Judges have some peculiar ideas about apology.

First, Solano County, California juvenile court judge, John  Ellis made a youthful offender write an apology to his victim, in this case his former teacher.

Many judges force offenders to apologize to victims. I don’t think forced apologies are worth much.  I think it’s great when offenders apologize to their victims, but the apology has to be voluntary for it to mean anything. But Judge Ellis forced a juvenile identified as J.C. to apologize to his teacher as a condition of probation. And the apology had to be more than 50 words, by court order.

But that’s not my main beef.

The youthful offender J.C. refused to apologize because he maintained his innocence.  So the case was appealed to the First District Court  of Appeal. The court ruled that innocence has nothing to do with it. J.C. could and should apologize while still maintaining his innocence.  J.C. was ordered to apologize even if in his own mind he did nothing wrong.

Maybe we should quickly review the facts of the case.

J.C. had performed some household work for one of his high school teachers in Vallejo.  Somewhat later, the teacher reported some jewelry was stolen. Then J.C. showed up in the teacher’s classroom wearing a pendant that  the teacher recognized as among the stolen items.

J.C’s explanation was pathetic. He told the police that he had found the pendant while vacuuming several months  earlier, and sily forgot to return it. Judge Ellis didn’t believe him and ruled that J.C. was guilty of grand theft. He  put J.C. on three years’ probation and ordered him to write an apology, of at  least 50 words, to his teacher.

But J.C. refused to apologize and appealed. His lawyer argued that the compelled apology would violate J.C.’s constitutional right against having  to incriminate himself. But the First District Court of Appeal said an apology  doesn’t necessarily mean an admission of guilt.

In a 3-0 ruling, the court betrayed a total misunderstanding of apology. The court even turned to the American  Heritage Dictionary, which defines an apology as an expression of regret,  and defines regret as “a feeling of sorrow, disappointment, distress, or remorse  about something that one wishes could be different.” So far so good. But then the court ruled that J.C. could satisfy the dictionary, and the judge’s order,  by  telling his teacher that he’s sorry for what happened to her, with his own  explanation of how it happened.

In other words, the court contemplates an apology that expresses regret for what happened but denies responsibility.

That’s not an apology, that’s an expression of sympathy.

The whole point of apology is that it’s voluntary because the offender accepts the value of giving up the battle with the facts; because he values the relationship more than the need to be right.

Sometimes it’s important to hold out being right. Sometimes it’s important to apologize. It’s important to know the difference and courts should try to preserve the difference.

The fallout from the Penn State University Jerry Sandusky child molestation matter continues to be toxic.

At a recent Penn State Board of Trustees meeting, Kenneth Frazier, a Penn State alumni, member of the board, and CEO and chairman of Merck Pharmaceutical had an angry exchange with Bill Cluck, a lawyer testifying before the board.  In an angry exchange, captured on audio and posted on YouTube, Frazier inexplicably played the race card in criticizing Cluck by invoking the O.J. Simpson trial:

“You are the only person who looks like you who believes the OJ Simpson verdict was correct.”  

This was a racist, unwarranted attempt to delegitimize a member with a different point of view. That Frazier is himself African-American has no bearing on the matter.  I think Frazier quickly accepted that he crossed a line.

First Apology

Kenneth Frazier apologized for insulting William Cluck

Frazier’s first apology was as insipid as his attack:

“I employed an analogy that was unhelpful. Absolutely no offense was intended. I apologize,”  

Readers of this blog know what a sad apology this is. It did not address the racial reference, the central offense. It wasn’t even an analogy. And no one cares about the offender’s intention.

On March 16, 2013 the CentreDaily newspaper published an editorial titled Penn State Trustee Frazier Did More Harm Than Good with Outburst.

Second Apology

With the benefit of counsel from Merck, whose brand Frazier threatened, a second apology was issued in the form of a letter to the editor on March 17, 2013. Here are the salient aspects of that apology:

You are right (“Our View | Penn State trustee Frazier did more harm than good with outburst”).  I accept your central point that, at the board meeting on Thursday, I let my frustration get the better of me and as a result used language that was racially insensitive and inappropriate. For that, I apologize to Mr. (Bill) Cluck, to the Penn State community, and to my colleagues at Merck. In addition, I have called Mr. Cluck to relay personally my sincere apology.

One of my core values is to treat people equally based on their abilities and character. This is likewise a fundamental value at both Penn State and Merck. The words I used did not reflect that principle. I hope that people will see my comments for what they were: a momentary lapse in judgment in the heat of frustration, and not a reflection on what I truly believe and stand for. My commitment to racial equality, diversity and social justice is well-established, and deepens my regret that my poorly chosen words have distracted from the important issues at Penn State.

Another core value I share with my institutions is to acknowledge mistakes and to learn from them. This has been a learning experience for me. As a trustee and business leader, I will strive to remain professional and meet the high standards rightly expected of anyone in my position.

Evaluation 

I give Frazier credit for recognizing the real offense (“racial insensitivity”) and apologizing for it in a forthright manner. It is fair that he

Harrisburg attorney William Cluck

apologized to the larger community in this letter as well as issuing a personal apology directly to the victim. I appreciate that he intends to learn from his mistake and has committed to meet the high standards that are expected of leaders in his position.

The apology is less satisfactory in two ways. First, Frazier talks entirely too much about his commitment to racial diversity, etc.  An apology is not the platform for the offender to claim virtues put in question by the offense for which he is apologizing.

Second, the matter of restitution is missing. Restitution is always the trickiest parts of apologies that don’t involve property loss or monetary damages. What, after all, is the proper restitution for an offense like Frazier’s and who, exactly, is the victim that can accept the restitution?  I don’t have a sure fire suggestion, but then that’s Frazier’s responsibility, not mine.  Some critics are calling for Frazier to resign as a token of restitution. I don’t believe resignation is appropriate. Our leaders get to make mistakes and learn from them without being hung out to dry. But I think some restitution is in order. Perhaps a donation to an organization working to help the victims of child molestation.

I am indebted to Larry Schultz for calling this matter to my attention.

Frazier’s Grade

Recognition: A

Responsibility: B

Remorse: A

Restitution: C

Repetition: A

Overall Grade: B+

Pitch Perfect is a 2012 American musical comedy featuring a large ensemble cast of college students who belong to competing a cappella singing groups as they compete with other groups to win a championship.

Pitch Perfect stars a large cast featuring Anna Kendrick . 

The competition between the groups is mirrored by competition between two strong-willed women on the Barden College Barden Bellas singing group.

Freshman Beca Mitchell (Anna Kendrick) butts heads with an uptight and controlling group leader Aubrey  Posen (Anna Camp  ).  Rehearsals are tense as the two women each try to dominate the other.  Aubrey generally wins these battles, even though she loses the war. Her strategies, brittle personality, and selection of material do not serve the group well.

Finally, at the semi-finals, Becca makes a unilateral decision during the performance to interject La Roux’s “Bulletproof” as an impromptu backup to Aubrey’s traditional arrangement. The members are caught by surprise but quickly regroup and finish up with a performance that pleases the audience.  The judges do not agree. In the ensuring confrontation, Aubrey forces Beca out.

Even though they lost, the Barden Bellas are offered a slot at the Nationals. Beca realizes how much she needs the Bellas and approaches Aubrey and the group to offer a very classy apology:

I just wanted to say that I’m sorry. What I did was a really dick move and I shouldn’t have changed the set without asking you guys and I definitely shouldn’t have left. I let you guys down and I’m really sorry. And, Aubrey, if you would have me, I want back in.

This is a very effective apology: direct, non-defensive, and personal. Beca identifies what she is apologizing for, acknowledges the pain she has caused, and respects Aubrey, the leader of the Bellas, by legitimizing her authority.

All works out.  At the National competition, the Bellas sing a piece arranged by Beca, and win. The apology makes possible the repair of the relationship between the two women and the functioning of the entire group.

In July 2012 I blogged about Jonah Lehrer, the rising journalist and author of three books who flamed out over charges of fabrication and plagiarism, and his apology.  Even though it was a decent apology, it seemed unlikely that Lehrer would soon be trusted as a public figure.

Jonah Lehrer recounts his misdeeds and apologizes at the Knight Foundation on February 12, 2013

Mea CulpaNow Lehrer is back in the news for delivering a lecture to the Knight Foundation, accepting a $20,000 honorarium for the event.

Lehrer took the opportunity to repeat his apology, dissect his deplorable behavior in considerable detail, and suggest a way forward for himself. The Knight Foundation website has the video of Lehrer’s remarks as well as a liveblog of what he said.

I thought Lehrer was exceptionally humble and contrite. He accepts that he broke trust with his readers. He details his many failings by name and victim. He admits that he was arrogant and thought that the rules did not apply to him. He agrees that “a confession is not a solution.” He offers some prescriptions for what it will take for him to overcome his deficiencies as a professional.

Many critics were not satisfied by Lehrer’s remarks.

Many were offended by the sum of money he was offered.  It seems many critics want Lehrer to remain silent in silent shame.

But I think society is well-served by offenders who are willing to be so publicly accountable for their misdeeds.  After his remarks, Lehrer was willing to take questions, and some questions were very personal and pointed. He handled them with grace and humility.

Live Twitter Stream

The Knight Foundation also projected the live Twitter stream as Lehrer was talking and taking Q&A. Talk about vicious.

During the Q&A, one member of the audience asked Lehrer to weigh in on the Lance Armstrong apology.  Lehrer wisely declined, answering that it was all he could do to focus on his own misdeeds and apology. He would not judge anyone else. Good for him. It’s a rare offender who can resist the invitation to share the blame.

The attendees heard first-hand from a very smart journalist about the traps laying out there for all professionals. I think that after Lehrer’s remarks any thoughtful attendee should conclude that none of them are different from Jonah Lehrer. That’s their best defense against falling into the trap. If so, the Knight Foundation got its money’s worth.

Maureen O’Conner splits herself into two personalities to evade responsibility for gambling spree.

Maureen O’Connor, San Diego’s first female mayor, recently acknowledged in federal court that she stole $2.1 million from her late husband’s charitable foundation during a decade-long gambling spree.

At a news conference, she said blamed her behavior on a brain tumor that was diagnosed in 2011.

“There are two Maureens — Maureen Number 1 and Maureen Number 2,” said O’Connor. “Maureen Number 2 is the Maureen who did not know she had a tumor growing in her brain.”

Fractured Apology

O’Connor was appealing to what I call the Devil-Made-Me-Do-It Apology. There are many variations of this defense:

 Attempt at Apology: I’m sorry. I say stupid things when I’m drunk, but I don’t mean any of it. It was the beer talking. I don’t know what got into me.

Translation: It wasn’t really me that insulted your mother. It was someone I barely recognize who deserves the blame.

To recognize this kind of apology, look for mention of an addictive substance, medical condition, or supernatural force. On the most superficial level it’s an attempt to blame the offense on the addiction. The booze . . . it was the booze talking, as if the responsibility lies with the substance.

Evade Responsibility

On a deeper level, this attempt to evade responsibility represents nothing less than an attempt to split the offender into two parts.

First there is a blameworthy part that gets to absorb all of the responsibility. Then there’s a blameless part that disassociates itself from the derelict behavior. It is with this blameless part that the apologizer identifies.

The goal in this fractured agency apology is to suggest that the apologizer, speaking on behalf of the “good” self, did not actually commit the harm. The new honorable self has left the old rebellious self behind to take the blame.

These types of apologies are never satisfactory to the victim because the offender is seen to be deflecting responsibility unto a party that is not able to take part in the conversation.

Magic Mike is a 2012 comedy directed by Steven Soderbergh, and starring Matthew McConaughey, and Channing Tatum.  The plot revolves around a male strip club owned by Dallas (McConaughey) and the characters that strip for him.  Adam (Alex Pettyfer) is a lost nineteen-year-old who enters the world of male stripping, guided by Mike Lane (Tatum), who has been in the business for six years.

Male strippers are featured in “Magic Mike.”

There’s a good apology scene toward the end of the movie.

The Mike Lane character falls in love with Adam’s protective older sister Brooke (Cody Horn). He had promised to take care of Adam and had failed. As he flails around for what to say,Mike comes up with these words:

I’m sorry. I’m sorry that I fucked it up. I didn’t mean to do that. I promised you I would take care of him and I didn’t, and I’m sorry about that.  

The apology is short and direct.

It’s rare for a cinematic apology (especially from a leading man) to be so specific about the offense being apologized for.

It’s also rare for a Hollywood apology from a hero to refrain from offering an extended rationalization or explanation. Notice the absence of a “but” statement, e.g., “I promised you I would take care of him, but things got really messed up . . .” The “I didn’t mean to do that line” is a small demerit on an otherwise sound apology.

I recommend the movie. The strip tease scenes are in good taste and a lot of fun.

Integrity is often revealed by what we do when no one is looking.

John C. Bravman is in his third year as president of Bucknell University, in Lewisburg, PA. On January 25, 2013, he issued a statement acknowledging that Bucknell admissions officials deliberately miscalculated the SAT scores of a number of students from 2006 to 2012.

The result of the errors was that SAT scores for incoming students that Bucknell reported to U.S. News and World Report and various other college rating organizations were one point higher than they actually were.

In his statement, on behalf of the entire university, Bravman offered this apology:

These numerical omissions . . .  violated the trust of every student, faculty member, staff member and Bucknellian they reached. What matters is that important information conveyed on behalf of our University was inaccurate. On behalf of the entire University, I offer my sincerest apology to all Bucknellians for these violations of the integrity of Bucknell.

This is an example of an effective institutional apology.  It is doubly effective because it was voluntary. The inappropriate activity occurred during the previous administration. The distortion was minor.  President Bravman could have decided to fix the issue going forward but let the matter go unacknowledged.

President Bravman knew that his statement would create much controversy and embarrassment for the university.

One clear downside for the university would be a recalculation of Bucknell’s rankings, an outcome that could conceivably have significant negative implications in terms of admissions and donations for many years. So the stakes were at once academic and more than academic.

Integrity First

But here’s the thing about apology. Its effects are unpredictable. That’s one reason why so many people find apology so difficult. Apology requires offenders to make themselves vulnerable. That’s hard enough without also adding unpredictability.  Few institutions take such chances unless they are forced to.

So who could have anticipated what happened next?

A few days after Bucknell’s statement, President Bravman received a phone call from a donor pledging $10 million as a show of support to the university in challenging times.  This pledge was the third largest donation in the university’s history.  “This extraordinary expression of support was unexpected in this situation, to say the least,” Bravman said.

Announcing the Donation

The donor has asked to remain anonymous and the reasons for the timing of the donation may never be known for sure.

But I believe it’s more than likely that the president’s demonstration of integrity at least in part inspired the donation, that President Bravman’s courageous apology was a predicate for the donation. The money will go to fund scholarships to the university.

So kudos to President Bravman for demonstrating that the unpredictability of apology doesn’t have to be punitive.  Indeed, it can build integrity, add to institutional learning, transform relationships, and, occasionally, inspire a $10 million windfall.

Immediately after the unspeakable horror of the murders of the first graders of Sandy Hook Elementary School, the community of Newton, CT assembled to proclaim its unity, humanity, and faith in the face of such horror.  Participating in the interfaith vigil were representatives of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Baha’i traditions.

Also participating was the Rev. Rob Morris, pastor of Christ the King Lutheran Church.

That crossed the line for his superiors in the denomination he represents, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, because its ministers are prohibited from participating in services with members of “false” faiths.

So in a lengthy statement, Morris dissected his motives and offered a strained technical apology:

“To those who believe that I have endorsed false teaching, I assure you that was not my intent, and I give you my unreserved apologies.”

Worthy of Defense

But the instincts of Rev. Morris were correct and his ministry worthy of defense. His apology defended an unholy doctrine that puts “joint worship” off-limits. It is a doctrine that further divided a community in desperate need of unity. 

Sometimes humans are called to do the right thing even when such action technically violates some rule or doctrine. When that happens, the highest quality humans acknowledge their decision and offer their reasons for public scrutiny. The Rev. Morris actually did this:

“I believed my participation to be, not an act of joint worship, but an act of community chaplaincy.” 

Then he should have gracefully accepted any discipline that his superiors felt justified under the circumstances. This type of witness has been the basis for every step in human liberation from Gandhi to Martin Luther King, Jr.  Indeed, it is the basis for the impeccable grace of Jesus Christ that his denomination claims it exclusively represents.

Fragile Doctrine

Shirley Hornstein is a piece of work. By her own admission, Hornstein is a chronic liar who has deceived dozens of people.  The details of her transgressions are not important. About five months ago, she was outed, and now Hornstein offers an apology.

Where’s the Apology?

I’m amazed. Hornstein offers a long statement that states a desire to apologize, states an intention to apologize, and despairs of finding the words of apology equal to her sins, but every time she gets close to actually apologizing, she retreats.  It’s not easy reading.  whenever an apology statement is more than two or three sentences, you can be pretty sure it’s really more of an explanation or rationalization.  So it is in this case.

An Intent to Apologize is Not an Apology

There is only one thing to say to someone who says, “I want to apologize to you”?

“That’s great. Go ahead.”

Wanting to apologize has the same impact as wanting to lose weight.  It doesn’t count unless you actually do it.

Nor am I impressed with a statement like, “There are no words to describe how truly sorry I am . . .”  The words exist. You just have to be willing to use them.

Hornstein is guilty of both of these distancing devices.  In fact, her statement is not an apology at all. She has a lot of work to do if she’s serious about forging a new path. I suggest she start with an apology that actually signals her sense of accountability .

I usually give a letter grade to Apologies of the Week, but as Shirley Hornstein has yet to apologize, she rates a big Incomplete.

Thanks to my brother Robert for bringing this matter to my attention.