Terrible Apologies

Atheists Apologizing Badly

kohenari — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:59:30 -0400

Cross-posted at my blog:

In the wake of a controversy that erupted around an address by Center for Inquiry CEO Ron Lindsay designed to welcome participants to the Women in Secularism 2 conference last month, the CFI Board released a statement that reads, in part:

The Center for Inquiry, including its CEO, is dedicated to advancing the status of women and promoting women’s issues, and this was the motivation for its sponsorship of the two Women in Secularism conferences. The CFI Board wishes to express its unhappiness with the controversy surrounding the recent Women in Secularism Conference 2.

CFI believes in respectful debate and dialogue. We appreciate the many insights and varied opinions communicated to us. Going forward, we will endeavor to work with all elements of the secular movement to enhance our common values and strengthen our solidarity as we struggle together for full equality and respect for women around the world.

This is a terrible apology.

The Board doesn’t apologize to offended participants, who felt they were being lectured at by the CEO rather than welcomed by him and who then felt directly attacked by him, as when he directly attacked some of them in a blog post. (Lindsay’s own apology for that blog post is here.)

Instead, the Board chose to “express its unhappiness with the controversy” rather than with the way that its CEO handled his task of welcoming participants or engaging with them when they took to the internet to lament parts of his address that they felt were overtly critical of the role of feminism in secularism (as he suggested it was sometimes used to silence men).

It’s pretty much a guarantee that issuing a non-apology won’t achieve the result of bringing a month-old controvery under control; instead, it’s very likely to anger all the people who were offended in the first place.

HT: Olivia Hunt.

Hot Off the Press

Thu, 23 May 2013 16:48:50 -0400

From President Obama’s speech on drones and national security today:

“It is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live…

Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes…”

He feels pretty bad about it, but really the terrorists should feel worse.

So, there’s that.

An Unqualified Apology?

kohenari — Sat, 04 May 2013 16:51:05 -0400

An Unqualified Apology?:

Niall Ferguson apologized today for recently making a series of bizarre “off-the-cuff” comments about John Maynard Keynes that were publicized and pretty much universally decried:

I had been asked to comment on Keynes’s famous observation “In the long run we are all dead.” The point I had made in my presentation was that in the long run our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are alive, and will have to deal with the consequences of our economic actions.

But I should not have suggested – in an off-the-cuff response that was not part of my presentation – that Keynes was indifferent to the long run because he had no children, nor that he had no children because he was gay. This was doubly stupid. First, it is obvious that people who do not have children also care about future generations. Second, I had forgotten that Keynes’s wife Lydia miscarried.

My disagreements with Keynes’s economic philosophy have never had anything to do with his sexual orientation. It is simply false to suggest, as I did, that his approach to economic policy was inspired by any aspect of his personal life.

This is a promising apology from a prominent person who made a public misstep, which (as readers of the Terrible Apologies blog well know) is pretty rare. But then Ferguson goes and messes it up:

As those who know me and my work are well aware, I detest all prejudice, sexual or otherwise.

With this sentence, Ferguson effectively excuses himself rather than waiting for the people he offended to excuse him after he has apologized. Others might have said, “We forgive you because you’ve issued a compelling apology and because, of course, we know from our interactions with you or your work that you detest all prejudice.” Or they might not have. But nothing good can come of someone who says something prejudiced then proclaiming that he isn’t at all prejudiced. It just rings impossibly hollow when someone says, “I’m obviously not racist …” or “I am well known for having a high opinion of several Jews ….”

Whatever comes next is bound to be bad news.

If you’ve done something wrong, it’s best to simply say, “I’ve done something wrong and I’m terribly sorry for it” rather than to explain that you’re really not the sort of person who does these wrong things. If you’re really not that sort of person, you either wouldn’t have said the sort of offensive thing you said or people who know you would be rushing forward to explain that you’re really not this sort of person.

In short, excusing yourself in the middle of “An Unqualified Apology” really just provides a big qualifier for that apology.

[Cross-posted at my blog]

A Republican lawmaker from Arkansas upset both Bostonians and...

kohenari — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:57:00 -0400

A Republican lawmaker from Arkansas upset both Bostonians and non-Bostonians from both sides of the aisle this morning after he felt the need to tweet a pro-gun message around the time two armed police officers were being shot in their pursuit of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects.

He later pulled the tweet and “apologized,” as seen above … though his apology is for timing rather than content (which, apparently, he thinks is still totally appropriate). He also included this observation:

“I don’t regret the content as much as I regret the timing,” Bell, R-Mena, told The Associated Press. “I really didn’t think about it going to Boston and was generally expressing my personal view of how I would have felt in that situation myself.”

[…]

“I was basically just expressing my frustration, I guess, if I had been a person who was living there last night and my elected officials had prevented me from being able to defend myself and my family,” Bell told the AP. “I would have felt pretty powerless and wanted to express that.”

A better apology would have been much shorter and to the point, “I am extremely sorry for expressing what can only be called a ghastly opinion at what can only be called the worst possible time. Next week, I’ll go back to expressing my various ghastly opinions and I’m pretty sure none of you will notice since you didn’t really seem to notice before.”

This might be the most stunning one minute video I’ve seen. The...

kohenari — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:25:16 -0400

This might be the most stunning one minute video I’ve seen.

The Republican Co-Majority Leader of the Oklahoma House of Representatives casually apologized yesterday for casually using an antisemitic slur during a debate on a bill to repeal an old law prohibiting retailers from selling their items at a loss.

[…]

“[Customers] might try to Jew me down on the price,” Johnson added. “That’s fine. You know what? That’s free market as well.”

After it was pointed out to him that the phrase “to Jew down” might be considered offensive by, say, Jewish people, Johnson half-heartedly apologized.

“I apologize to the Jews,” he said, to laughter from his colleagues in the House. “They’re good small business men as well.”

It’s worth noting that there isn’t a single Jewish member in either house of the Oklahoma Legislature.

Reached for comment by the Tulsa World, Joe Griffin, spokesperson for Speaker of the House T.W. Shannon (R-Lawton), said Johnson “is not the first person to make a comment they regret. The chamber accepted his apology and has moved on.”

You watch and tell me if he’s actually apologizing here, seconds after using a slur and learning from a slip of paper someone hands to him that it is, in fact, offensive to use such a slur.

Oh, I’ll just tell you: He isn’t apologizing. He doesn’t care in the least. It’s actually funny to him. His colleagues, you’ll note, are laughing too.

HT: Michael Tofias.

[Cross-posted at my blog]

"I would stand in front of them and tell them, ‘go to hell.’"

kohenari — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:18:08 -0400

“I would stand in front of them and tell them, ‘go to hell.’”

- Conservative Radio Host Bob Davis, speaking about the Newtown families who he claimed were infringing on his gun rights. Matthew Keys notes that Davis later apologized for his remarks.

My own sense is that he didn’t actually apologize at all, though he expects people to take what he said as an apology. What he actually said was:

I do not hide behind flowery language I do not pull my punches ah, when I’m passionate about something it comes out on the air, it’s real and it will always be that way …. What I said Friday was an emotional predecessor to a thought which can and will find a more refined expression by me and others in the future, I guarantee you. But this isn’t a newspaper or a magazine and we don’t filter our views or commentary before we say it, it is radio, it’s immediate, it can be emotional both in its immediate expression as well as its response. It’s unrealistic, I think, to expect a compete filter for anybody doing live media …. Um, but there are those who would silence the opposition in their desire to have their way, majority rule not withstanding. We all have the right to express our opinions on any subject.

So, yeah, not an apology.

Instead, he made it seem like critics of his ridiculous and offensive remarks were attempting to stifle his freedom of speech, he promised his listeners that they’d continue to get the unvarnished “truth” from him in the future, and he made clear that he’ll continue to explore the idea that led him to want to tell the Newtown shooting victims and co-victims to “go to hell.”

New Hampshire Republican refers to women as “vaginas” in email to lawmakers

kohenari — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:59:17 -0400

New Hampshire Republican refers to women as “vaginas” in email to lawmakers:

New Hampshire state Rep. Peter Hansen referred to women as “vaginas” in an email to colleagues sent on the Legislature’s official internal listserv. In response to a message debating a “stand your ground” measure being considered by the State House, the Republican lawmaker wrote:

What could possibly be missing from those factual tales of successful retreat in VT, Germany, and the bowels of Amsterdam? Why children and vagina’s of course. While the tales relate the actions of a solitary male the outcome cannot relate to similar situations where children and women and mothers are the potential victims.

Hansen initially remained defiant in response to criticism, explaining that he had a “fairly well educated mind” and did not need his colleagues to act as “self-appointed wardens” to his speech. He went on to suggest that anyone offended by his use of female genitalia to describe women everywhere should “re-examine [their] psyche.”

But his critics persisted and Hansen relented over his figure of speech, at least a little:

It was not, and is not, my intention to demean women at any time. It is apparent that the intent of my remarks has been misinterpreted, the true goal of the message lost and for that I apologize to those who took offense.

“I have a fairly well educated mind”; “re-examine your psyche”; and “the intent of my remarks has been misinterpreted” are not the words you’re looking for when you apologize. Note, also, that he apologizes that the true goal of his message was lost to those who took offense; he specifically does not apology for being offensive.

HT: Jacob Levy.

Cross posted at my blog.

"I am not a prejudiced person…I have built Habitat homes for colored people."

kohenari — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:39:00 -0400

“I am not a prejudiced person…I have built Habitat homes for colored people.”

-
County Commissioner Jim Gile of Saline County, Kansas, apologizing for using the term “n*gger-rigging.” Gile said he meant “jury-rigged.”

In his apology, “Gile said he also has a close friend whom he regards as a sister who is black,” the Salina Journal reported. “‘I don’t ever do anything bad and don’t know how to do anything bad. People know I am not,’ he said.”

That second part of the quote … well … it pretty much works to negate the first part of the quote.

But most importantly, from the perspective of those who care about terrible apologies, it’s noteworthy that Gile said in his apology that he meant to say “jury-rigged”: “I had it (jury-rigged) on my brain and this came out.” But when he was asked in the moment to repeat what he’d said, his reply was “Afro-Americanized.”

So, yeah, Gile was thinking something racist, then he said something really racist, and then he lied about what he meant to say when he “apologized.”

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) on Thursday night stood by his use of a...

kohenari — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:44:45 -0400

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) on Thursday night stood by his use of a racial slur to describe Latinos, saying that he “meant no disrespect” when he told an Alaska radio interviewer, “We used to hire 50 to 60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes”:

“During a sit down interview with Ketchikan Public Radio this week, I used a term that was commonly used during my days growing up on a farm in Central California,” Young said in the statement. “I know that this term is not used in the same way nowadays and I meant no disrespect.”

This is a terrible apology in no small part because it’s not an apology at all. It’s also a terrible apology because it doesn’t make any sense.

Young isn’t sorry for using a racial slur and disrespecting people. He’s not even sorry that people felt disrespected by what he regards as a simply miscommunication. He simply insists that everyone used the word “wetbacks” without any ill intent back when he was younger and, though it has apparently now become a racial slur, he didn’t mean it that way.

It’s hard to imagine how Young “meant no disrespect” if he knows “that this term is not used in the same way nowadays.” What’s more, the fact that the term was commonly used when he was younger in no way suggests that it was less disrespecful back then. It was equally disrespecful and people are less inclined to casually toss it around today than they were then because, generally, people want at the very least to seem more respectful of others than Young apparently does.

Michelle Shocked apologizes, sort of, for her anti-gay rant

kohenari — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:50:00 -0400

Michelle Shocked apologizes, sort of, for her anti-gay rant:

Shocked issued a statement saying that, when she said things like, “When they stop Prop 8 and force priests at gunpoint to marry gays, it will be the downfall of civilization, and Jesus will come back” and “God hates faggots,” she was saying that’s what people would say if they hated gay people, not thatshe hates gay people. Don’t “believe everything you read on Facebook or Twitter,” says Shocked.

For those with time on their hands and the stomach for such things, here’s the whole bizarre, rambling, born-again, bigoted speech that led to Shocked’s non-apology:

HT: Mike K.

“Our cover illustration last week got strong reactions, which...

kohenari — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:38:00 -0500

“Our cover illustration last week got strong reactions, which we regret,” Josh Tyrangiel, the magazine’s editor, wrote in a statement sent to POLITICO. “Our intention was not to incite or offend. If we had to do it over again we’d do it differently.”

This one’s a particularly terrible apology.

First of all, there’s no apology; there’s simply a statement of regret. But the editor seems to suggest his regret is that the cover illustration “got strong reactions” rather than that the cover was overtly racist. And since he claims that the “intention was not to incite or offend,” he further implies that the strong reactions might have simply been the result of a misunderstanding, rather than the natural result of his decision to publish an offensive cover illustration.

Awful magazine cover, awful apology. Just awful.

HT: Drew Taub.

(Cross posted with my blog)

The Non-Apology Apology Problem

kohenari — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:24:49 -0500

The Non-Apology Apology Problem:

Crossposted from my own blog:

I’m quoted in an interesting Los Angeles Times op-ed on apologies, both political and personal [also reprinted in the Chicago Tribune]; here’s just one piece:

One of the most powerful gestures an individual can make toward another, a sincere apology combines two of humanity’s most ennobling attributes: conscience and accountability. “A proper apology — one that is timely, that recognizes the harm one has done to another and that doesn’t attempt to excuse or explain it away — can repair a relationship that might otherwise be irreparably damaged or destroyed,” says Ari Kohen, a professor of political science at the University of Nebraska, who maintains a blog chronicling the worst apologies (terribleapologies.tumblr.com).

So why, if apologies can do so much good, do we have such a hard time extending them?

One explanation is that in such a politicized time, blame — and therefore contrition — has become partisan. We demand apologies from those with whom we disagree as a way to score political points. Democrats were outraged by Ann Coulter’s comment, but they regarded President Obama as a truth-teller when he dismissed Mitt Romney as a slinger of lies. And vice-versa.

An admission of guilt may also be something to avoid in a world strident about self-esteem. Undertaking an apology, after all, requires first feeling bad about oneself.

Read the whole op-ed.

DKNY has responded to the controversy regarding the unauthorized images it took from Humans of New York:

kohenari — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:11:07 -0500

DKNY has responded to the controversy regarding the unauthorized images it took from Humans of New York::

Via Short Form Blog:

dknyprgirl:

Since its founding in 1989, DKNY has been inspired by and incorporated authentic New York into its imagery. For our Spring 2013 store window visuals we decided to celebrate the city that is in our name by showcasing “Only in NYC” images. We have immense respect for Brandon Stanton aka Humans of New York and approached him to work with us on this visual program. He declined to participate in the project.

For the Spring 2013 windows program, we licensed and paid for photos from established photography service providers. However, it appears that inadvertently the store in Bangkok used an internal mock up containing some of Mr. Stanton’s images that was intended to merely show the direction of the spring visual program. We apologize for this error and are working to ensure that only the approved artwork is used.

DKNY has always supported the arts and we deeply regret this mistake. Accordingly, we are making a charitable donation of $25,000 to the YMCA in Bedford-Stuyvesant Brooklyn in Mr. Stanton’s name.

More info on the story over here.

Big day for apologies today.

As Mark Coatney notes, it’s as though the internet’s power to be offended and to call people out for their offenses has suddenly had some sort of effect and is resulting in some honest apologies.

And that, friends, is an example of a good apology. It contains...

kohenari — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:49:00 -0500

And that, friends, is an example of a good apology.

It contains three simple things: An understanding of the offense, no excuses offered, and a promise to do better in the future.

The 3/5ths Compromise and a Terrible Apology

kohenari — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:34:42 -0500

The 3/5ths Compromise and a Terrible Apology:

Emory University President James Wagner issued the following apology in response to the negative attention directed at him for what seemed to be a positive mention he gave to the notorious 3/5ths Compromise in the U.S. Constitution:

A number of people have raised questions regarding part of my essay in the most recent issue of Emory Magazine. Certainly, I do not consider slavery anything but heinous, repulsive, repugnant, and inhuman. I should have stated that fact clearly in my essay. I am sorry for the hurt caused by not communicating more clearly my own beliefs. To those hurt or confused by my clumsiness and insensitivity, please forgive me.

Wagner’s apology continues for a great many paragraphs. And it’s all pretty terrible, especially the part where he attempts to explain precisely what was good about the 3/5ths Compromise:

The point was not that this particular compromise was a good thing in itself. It was a repugnant compromise. Of course it is not good to count one human being as three fifths of another or, more egregiously, as not human at all, but property. Rather, the first point of the essay was that the Constitution had to be a deeply compromised document in order to be adopted at all.

In other words, Wagner wants to be clearer about the fact that he isn’t someone who adheres to the belief that African-Americans should count as 3/5ths of a person, something he wasn’t adequately clear about in his original column.

But he also still wants to hold onto the virtue of compromise for politicians who can’t agree on much but still need to find a way to move forward for the good of the country.

Here’s what he wrote in the original column:

One instance of constitutional compromise was the agreement to count three-fifths of the slave population for purposes of state representation in Congress. Southern delegates wanted to count the whole slave population, which would have given the South greater influence over national policy. Northern delegates argued that slaves should not be counted at all, because they had no vote. As the price for achieving the ultimate aim of the Constitution—“to form a more perfect union”—the two sides compromised on this immediate issue of how to count slaves in the new nation. Pragmatic half-victories kept in view the higher aspiration of drawing the country more closely together.

Some might suggest that the constitutional compromise reached for the lowest common denominator—for the barest minimum value on which both sides could agree. I rather think something different happened. Both sides found a way to temper ideology and continue working toward the highest aspiration they both shared—the aspiration to form a more perfect union. They set their sights higher, not lower, in order to identify their common goal and keep moving toward it.

In other words, no one wanted slaves to be considered akin to human beings; the question was really about political influence in the new federal government and the two sides recognized that counting or not counting the slave population could make a major difference with regard to that influence. This is something I hope most people already know.

To call the compromise a “pragmatic half-victory” and to argue that “Both sides found a way to temper ideology and continue working toward the highest aspiration they both shared” is to embarrassingly white-wash the colossal failure of both sides in the constitutional debate to confront (or even to think seriously about) the terrible crimes being perpetrated against a large group of human beings.

What Wagner should have said in his apology is that there are a whole lot of examples of compromise that would have suited his purposes far better than the one that he foolishly chose because those other examples aren’t bogged down by the tremendous weight of the world historical injustice of chattel slavery.

Compromise is generally a good thing and it’s a political virtue we haven’t experienced very often of late. But not every compromise is a good example because sometimes both sides take morally reprehensible positions and then they meet in the middle, which is also a reprehensible position.

Reposted from my blog.

Tumblr's Own Terrible Apology

kohenari — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:08:00 -0500

After a lengthy service outage earlier this week, David Karp posted the following on the Tumblr Staff blog:

Our engineering processes seriously failed this afternoon and cost you and your blogs nearly 4 hours of downtime and almost 100 million views.

Painfully, this isn’t the first time this winter I’ve had to give you similar news.

When incidents like this happen, our entire engineering team comes online to support the recovery as needed. Immediately after, we begin taking every measure to protect from the uncovered issue in the future.

We are constantly working to shore up our processes and solidify the stability of this quickly growing network, even more so as we’ve fallen behind the last few weeks.

Tumblr’s success is supporting your success, and we take this mission very seriously.

Karp’s apology fails for two critically important reasons:

1. There is no apology offered.

It’s clear that Karp feels badly about the service outage, but he does not offer an apology here. When Tumblr went down at the end of October, he issued a similar non-apology. Instead, Karp offers users the “news” that the service experienced an outage … which is news to no one. Recognizing the cost to users of the failure of certain “engineering processes” is not the same as apologizing for that failure or those costs. And it doesn’t feel the same to the target audience, either.

2. There is no explanation of the ways in which Tumblr will prevent these outages from occuring in future.

Karp assures the millions of Tumblr users that the staff is “constantly working to shore up our processes and solidify the stability of this quickly growing network” but he doesn’t explain what they’re doing. He also notes that “we’ve fallen behind the last few weeks” but gives no explanation of the cause. There is no assurance that the service won’t go down again in two weeks; from the content of this post, it seems that it very well might.

There is nothing in this message that should make Tumblr users feel better about the service disruption. Karp would have done better to say, “We screwed something up and we’re sorry. We’re doing X, Y, and Z to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

Rep. Todd Akin's campaign just posted the Senate candidate's apology for his comments on rape and pregnancy earlier today:

kohenari — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:21:58 -0400

Rep. Todd Akin's campaign just posted the Senate candidate's apology for his comments on rape and pregnancy earlier today::

“As a member of Congress, I believe that working to protect the most vulnerable in our society is one of my most important responsibilities, and that includes protecting both the unborn and victims of sexual assault. In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year. Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve.

“I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election.

“But I also believe that this election is about a wide-range of very important issues, starting with the economy and the type of country we will be leaving our children and grandchildren. We’ve had 42 straight months of unacceptably high unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, and Democratic leaders in Washington who are focused on growing government, instead of jobs. That is my primary focus in this campaign and while there are those who want to distract from that, knowing they cannot defend the Democrats’ failed economic record of the last four years, that will continue to be my focus in the months ahead.”

shortformblog: Mitt Romney’s greatest refusals to apologize:...

kohenari — Sun, 27 May 2012 20:43:05 -0400

shortformblog:

Mitt Romney’s greatest refusals to apologize: “American Greatness” apparently also means just flat-out verbally refusing to say you’re sorry. We get it, Romney. You’re not going to $@#&ing apologize for anything, to the point where you’ll call your book “No Apology.”

"Back in high school I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended by that I..."

kohenari — Thu, 10 May 2012 11:59:30 -0400

““Back in high school I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended by that I apologize,” he told reporters. “I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual. That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s.””

-
Mitt Romney, apologizing for leading his prep school classmates in an assault on a student they thought was gay. Did we say “apologizing”? Maybe that’s not the right word.

From Mother Jones.

South Africa's Jacques Hechter

kohenari — Sun, 06 May 2012 08:34:52 -0400

Consider the case of Jacques Hechter, a South African police captain who murdered dozens of people and then read an unconvincing prepared statement of remorse at his amnesty hearing. Confronted afterward by David Goodman, a reporter covering the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Hechter responded to an accusation that his statement sounded wooden and disingenuous; according to Goodman (in the Washington Quarterly, 1999: p. 176):

Hechter wheels around and glares at me. “Ach, I’m not f—in’ sorry for what I did,” he says defiantly, his mouth cocked in a macabre half-smile. He stares directly at me, as if his stare could freeze me in place. “Look – I fought for my country, I believed in what I did, and I did a good job. They were my enemy at the time…. I did my job well. And I’d do it again if the circumstances called for it.”