Is it ever appropriate, or effective, for a third party to apologize to the victim? If the goal of an apology is to make amends to the victim, and to restore the offender to the victim’s good graces, it seems like a third party’s apology would be meaningless.

But there is a place for it, when the third party has influence over the offender. If my neighbor apologizes to me because his three-year-old picked my tulips, I can hope that the parent is also going to deal with the child so this doesn’t happen again. So the parent’s apology would help mollify me. When my three-year-old neighbor actually did pick my tulips, the parent brought the child to the door and had the child apologize to me; that was effective (and pretty cute).

A couple weekends ago, members of sororities and fraternities from the University of Michigan rented rooms at two ski resorts up north and did a lot of damage while there. This week, student leaders from U of M issued a joint apology. These student leaders don’t indicate that they know the offenders, so in that sense, the apology falls short: an apology from a third-party stranger doesn’t do much good.

These leaders – the president of the student body, president of the intrafraternity council, and president of the pan-hellenic association — state that they intend to “handle the situation” and “ensure that those responsible for the damage to the properties are held accountable.” They thus imply that they have some power over the offenders. Like an apology from a parent for a child’s misbehavior, this assertion might help: at least the offenders won’t totally get away with it.

The student leaders’ apology appears somewhat self-serving; they seem to be distancing themselves from the offenders, by cautioning against judging all fraternities and sororities, or all U of M students, or all college students, based on what they call the “misbehavior of a few individuals.” It’s a valid point, but it undercuts the sincerity of the apology.

Calling this “misbehavior” instead of vandalism minimizes the impact on the victims—not what you want to do if you’re sincerely trying to apologize. Suggesting the damage was done by “a few individuals” seems a bit disingenuous—the students rented 40 rooms at one resort, and 12 condos at another, with damage estimates totaling $75,000 for the two resorts, so there may be dozens of students involved here; the spokesperson for Boyne Highlands called it “the worst bout of vandalism from a student group the resort has ever experienced.” An apology that minimizes the impact on the victim can actually make things worse.

The student leaders’ statement seems to be aimed at an audience other than the direct victims of the weekend vandalism. As a public statement, it’s well-crafted, but as a genuine apology, it falls short. This illustrates how complicated apologies can be, especially when they’re public, and when they’re made by third parties.