Many experts recommend that we employ “the 4 R’s” when making an apology, to ensure that it’s a good apology.

But there’s not complete agreement on which four R’s we need.

Professor Carrie Petrucci recommended the following four R’s in her 2002 article on apologies, citing other apology scholars:

(i) an expression of remorse or regret, such as “I’m sorry”;

(ii) an overt acceptance of responsibility for the harmful act;

(iii) some type of offer of compensation, repair, or restitution; and

(iv) a promise to refrain from such behavior in the future.

“Apology in the Criminal Justice Setting: Evidence for Including Apology as an Additional Component in the Legal System,” 20 Behav. Sci. & L. 337, 340-41 (2002)

In their book, Five Languages of Apology, Dr. Gary Chapman & Jennifer Thomas list the elements of a good apology as:  Expressing regret; Accepting responsibility; Making restitution; Genuinely repenting; Requesting forgiveness. So, very similar to Prof. Petrucci’s elements, except that the last one is “repent” instead of “refrain.” And they add a fifth element, requesting forgiveness.

Drawing on the bounty of words in English that start with “re-“, I tweaked the fourth one. Here’s the version of “the 4 R’s” that I offered in a recent international talk (with acknowledgements to Prof. Petrucci and Dr. Chapman):

1. Remorse/Regret
2. Responsibility
3. Restitution/Repair
4. Reform behavior

Remorse is, “I’m sorry.” Regret is, “I wish I hadn’t done that.”

Responsibility is, “I goofed.”

Restitution is making the victim whole, paying back what was taken. Repair is fixing what was broken.

“Reform behavior” is, “Here’s what I’ll do to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

Today CNBC posted an article by two academics,  Kenji Yoshino and David Glasgow, on how to give an authentic apology, with a slight twist on the 4 R’s:

1. Recognize
2. Responsibility
3. Remorse
4. Redress

The new idea here is “recognize,” which in their description is acknowledging that you did something wrong. This seems to me to be a form of taking responsibility. Then they have the new category of “redress,” (yet another English word begining with “re-“!) which probably covers both “restitution/repair” and “reform behavior.” Those two elements are different, but not every apology needs both, and “redress” nicely summarizes the whole category. Both “redress” and “restitution” are legal terms that may need some defining.

So, blending these all together, we have a total of ten R’s — but they still fall into four basic categories:

1. Remorse/Regret
2. Responsibility/Recognize
3. Restitution/Repair/Redress
4. Reform behavior/Refrain from repeating/Repent

One of the points of having four R’s is, of course, that simply saying “I’m sorry” alone isn’t enough. For an apology to be effective, it’s worth taking the time to think about what the listener needs to hear, and the “four R’s” – in any version – is a helpful tool to prepare a good apology.

The Honorable Stuart Kyle Duncan, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, was invited to speak at Stanford Law School last week, but hecklers prevented him from giving his talk, and U.S. marshals ended up escorting him out of the room. Two days later, he received a written apology letter from the Law School Dean, Jenny Martinez, and Stanford University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne.

Judge Duncan was invited to speak by the Federalist Society, a conservative group. Students who disagree with Judge Duncan’s decisions on LGBTQ and trans-gender issues protested his appearance. According to the Stanford Daily, audience interruptions and booing continued throughout his first thirty minutes of speaking, causing him finally to stop and ask for an administrator to intervene. The associate dean for DEI then addressed the crowd, indicating her approval of their protests (“I’m glad this is going on here.”) The judge was never able to finish his speech.

The apology letter noted that students are “welcome to exercise their right to protest but not to disrupt the proceedings. In addition, staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.”

Judge Duncan accepted the apology, and said he was grateful for it.

It was appropriate for the dean of the law school and the university president to issue this letter jointly. It was issued swiftly, just two days after the incident. The letter identifies two errors, the students’ behavior and the administrator’s intervention. There is no statement of remorse or regret. Perhaps this is only an excerpt of the complete letter.

A good apology needs to describe steps the offender plans to take to ensure that this does not happen again. In an email to the law school community, the dean noted, “The way this event unfolded was not aligned with our institutional commitment to freedom of speech. The school is reviewing what transpired and will work to ensure protocols are in place so that disruptions of this nature do not occur again, and is committed to the conduct of events on terms that are consistent with the disruption policy and the principles of free speech and critical inquiry they support.”

Students are now protesting Dean Martinez’s apology to Judge Duncan. Presumably they want her to apologize for her apology.

Kidnap Plotters Sentenced

Pete Musico offers an example of how not to give an apology. At his sentencing hearing in a Jackson, Michigan, court last week, he seemed to blame Congresswoman Maxine Waters for his plan to kidnap the Michigan governor. He and two co-defendants, all members of a Michigan militia group, were found guilty after a trial by jury of aiding a terrorist plot. His pre-sentencing statement, at least in the portions reported in the media, did not say anything about the impact of his crime on his victim, which was arguably not only the governor, but all elected officials.

In contrast, his co-defendant Paul Bellar did apologize to Governor Whitmer for his “highly inappropriate” comments, and apologized to his family as well. Both Mr. Musico and Mr. Bellar, along with a third co-defendant, Morrison, expressed regret for their poor judgment.

They each acknowledged a lapse in judgment, but somehow that doesn’t satisfy, leaving listeners believing that they still don’t understand the seriousness of what they did. They seemed contrite, but it’s hard to tell whether that’s due to remorse or to their impending incarceration. They will have years in prison to reflect on this.