When is an Apology Worthy of Forgiveness?

From time to time, we receive letters from our website visitors explaining a particular situation and asking for advice. We are happy to share those that we feel would be of benefit to all our readers, here on the PA blog.

Q.
Last year I found out my daughter had been abused 6 yrs previously by a cousin when she was 11 and he was 17. We wrote to him explaining that we did not want to see him again. He must not try to contact our daughter. She had had a breakdown.

From his parents we received a brief typed letter that said they understood her feelings, that their son had received God's forgiveness and he was very upset because allowed to make it up to her. It also requested we meet to reconcile ourselves with them (his parents). We had never shown or felt any animosity towards them. It was then signed "yours sincerely".

Am I wrong to feel this is an inadequate apology considering it is not from the wrong doer, it has no real apology, it shows very little remorse, and is very formal. The family are accusing us of causing a family feud because I refused to accept it as a heartfelt apology.

A.
We at Perfect Apology are silent on questions about when people should "accept" an apology, or why (and how) they should forgive someone who is responsible for hurting them or someone they love. We certainly offer advice on how to craft an apology to increase your chances of being forgiven, but we can't tell anyone when to accept an apology.

These are very personal decisions that are never really open to useful advice or guidance. Often, for very personal reasons, people who receive even perfect apologies are just not ready to forgive. In this particular case, your refusal to forgive is so much more understandable because the apology did not come from the person responsible for your daughter's terrible, life changing experience.

But there may be more than one person in this case with an obligation to apologize for whatever measure of responsibility they feel they deserve for the abuse your daughter suffered. You are right to reject the parents' 'typed' letter (their first mistake) as a genuine apology to your daughter, but only you can decide whether their apology is worthy of some measure of forgiveness. Whatever you decide to do in this case IS the right answer.

The Boss Wants an Apology?

From time to time, we receive letters from our website visitors explaining a particular situation and asking for advice. We are happy to share those that we feel would be of benefit to all our readers, here on the PA blog.

Q.
A person I work with made a snide remark to me so I made one back at him. Now our boss wants me to apologize to him-- should I apologize to him if he is not going to apologize to me?

Neither of the two remarks where demeaning or any thing like that. He made a remark about my work so I made one about his. He then made two more about my work but I did not say anything back to him, yet I am the one being forced to apologize.

A.
You should write the clearest and most impressive apology you can (using the guidelines we offer) and send it to your colleague, cc'ing your boss.

This will significantly improve the relationship you have with your boss (the real benefit) and has nothing much to do with the guy you were fighting with, although this will likely help your relationship with him as well.

Latest (but not final) Bush Apology

As part of our ongoing effort to pass on to our readers the best apology advice on the internet, the PA team is encouraging apology experts in the fields of public relations, personal counseling, consumer advocacy, business ethics, medicine and law to submit entries to our blog that cover current case studies or topical apologies in the news. We are very pleased to include the following submission from Dr. Jennifer Thomas -- her post deals with President George W. Bush’s recent public apology for the economic crisis.

Dr. Jennifer M. Thomas is a part-time clinical psychologist with Associates in Christian Counselling in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Jennifer counsels on a wide variety of individual and couples issues, from communication to trauma recovery and spiritual healing. She is a member of the American Association of Christian Counselors. Jennifer is also the co-author, alongside Dr. Gary Chapman, of The Five Languages of Apology, released in September 2006.

On Monday, December 1, President Bush walked the fine line of publicly expressing regret about the world's financial crisis without accepting responsibility for the meltdown. Here are the details: According to USATODAY, Bush, "said he felt responsible for the economic downturn because it is occurring on his watch, but he added: 'I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so' before he became president." In The Five Languages of Apology, Gary Chapman and I identified five different factors that convey sincerity in apologies. In his comments, Bush clearly expressed regret (our Language #1). Our 2nd language of apology is "accepting responsibility." According the the text of this news report, Bush accepted responsibility based upon his position. He then referred blame to a previous time frame. In our book, we describe how stating or inferring "BUT" voids the previous comment. My analysis of Bush's apology is that he expressed regret while not squarely accepting responsibility for this financial crisis.

This type of mixed apology is common in the business world. After all, the apologizer may reason, many forces were at work. How could I be fully responsible? At times, corporations apologize for the hurt they are causing while pursuing a reasonable plan of action. For example, my husband's employment at a now-defunct bank was severed due to a merger. The managers had no obligation to apologize in that situation. One manager, however, offered a kind expression of regret for the layoff. That is essentially what Bush has offered us this week. I share his regret about our dwindling bank accounts.

The Perfect Political Apology

As major political apologies for historic wrongs go, Prime Minister Harper's formal apology to Canada's aboriginal communities for the government's role in the systematic abuse of so many students of the country's residential school system is pretty close to perfect -- pretty high praise from our PA team whose members have been consistently relentless in our search for flaws.

The decision to apologize was endorsed by other major political parties and guided by the strong sponsorship of the leader of the New Democratic Party, Jack Layton -- a particularly noteworthy achievement in a minority government. Harper's apology was also followed by equally passionate mea-culpas from the Liberal and New Democratic Parties. Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecoise exploited the opportunity to take a shot at the Conservatives -- probably of the most pathetic politically motivated non-apologies ever delivered.

As expected dozens of communication experts have voiced their opinions about the quality of the apology, some of which we agree with and others we reject.

For example, Michael Dorland, obviously searching for at least something negative to say, criticized Harper's delivery for a "rhythmic thing, a kind of repetition." Now, if this was a talent show for public speaking Dorland's point might be relevant. But in the context of apologizing to thousands of Canadian citizens for the government's role destroying their culture, lives and families repeating the apology is something that should be applauded not critiqued.

The last minute move to give leaders of Canada's aboriginal communities an opportunity to voice their opinions in the House of Commons was the right decision.

We give this one a 10/10.

Government Apologizes for Historical Wrongs

A Step In The Right Direction?
Concerned about the potential liability issues that might follow more formal political apologies, Canada's Conservative Harper government recently announced the allocation of several major grants to support various programs, initiatives and events related to historical injustices committed by the Canadian government.

Examples include the catastrophic decision in 1939 to refuse entry of 900 passengers on the steamship St. Louis in 1939, leading to the deaths of a third of those on board. Similar grants are being offered to commemorate the internment of Ukrainians during the First World War, and the Chinese head tax in World War Two.

Critics will no doubt slam the government for political expediency and claim this is nothing more than a transparent effort to deal with several major mistakes through a few widely publicized announcements.

Although critics may be right, it would probably be wise (and fair) for skeptics to ask members of the affected communities whether the government's gestures should be ignored.

As perfect apologies go, this approach may not satisfy all the ingredients but they certainly accomplish a great deal more than previous governments and the status quo.

It may not be enough, but it's considerably closer to the mark.