Celebrity Chef John Besh Apologizes

October 24, 2017 – 9:42 pm

Celebrity Chef John Besh stepped down this week from the restaurant group he founded, amid a host of sexual harassment complaints naming him and other top men in his company, which employs more than one thousand people in New Orleans, San Antonio and Baltimore.

Besh issued a statement in which he acknowledged an extra-marital affair with an employee two years ago. The woman has filed a sexual harassment complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Besh referred to it as a “consensual relationship.”

“Since then I have been seeking to rebuild my marriage and come to terms with my reckless actions given the profound love I have for my wife, my boys and my Catholic faith. I also regret any harm this may have caused to my second family at the restaurant group, and sincerely apologize to anyone past and present who has worked for me who found my behavior as unacceptable as I do,” he said.

“I alone am entirely responsible for my moral failings. This is not the way the head of a company like ours should have acted, let alone a husband and father. But it should not taint our incredible team of more than 1,000 employees, nor undermine our unyielding commitment to treating everyone with respect and dignity, regardless of gender, race, age and sexual preference.”

As an apology, this has some strengths, but overall, it misses the mark.

Here are some strengths:

  • “I regret…”, “I apologize” — These words are essential to apology. Another along these lines would be “sorry.”
  • “I have been seeking to come to terms with my reckless actions” – Taking responsibility
  • “… who found my behavior as unacceptable as I do” – Willing to name his behavior as “unacceptable”
  • “I alone am entirely responsible” – Not trying to foist blame on others, although this is undermined by his reference elsewhere to the affair being “consensual,” since it’s arguable whether a subordinate’s sexual relationship with her boss is ever consensual.
  • “my Catholic faith” – Brave of him to acknowledge his faith given that, although many things divide Catholics, one thing they can all agree on is that marital infidelity is a sin.

Weaknesses:

  • “I regret any harm…” “I apologize to anyone who…” — Like the words “if,” “but” or “maybe,” the word “any” is a red flag in an apology. Saying, “I regret any harm” implies that he has no idea whether his behavior harmed his staff. It’s augmented by use of the word “may”, as if he’s uncertain whether it caused harm or not. He apologizes “to anyone … who found [his] behavior unacceptable,” implying that he suspects not everyone was offended by it. It would be more effective simply to say, “I regret the harm this has caused …”
  • “But” is a red flag in apologies, as Peacemaker Ministries has been warning for years. Usually what follows the “but” is an explanation or an excuse. Here, he seems to be trying to remind his audience of all the good his company has done. But it’s disingenuous; his behavior does “undermine [the company’s] unyielding commitment to treat everyone with respect and dignity.” It turned out that commitment wasn’t so unyielding after all, so it’d be better if his apology didn’t remind people of the lapse.

It sounds like John Besh is on his way towards repentance, and I pray for the sake of him and his family that he gets there. He’s not there yet, but there’s hope.

By abfifer | Posted in Apologies | Comments Off on Celebrity Chef John Besh Apologizes

An “Apology” Law that Actually Uses the Word “Apology”

October 9, 2017 – 3:45 pm

We learn from a posting at mediate.com that Hong Kong has passed its version of what many jurisdictions refer to as an “apology law.” The idea is to encourage apologies between litigants by making apologies inadmissible should the case go to trial. The article contrasts the more straightforward Hong Kong legislation, which actually defines “apology,” and uses the word “sorry,” with the “more circumspect” California law, which makes inadmissible “[t]he portion of statements, writings, or benevolent gestures expressing sympathy or a general sense of benevolence relating to the pain, suffering, or death of a person involved in an accident and made to that person or to the family of that person.” (California Evidence Code Section 1160(a)). The Hong Kong law defines apology as, “an expression of the person’s regret, sympathy or benevolence in connection with the matter and includes, for example, an expression that the person is sorry about the matter.”

Michigan’s version of an “apology law,” passed in 2011, uses language similar to California’s in defining what is inadmissible. See MCL 600.2155. While California’s so-called “apology law” pertains to a person involved in an accident, Michigan’s is limited to actions for medical malpractice. In contrast, the Hong Kong ordinance seems to apply to any “matter.”

As the article’s author, Phyllis Pollack, who is apparently a mediator in southern California, notes, if courts and legislatures really want to encourage settlement, they could do more to protect and encourage apologies, using the new Hong Kong law as a model.

 

By abfifer | Posted in Apologies | Comments Off on An “Apology” Law that Actually Uses the Word “Apology”

Michigan State Police Chief Apologizes for Facebook Meme

September 28, 2017 – 3:46 pm

The head of the Michigan State Police, Kriste Kibbe Etue, posted a meme on Facebook over the weekend, criticizing NFL players who protested at the start of football games. She called them “degenerates” and accused them of hating America “and disrespect[ing] our armed forces.”

According to media reports, the meme was widely shared, although she allegedly posted it so only her friends could see it. It aligned with recent tweets by President Trump regarding NFL players.

Late Tuesday evening, Col. Kibbe Etue apologized for the post:

“It was a mistake to share this message on Facebook, and I sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended. I will continue my focus on unity at the Michigan State police, and in communities across Michigan.”

As apologies go, this one is weak. An apology to “anyone who was offended” shifts the blame to the audience. It implies that the speaker spoke truth, and that it’s the listener’s fault if the listener takes offense.

Also, the use of “anyone” implies that she doesn’t know whether there was actually anyone who was offended, and yet the Detroit Free Press reported several groups who expressed dismay at the post, which is probably what prompted the apology in the first place. Apologizing to “those who were offended” would be more honest, as she knew that she had offended plenty of people.

With apologies, less is often more. The planned apology (as opposed to an extemporaneous one) should be scrutinized for extra language that distracts from the apology. In this case, the second sentence is strange and should’ve been re-worded or omitted altogether. As a Michigan citizen, “unity” isn’t really what I want the State Police to focus on; I want them to focus on law enforcement. But if she wants to focus on unity within the State Police force, then she should not have posted something on Facebook guaranteed to divide. Does she mean that she’ll go back to focusing on unity? If she’s truly sorry for dividing her troops along racial lines, realizing that’s the result of her post, then why doesn’t she say so?

If she were truly sorry, she might have issued an apology like this:

It was foolish of me to post personal opinions on social media. I realize now that my comments were divisive and caused pain to many. I truly regret what I did. One of my goals has been to unify our wonderful state police force, and I did just the opposite. I intend to make up for my poor judgment by refraining from social media comments in the future. I hope you will forgive me.

By abfifer | Posted in Apologies | Comments Off on Michigan State Police Chief Apologizes for Facebook Meme

Employees Terminated: Could there have been a better outcome?

September 8, 2017 – 3:08 pm

Two lively young women work as aides in a nursing home. One evening, as they are preparing a resident for bed, they start goofing around, and one of them takes a video of the other, with the bewildered resident in the background. Then, as young people so often do, they post the video on Instagram. A viewer alerts the nursing home. Now what should happen to these employees?

The correct legal response is, termination. Although the resident was not physically harmed, and this was not malicious, it was a clear violation of HIPAA, and the employees knew this very well. They don’t deserve to continue to work at this facility, and residents are safer without them.

But then what happens? The young women apply to work at another facility, disguising the fact of, or at least the reason for, their previous termination. They speak ill of their former employer to anyone who will listen, because they’re bitter about being fired for what they consider to be a minor offense. Meanwhile, the facility hires new workers, who may be tempted to make the same mistake as their predecessors.

Could there be a better outcome?

What if the employer slowed down the response? What if the employees were suspended, instead of terminated, while everyone figured out next steps? What if the young women, when confronted with the enormity of their actions, were asked what they thought would be an appropriate response? What if the resident and family were consulted on what response they’d like to see—and could express their pain to the offenders if the employees still thought it was “no big deal”? What if this incident were viewed as an opportunity for education as well as punishment?

If one goal is to impress on these young people the dangers of social media, job loss makes a big impression. But there are other ways to make that impression: what if they had to acknowledge publicly what they did? Another goal is to remind all staff that HIPAA violations are taken seriously; firing an employee is one way to do that, but there are other ways: what if the offending employees had to give a workshop on the stupidity of posting videos of residents, especially ones who could not consent? Might that be more powerful than hearing it from supervisors? Might it make a stronger impression on the offending employees?

What if the offenders were encouraged to consider whether they were remorseful enough to apologize to the resident and family, as well as to staff, and maybe even other residents? That too could make a powerful impression on the offenders, while allowing the incident to be acknowledged instead of hushed up. And it would allow some relational closure, with the residents and with other staff, that immediate termination prevents.

Termination is always an option; but what if it were the secondary option instead of the first?

My relative was the resident in the video. The employees were fired immediately. But I’m left to wonder: could there have been a better outcome?

By abfifer | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (1)

Pastor as Mediator

July 28, 2017 – 9:12 am

Pastor Lester L. Adams posted a good article on mediate.com, “The Minister, Mediation and the Protective Order,” advising pastors how to deal with a domestic violence case involving a couple in the church. His article includes both what to do (stop the meddling, cut off the gossip) as well as what not to do (don’t take sides, don’t give legal advice even if you’re qualified to give it). Especially helpful is the advice, as the title indicates, regarding response to a protective order, and how to ensure that both spouses continue to attend church services while honouring the order. Pastor Adams rightly emphasizes tending to the spiritual health of both parties, including the need for repentance and possibly discipline, all with the goal of restoring the relationship.

Pastor Adams is himself a mediator so it makes sense that he would attempt to mediate a marital dispute involving a couple in his church. (I have not had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of Pastor Adams; I discovered this article on mediate.com.) In my experience, many pastors are neither called nor qualified to serve as the actual mediator, and will be more helpful serving as a spiritual advisor and counselor while someone else serves as the mediator. So I would footnote his assumption that the pastor will serve as mediator, to suggest that the pastor should carefully discern what role to play in the process, and not attempt mediation without some training.

But his overall message is important. Many pastors have no idea how to respond to domestic violence allegations within their flock; this article offers a thoughtful, biblical approach that could be helpful to many church leaders.

 

By abfifer | Posted in Peacemaking | Comments Off on Pastor as Mediator