I’ve noted in these blogs how difficult it is to make a public apology. Yesterday Mark Zuckerberg offered an apology that was not only public, it was spontaneous – and compelled (at least, I presume he did not see this coming). Mr. Zuckerberg was testifying in a Senate child safety hearing attended by family members whose young relatives had been harmed by social media, including FaceBook, owned by Zuckerberg’s company, Meta. Senator Josh Hawley asked if Zuckerberg had ever apologized to the families, and when Zuckerberg hesitated, Hawley asked if he’d like to do it right there. So Zuckerberg stood up, turned around to face the crowd behind him, and spoke:

“I’m sorry for everything that you have all gone through. It’s terrible. No one should have to go through the things that your families have. This is why we invest so much, and are going to continue doing industry-leading efforts … to make sure that no one has to go through the types of things that your families have had to suffer.”

I doubt that this statement brought any comfort to those family members. It isn’t even quite an apology. It’s an acknowledgement that something terrible happened, and that the speaker feels sorry for them. It also talks about efforts to improve things in the future. But there’s no responsibility, no admission of anything specific that the speaker did to cause the victims harm.

What did impress me – especially because it was spontaneous – is what he didn’t say. He didn’t downplay the families’ pain – instead, he mentioned it more than once. He didn’t suggest that they should be blaming other sources and not him. He didn’t offer explanations or excuses. Public apologies often fall apart because they wander into one of these danger zones. He avoided those.

A little over a year ago, Zuckerberg issued a public apology when he laid off a few thousand Meta employees. I was impressed with that apology because he took ownership for the problem without offering a defense (“I got this wrong and I take responsibility for that.”) (see my post of November 12, 2022) Public apologies are hard to do. Mark Zuckerberg keeps getting opportunities to remind us of that.

There are two main parties to an apology: the offender (the one who apologizes) and the victim. There may also be a third party, an indirect victim of the offense. So when the offender apologizes, who benefits?

In a Pittsburgh court a few years ago, two men were sentenced after pleading guilty for their roles in stealing numerous rare books and artifacts from the Carnegie Library’s rare book room over a period of years. At the start of their sentencing hearing, they each apologized – to their families, to the Library, and to the city of Pittsburgh.

But the president and director of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, Mary Frances Cooper, said, “Sometimes victims say they want an apology. We do not want an apology. Any apology from these thieves would be meaningless. They are only sorry that we discovered what they did.”

Does it do any good for an offender to apologize when the victim doesn’t want to hear it?

Speaker: An apology may be for the benefit of the offender, to restore the offender to community and “to regain moral integrity.” Jennifer Gerarda Brown, “The Role of Apology in Negotiation,” 87 Marquette Law Review 665, 666-667 (2004). From a spiritual perspective, Christians are exhorted to confess their sins, both to God (I John 1:9) and to one another (James 5:16). These commands are not conditioned on the victim’s interest or acceptance; they are essential to restoring the relationship between the offender and God.

Recipient: A good apology can be a tremendous benefit to the victim recipient. It can assure the recipient that it was the offender, and not the victim, who bore responsibility for the harm that occurred. It can remove the obstacle hindering a good relationship and offer the potential for a better future.

Community: The community of which victim and offender are a part may also benefit from a good apology. While not suffering direct loss, the community suffers the rupture of the relationship and may need the apology to begin restoration. Even if the victim cannot fully accept the apology, the community may benefit from it.

When convicted criminals apologize at the start of their sentencing hearing, we can question their sincerity and assume it’s to procure a lighter sentence. But it could also be their last best chance to declare publicly their remorse. If these men are to recover from their crimes and regain any moral integrity, they must acknowledge the full extent of the wrong they did, and repent of it – whether or not the victims accept it. A person who is truly repentant will seek to learn what more needs to be done in order for a victim to accept the apology.

It may take time for a victim to accept an apology. Victims may first need to absorb the full extent of the harm done. In the Pittsburgh case, the Library director is apparently not seeing remorse, and she probably would like full restitution, before she can accept the apology. But even if she cannot accept it now, it may still help her that the offenders expressed it. It may be the little ray of light in the darkness of her pain, that offers hope.

Even if the victim cannot receive the apology, it may benefit the wider community that was negatively affected by the wrong. If these thieves are ever to be restored to their families and communities (in which they’re living, since they received only probation with no incarceration), they will need to repent fully. The community may be currently skeptical, but there may have been some small bit of satisfaction in hearing these men publicly state their remorse and regret.

A good apology is never wasted.