Sure, who wouldn’t think this was funny coming from a member of your school board?
The most important feature of apologies is that they express sincere and honest regret for the real harm done. If the first apology for misconduct fails that test, how much credence should a second attempt have? Does it negate the first apology completely? Ought it to be read and understood in light of the initial, unsatisfactory apology? Or should it be ignored completely as a public relations document crafted to achieve a result, rather than to express genuine contrition?
The case of Chris Harris, a board member for the Hooks Independent School District in the town of Hooks, Texas, provides a fascinating test.
Lat week, Harris posted an image of a Klu Klux Klan member with the caption, “I’m dreaming of a white Christmas” to his Facebook page. The reaction to this was what almost anyone with a fully functioning cerebrum would expect, a category that Harris does not belong to, or at least did not when he posted it. Perhaps after shouting, “Doh!” or perhaps not, Harris rushed to repair the damage, publishing this apology:
Terrible apology!
- The fact that it was meant as a joke doesn’t excuse anything. It was a racist joke, funny primarily to racists. Yes, we figured out that the guy in the hood wasn’t really singing the Irving Berlin song, in a Bing Crosby mood.
- The fact that it offended people isn’t the issue. The issue is that it shows a callous attitude toward racism and racists. (Now he realizes it offended people? Well, good work, Captain obvious: enough people sent you messages saying so.
- What does he mean, it “isn’t what he intended?” He didn’t intend to post a photo of a Klansman wishing that no black people marred his Christmas? He didn’t intend to jeopardize his school board post? He didn’t intend to make a racist joke when the only kind of joke he could have been making is racist? This is the Pazuzu Excuse.
- Ah, the old “out of context” excuse! Let’s see: it was a post, on Facebook, for “friends,” in the midst of the Ferguson protests, during the administration of an African-American President. What was the context we’re missing that will make it harmless and funny?
- “Some of my best friends are black.” Wow.
- Funny, if hurting black friends is the last thing Harris would ever do, and he posted this, what would he consider as genuinely hurtful?
- He’s sorry for anyone he offended and hurt, but as far as all those more rational, less sensitive people, pretty funny, right?
This is a miserable hybrid containing features of the unethical apologies 7-10 on the Ethics Alarms Apology Scale:
“A forced or compelled apology, in which the individual apologizing may not sincerely believe that an apology is appropriate, but chooses to show the victim or victims of the act inspiring it that the individual responsible is humbling himself and being forced to admit wrongdoing [#7] in capitulation to bullying, fear, threats, desperation or other coercion [#8] in which the wording of the apology is crafted to appear apologetic when it is not [#9] and an insincere and dishonest apology designed to allow the wrongdoer to escape accountability cheaply, and to deceive his or her victims into forgiveness and trust. [#10]”
Harris loses additional ethics points for the hoary excuses “It was a joke,” the Pazuzu Excuse, “it was taken out of context,” and the “some of my best friends” cliché, making this one of the worst apologies within memory.
Obviously, some of those same individuals who explained to Harris why his “joke” was a problem also enlightened him about the icky awfulness of his attempt to apologize. After some consultation, multiple drafts and possibly a consultant and editor, he tried again, issuing this:
Much, much better.
Is it too late?
This is a textbook Level 1 Apology:
1. An apology motivated by the realization that one’s past conduct was unjust, unfair, and wrong, constituting an unequivocal admission of wrongdoing as well as regret, remorse and contrition, as part of a sincere effort to make amends and seek forgiveness.
Obviously someone knows what an apology should be, but in light of Harris’s first attempt, I doubt that the someone is Harris. He is savvy enough to put his name on it, though. Is that enough?
I have accepted second apologies when the initial one was offered in emotion and haste, and the second, better one seemed sincere despite the first, as in this case, involving baseball star Ryan Braun. Having read Harris’s two efforts, I’m beginning to doubt the wisdom my generosity with Braun. This is not a spontaneous apology, but a carefully crafted one. It should mitigate the first, but the first should also frame our reception of the second. Placed in that light, it’s not good enough.
The school board is considering what to do with him, and taking the two apologies and the offense as a whole, the fair and responsible move is to kick him out.
Harris has caused me to conclude that the first apology should carry the most weight. If you can’t do it right the first time, I wonder how sorry you really are.
_______________________
Pointer: Fred
Facts: Talking Points Memo, Arklatex
Ethics Alarms 
You must go with the first apology. People who aren’t racist don’t post photos like that. Even as a joke.
He should be dismissed immediately from the school board. Apology or not, joke or not, racist or not is not the question, he has demonstrated for all to see that he is unfit to serve, lacking the ability to think critically, the ability to be fair and open minded, and a complete lack of understanding of how to work cooperatively and constructively with others.
Agree with the other comments. This guy has to be fired, but I’ll accept that I’m a bad person and chuckled at this post. Not because if the image, but because I misread the title as “How should we second judge apologies”. Combined with the picture I thought this was going to be a lot more convoluted than it actually was.
I’m not sure school boards are all paid positions.
The best way to repair his reputation is to resign, gracefully and without bitterness, because he not only dug his own hole, he took a swan dive in with the first insincere sounding apology. Blaming anyone else for losing his position pits it firmly on the insincere apology list. If he needs a handler to craft a proper one, perhaps the handler is more qualified than he is for the post. If he wants to continue supporting the school, he could find other ways. If he handles this gracefully, and he proves that these events were brief insanity, and he works for an extended period, (years at minimum) he might be able to run for schoo; board election again. Then the people who have the most exposure to his bias can decide if he gets a second chance.
If he can’t demonstrate his lack of bias over those years, the second apology is meaningless.
I agree with the general sentiment here, but I will say that there is a pretty big sub-category of jokes online whose comedic efforts rely precisely on the listener knowing that their theoretical tellers are terrible people (“black keys belong at the back of the piano” is another variant on this, though it’s also a potential dig at the “everything represents a racial issue” people). Hell, this particular image is something I could easily see coming out of a “Ruin Christmas for everyone else”-type image macro contest, where the point is to make people laugh at things they know are terrible.
How Harris handled it all, especially given his position on the board, is telling enough, though.
To clarify what I’m saying, a non-racial version of the image would be something like a picture of Stalin telling you that “White” Christmas is being held in Siberia this year (you know, Russian Civil War and all that).
I do agree that he likely saw the meta-humor, that this post was meant to ironically mock the simplistic thinking behind racism; that the theoretic “awful” person telling this joke without irony would be viewed universally as a fool.
The issue, however, is that even understanding the meta-humor, it is still a crude joke at the expense of others. Openly mocking others is unbecoming of a public official, and even as part of an internet trend, it is not particularly enlightening for society. Racism needs to be condemned, but must be done so in a clear manner that ideally demonstrates the respect that is due to all.
LIke I said, the real crux of the issue is his position and how he handled it; I certainly wouldn’t like to see Obama or Boehner posting unflattering image macros about each other.
This has parallels to the Fire Chief’s book. Part of the issue is a failure to think critically, and an inability to work with or for people with whom you’ve lost trust. Where it differentiates is intent, scale and reaction. I think the most ethical course of action would be to step down and run again and see if the stakeholders support him and accept his apology.
As to a second apology…. I think it’s extremely subjective. Did he know he had to make an apology, but was too stupid to know what for, or too incompetent to properly write it? Was the first apology exactly what he meant to say? Did he actually write the second apology? I don’t know.
I think the blanket assumption that someone posting this photo is a racist is knee-jerk wrong. If there had been a recent Klan action in town (say the Klan petitioning to put a cross up in the town square) and he had put the caption “tough luck, chump” under the photo, the meaning would have changed dramatically.
With the incredibly racially charged atmosphere now, putting something like this on your Facebook page under any circumstances is foolish. Even if you meant it as an anti-Klan statement, someone is going to twist it into pro-Klan.
Michael, at some point such complete racial cluelessness has to be presumed to cross over into racism, and his “I did this out of frustration” line proves it. And I have to say, this is an OLD, OLD joke that was never very funny—anyone who dredges this up has to convince me that it was done out of idiocy rather than malice.
“…this is an OLD, OLD joke that was never very funny…”
You beat me to this. It comes up every year since buh-buh-Bing crooned it out. Most (white) third-graders reinvent it at the age — getting younger every year — when taking credit for cleverness (putting two unrelated things together to make a funny) outweighs any amount of harm or hurt to others. At least until a grown-up gets wind of it, and even then, they’re likely to have to put up with a stern lecture only following a quickly hidden smirk.
but “—anyone who dredges this up has to convince me that it was done out of idiocy rather than malice” ? No. Malice it is. This is not a random photo; it’s professional work. It has to have been chosen with disparagement in mind — aforethought, as it were.
It’s one of those knives that keeps on stabbing. As people (including third-graders) learn/realize/remember what the Klan stands for: lynching, cross-burning, terrorizing, hatred, vigilantism, lawless anonymity. Or what it stands against besides those they call “black” people: civil rights, progress of any minorities, Catholics, Jews, Native Americans, Latinos, Asians; the standards of all major religions, or social mores … or ethical behavior.
According to 2012 information, the groups in the white costumes — now there’s something really laughable, until it becomes clear that the stupid-looking headgear is the best possible disguise — are scattered, with membership around 10,000. They thrive on their reputation, even absent current activity. They feed on this kind of ha-ha.
Doesn’t matter how funny or clever the joke seemed at first. It gets worm-in-the-brain meaner by the minute. The harm has been done by the baggage it carries. No apology can undo it. Two apologies drag it out, make it worse. It has occurred to me that, just or not, the Ku Klux Klan is the best known and most despised identity of the Far Right. Not something anyone considering himself a conservative would care to own.
“It has occurred to me that, just or not, the Ku Klux Klan is the best known and most despised identity of the Far Right. Not something anyone considering himself a conservative would care to own.”
Penn, the KKK isn’t Far Right. At some point, folks have got to stop associating crazy people with either Far Left or Far Right groups. Because you are absolutely right, no conservative, no matter how far right his views, would countenance the lunacy espoused by the KKK. Nor would any left wing liberal endorse Louie Farrakhan’s view that Black people should go out and kill all the white people they see.
Oops, I actually began writing an apology to you, Dragin, but after comparing your examples I have to renege.
You just balanced the Far scale neatly, thank you. That is exactly how people see the extremes from the middle out, even those who have opted out altogether from what they see as “lunacy” embedded in both sides. That’s what myth and legend become if in place of continued reasoned discussion of causes, actions and relevant issues, then and now, there remain merely slogans and symbols.
On third thought, though, the Black Panthers would have been a better example of legendary political evils, given that none of the major networks covered Farrakhan’s incendiary “Law of Retaliation” speech, which will give it strong legs in the Black community, and thus much greater weight on that totally subjective Far scale.
You’re welcome, for the balance. I guess I think in terms of the solar universe, in that linear politics, like the solar system, has an Oort Cloud. This cloud doesn’t necessarily exist on either the Far Right or the Far Left, but well beyond the fringes of both. The logic, if any, of groups existing in that cloud is twisted, questionable, devoid of intelligence, generally hateful and, in some cases (the KKK and Farrakhan, along with the Black Panthers, come again to mind) psychotic, in that there is little or no relationship to reality. Note that those described, on both ends of your Far scale share, in my mind, the same characteristics, and differ only on whom they choose as a victim. As a conservative myself, I bristle every time someone describes the KKK, Republic of Texas (there really is such a fringe organization) or any of the various survivalists and/or militia outfits as Far Right. We share no common beliefs, traits or behaviors, other than at the voting booth. I would bet that the same could be said of the Liberal Democratic Party and the looneys described as the Far Left (Michael Moore pops immediately into my mind). In following comments on this very blog, I have rarely seen anyone actually profess a belief that I would describe as lunatic (except for the time Jack had a chipmania responder on). I guess, in my mind, there is no difference between saying “Kill all the black people” and “Kill all the white people”, except in choice of victim, (oversimplifying badly, here), but that neither actually identifies with either end of the political spectrum.
I didn’t say he did it this way. His apologies speak volumes. I was just refuting the statement that anyone who uses such a thing is automatically racist. This is the first time I have seen the image, but I guess I don’t hunt the internet for racist images enough.
You are right: there are ways the image would not be racist—indeed, when I first heard the joke, it was clearly a barb aimed at the KKK. But the KKK isn’t really in evidence any more. Now the obvious meaning is more troubling.
I think the second apology is well-worded, probably from a PR group to stop the firestorm. However, the original post smacks of ‘signature significance’ if this fellow’s inability to serve in any capacity. Who, in his or her right mind, would think that a Klansman wishing for a White Christmas is appropriate, either from a private citizen or a public official? When is a Klan joke ever funny? (Don’t bring up “O Brother, Where Art Thou’ – the Klan was ridiculed in that movie, as it should be.) This initial post by a school board member demonstrates a total lack of critical thinking, historical perspective, common sense, decency and good judgment. He should be escorted out of the school board in shame, with “I am an idiot” stamped on his forehead. It is monumental stupidity. He cannot regain the trust of the school board, the school district, or any member of the community. The public school board sets district school policy. How can the school board hope to establish good policy when one of its members callously jokes about the Klan? Every member of that community should be asking the school board, “Is this the best you can offer to the school district? This guy?” Those supporting this bozo are probably hopelessly lost and confused.
What fascinates me about this whole thing is that Hooks is a bedroom community to Texarkana and is 11 miles out side the loop. They have 2 major industries: Red River Army Depot and Long Horn Ammunition plant. Since most of the citizens of both Hooks and Red Bank (a couple of miles north) probably work at one of these two industries, how could ANYBODY be surprised at this idiots attitudes? Total population of Hooks, is 2800 souls, by the way. More interestingly, why would any of those souls accept either apology, since a fair fraction of them KNOW this guy personally?
Jack, I have to disagree.
You said, “The most important feature of apologies is that they express sincere and honest regret for the real harm done.”
The most important phrase here is “REAL harm done.”
A fake apology for a fake injury is completely appropriate. If someone suffered real harm as a result of seeing a tasteless/sexist/racist/crude/ageist/unfunny/whatever joke, that is their own damn problem and I refuse to cater to the Cadre of the Perpetually Offended anymore. The fact that someone might be offended by something I say is, frankly, that person’s problem. Now, if I say something mean or hurtful to them, then, yeah, my malice is something I should apologize for. But, the fact that you are offended does not necessarily mean I have anything to apologize for. But, if I say, “I am sorry if your were offended,” it is because I am truly sorry that you have given me the power to harm you with my words because that is not something any self-respecting human adult would ever do and it is truly unfortunate that you have reduced yourself to the sort of person who is so emotionally fragile that you can’t see stupid crap on Facebook without curling up into the fetal position.
Go ahead: try to offend me. I dare you. I am pretty sure you can’t. Not won’t; can’t. I won’t let you. I have come to accept the reality that people say stupid stuff somethimes. To take offense when that happens would be like getting offended that cats are nocturnal.
If no offense was intended, none should be taken.
-Jut
“The fact that someone might be offended by something I say is, frankly, that person’s problem.”
I offend to the death your right to say that.
p.s. My cat thinks you’re a non sequitur.