from Calvin Klein’s “Genes” to American Eagle’s “GOOD GENES”, do we continue excusing it for profit, or do we finally interrupt the pattern with accountability?
Comments