skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Apology Excepted
Our
politicians are always reminding us that an apology has a fairly strict
form. They remind us by not following it.
Most modern apologies take
the form, "We're sorry if you were offended..."
Firstly, any
apology that contains the word "if" is not an apology. If someone is
truly sorry, it isn't contingent on anything.
Secondly, any
apology that personalizes the offended party is not an apology. "Sorry
if you're offended" casts the offended party at least as a part of the
problem. Is the problem that I was offensive, or that you were so
thin-skinned? That's left unclear, and a good apology leaves nothing
unclear.
However, such apologies can *sound* very close to a
real apology, which is probably why politicians employ these bogus mea
culpas.
Our Education secretary, a Mr. Arne Duncan, takes a
more sophisticated route to the non-apology. He has been getting some
pushback from critics of his "Common Core" initiative. Rather than
answering them substantively, he said, according to the Washington Post,
that he was fascinated by the fact that some opposition to the
standards was coming from “white suburban moms” who fear that “their
child isn’t as brilliant as they thought they were.” (No word as to
what Common Core has to say about the use of argumentum ad hominem.)
This frames their criticism as something unsubtantive without itself
offering anything of substance, and in passing relies on a stereotype
and a racial slur.
All this is fine and dandy, but
unfortunately, some of the thin-skinned, white suburban moms took offense. An
emergency like this calls for an excellent non-apology, and Arne's went
something like this:
"I used some clumsy phrasing that I regret —
particularly because it distracted from an important conversation about
how to better prepare all of America’s students for success... I want to
encourage a difficult conversation and challenge the underlying
assumption that when we talk about the need to improve our nation’s
schools, we are talking only about poor minority students in inner
cities. This is simply not true. Research demonstrates that as a
country, every demographic group has room for improvement."
As
non-apologies go, this one is a masterpiece. Firstly, Arne expresses no
contrition, but only "regret". "I feel remorse for my statements" is
what the aggrieved party wants to hear -- whereas "I regret my statements" is
more neutral.
E.g., I may regret my sins, and I may regret leaving my
sunglasses at the restaurant. But I don't have remorse for forgetting
my sunglasses.
Then he admits to some "clumsy phrasing" when
the real problem is that his phrasing was perfectly clear: a bunch of
spoiled white suburban soccer moms who think they're kids are geniuses have the
temerity to question the Secretary of Education... sniff. A pox on them and their insufferable spawn. I'm paraphrasing.
Then,
Arne poses as someone who is sincere and means well, but has just been so misunderstood. He says he wanted simply to "encourage a difficult conversation"... but then goes on to
impute a lack of comprehension to his critics. Of
course, difficult conversations don't get any easier when you lead off
with a couple of insults. And it begs the question to insist that it's
his critics who misunderstand the education process, and not him.
Ah well. We probably shouldn't criticize him at all. He is our public
servant, you know. It's not our place to question our servants...
Update 11/20/2013: I don't like Martin Bashir very much, and I certainly don't like his politics, but here he gives the world a lesson in how to deliver an apology (for an unspeakable thing he said about Sarah Palin)...
2 comments:
How would you rate this apology?
In a speech before the American Medical Association in June 2009, President Obama said: “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”
President Obama apologized earlier this month to Americans who are losing their health insurance despite his repeated promises that they wouldn’t, an unusual act of contrition for a president who has come under heavy criticism for misleading the public.
“I am sorry that they, you know, are finding themselves in this situation, based on assurances they got from me,” Obama said in an interview with NBC News.
Is that the entire text of it?
Seems half-hearted to me. He told that same lie some 37 times, even after the law was passed, after at least his staff knew better, and it strains credulity to seriously maintain he didn't.
Furthermore, nice use of passive voice. People are "finding themselves in this situation" not based on his assurances, but on based on legislation that he rammed through Congress with no bipartisan support.
Sorry, not impressed.
Post a Comment