I Apologize for Being 14

Shortly after winning the Heisman Trophy this weekend, football player Kyler Murray issued an apology for tweets he had written a few years ago, that were considered by some as “anti-gay.”

Here’s Murray’s apology:

“I apologize for the tweets that have come to light tonight from when I was 14 and 15. I used a poor choice of word that doesn’t reflect who I am or what I believe. I did not intend to single out any individual or group.”

As an apology, this one’s not bad. He takes responsibility, distances himself from the offensive behavior, explains his intentions, and doesn’t say too much. He couldn’t resist pointing out that these tweets were “from when I was 14 and 15,” implying that they are (a) at least six years old, and (b) should not be held against him since he was an adolescent at the time. But he doesn’t include the deadly “but” (“but, c’mon guys, I was just 14 or 15!”). He doesn’t use the magic word “sorry,” but he does use the word “apologize.”

And it was issued swiftly.

The bigger question is whether adults should ever have to apologize for anti-[fill-in-the-blank] comments made in their adolescence. Almost by definition, adolescents say provocative things. Should we apologize for being adolescent?

Or maybe the apology is exactly the right tool to help us shake off our past and clear the path forward. If this is the last we hear of Mr. Murray’s feelings towards gay people, it will prove this point.

This incident occurred so close to Kevin Hart’s withdrawal from hosting the Academy Awards that we can’t help but compare the responses. Like Mr. Murray, Mr. Hart was discovered to have made anti-gay comments in his past. Rather than apologize, Mr. Hart pointed out the obvious, that we all evolve in our views so we shouldn’t be judged by past comments. What would’ve happened if Mr. Hart had instead issued a simple apology, a la Mr. Murray?

Or have we just gone too far in our insistence on an apology?

For the Sins of Our Fathers

Can  we apologize for the sins of our grandfathers and grandmothers? Should we?

The answers to both questions was “yes” at a lawyers conference in Berlin this fall.

Brent McBurney, president and CEO of Advocates International, reports the amazing work that God did during the gathering of Christian lawyers from across Europe. The conference, “50 Nations – 1 Fellowship,”  co-led this year by the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship (UK) and Christ und Jurist (Germany), was attended by over 200 lawyers, judges and law students from across Europe.

As Brent tells it in his November newsletter, the first day of the conference was devoted to prayer. On the second day, the keynote speaker, Judge Peter Gegenwart, admitted to the audience that his grandfather was a judge during the Nazi regime, and Peter asked for forgiveness, on behalf of himself, his family, and his nation. In response, Teresa Conradie, of South Africa, came to the podium to offer forgiveness on behalf of her own family and nation. Her grandfather had died during World War II fighting against the Nazis in Europe. Brent reports that there was not a dry eye in the room.

I admit that I’m a little skeptical of apologies and forgiveness on behalf of ancestors. I haven’t quite worked out the theology of that. But it sounds like the Spirit of God was definitely present among these Christian lawyers, enabling them to experience a new level of reconciliation. This has opened my eyes to the possible benefit of seeking and extending forgiveness for sins for which we are not personally responsible.

On Friday afternoon of the Christian lawyers’ conference, the group visited the Sachsenhausen Labor Camp, where Judge Gegenwart prayed a Prayer of Repentance, a way of trying to make amends for the sins of our fathers.  

Restorative Justice in Murder Cases

The New Orleans District Attorney’s office is implementing restorative justice to resolve murder cases. It’s been used to induce a plea agreement for one murderer, and reduce the sentence of another.

Jeremy Burse was just 15 in 2010 when he and his friend Anthony Davis, 16, tried to rob a security guard. Burse shot at the fleeing security guard and the bullet ricocheted, striking and killing Davis. Burse was sentenced to life without parole, but the U.S. Supreme Court held that life sentences for juvenile offenders were unconstitutional, so the Orleans Parish DA office decided to use a process it termed mediation to review Burse’s sentence.

The mediation involved Burse, by then 21, his attorney, his family, victim Anthony Davis’s mother Gilda Davis, and Assistant DA Laura Rodrigue, who heads the restorative justice unit for the Orleans Parish DA office. Apparently after an emotional half-day meeting, they all agreed to recommend that Burse plead to an amended charge of manslaughter and receive a 25-year sentence for that. The judge agreed.

Gilda Davis said afterwards that Burse had offered a tearful apology during the mediation.

In an earlier case, a process called mediation was used to induce a defendant to plead guilty to manslaughter on the day his murder trial was scheduled to begin. The defendant, Cornell Augustine, was remorseful, and the victim’s family was willing to consider forgiveness over vengeance, so Assistant DA Rodrigue thought this might be a good case for mediation. The defendant and his attorney met with the DA and the victim’s family to discuss a plea deal. The defendant could have faced life in prison if convicted of murder; instead he was sentenced to 30 years on the manslaughter conviction.

The articles on these mediations imply that the DA was herself the mediator between the offender and the victim’s family—but of course the DA is hardly neutral, so it’s not clear to me that this is really mediation. It may be an expanded guilty-plea negotiation, or more like a 3-way negotiation, since the DA’s interests don’t align perfectly with the victim’s family. Typically mediation has been used in the criminal context only post-conviction, to determine sentencing, and never in cases involving violent crimes. Even if this isn’t quite mediation, it’s interesting to see an alternative approach being used in criminal cases to everyone’s satisfaction.  

 

Apology and Humor

Incorporating humor with an apology is risky. If anyone could pull it off, it’d be a cast member of Saturday Night Live, right? But even Pete Davidson, after a few lame comments, delivered a straight public apology Saturday night for mocking Congressman-elect Lt. Com. Dan Crenshaw on “Weekend Update” last week. The apology met the basic criteria of taking responsibility for a specific action, and saying those magic words, “I’m sorry.” It was almost a relief to then see Mr. Crenshaw appear on the show and dish it back to Mr. Davidson with some humorous lines. Given that this was Veteran’s Day weekend, it was appropriate for Mr. Crenshaw to sum up with a sober encouragement that we honor all veterans. To cap it off, Mr. Crenshaw noted that Mr. Davidson’s father was a first-responder who died in 9/11. Note that it was the one forgiving, not the one apologizing, who used humor effectively; but the offender had to be willing to laugh at himself, and Davidson was.

Megyn Kelly Apologizes for “Blackface” Comments

TV host Megyn Kelly apologized yesterday for comments she made earlier this week on her talk show about blackface.

First, the offense: In her morning talk show, Kelly and three guests were discussing inappropriate Halloween costumes. Noting the criticism of actress Luann DeLesseps for dressing as Diana Ross for a Halloween costume party last year, Kelly questioned why it was considered racist for a person to dress up as someone from another race: “Because truly you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface at Halloween or a black person who puts on white face for Halloween. Back when I was a kid, that was okay as long as you were dressing up as a character.”

The reaction: This quickly became the trending topic on Twitter, with most users finding Kelly’s comments inappropriate and offensive. Her NBC colleague Al Roker demanded a public apology, noting that blackface carries “a history going back to the 1830s minstrel shows to demean and denigrate a race. … I’m old enough to have lived through ‘Amos ‘n’ Andy,’ where you had white people in blackface playing two black characters, just magnifying the worst stereotypes about black people — and that’s what the problem is and that’s what the issue is.”

The apology: Kelly first emailed an apology to her NBC colleagues. Then yesterday, she apologized at the start of her daily TV show before a live audience:

“I want to begin with two words: I’m sorry. You may have heard that yesterday we had a discussion here about political correctness and Halloween costumes.

“And that conversation turned to whether it is ever okay for a person of one race to dress up as another — a black person making their face lighter or a white person making theirs darker, to make a costume complete. I defended the idea, saying that as long it was respectful and part of a Halloween costume, it seemed okay. Well, I was wrong and I am sorry.”

“I have never been a ‘PC’ kind of person, but I do understand the value in being sensitive to our history, particularly on race and ethnicity. This past year has been so painful for many people of color.”

“The country feels so divided, and I have no wish to add to that pain and offense. I believe this is a time for more understanding, more love, more sensitivity and honor, and I want to be part of that.”

Many in the audience, including people of color, stood and clapped when she finished.

The analysis: First, what’s good about this apology: I believe she is sorry about this mess. She admitted she was “wrong,” and she seems to understand that she contributed to the problem instead of to its solution, expressing a desire to behave differently from now on. She was emotional as she was delivering it: this was heartfelt.

What’s not so good: The comment about not being “a ‘PC’ kind of person” is a bit jarring. I think she’s trying to be honest—that she’s not going to say things she doesn’t believe only because it’s expected. But it could be interpreted to mean that she believes this whole matter is only about “political correctness” rather than genuine offense.

“This past year has been so painful for people of color.” I found this phrase also jarring. I expected her to say that it’s been painful for all of us as we wrestle with racial tension in the U.S. Suggesting that it’s been painful for some people implies that it hasn’t been painful for the rest. I don’t think that’s what she meant – surely she too has been grieved by the police shootings of unarmed black men, the church murders in South Carolina, etc. I think she was trying to express empathy. She didn’t quite do it.

What could’ve made it better: Good apologies are specific about the offense and the attempts to avoid it. I wish she’d added a line specifically about how damaging “blackface” was, like repeating what Al Roker noted – that it’s perpetuated the worst stereotypes about black people. I wish she had acknowledged that it all seemed okay “when she was a kid” because anyone who objected then was silenced, their criticism suppressed. She could’ve expressed gratitude that people speak more freely today, even if it’s to criticize her, because that’s how she learns.

It takes courage to make a public apology, because it’s fraught with minefields. It’s even more stressful when your job is on the line. We can all learn from Megyn Kelly’s example.