The Stanford Disruption: Who Should be Apologizing to Whom?
Over the weekend, Stanford Law School (SLS) Dean Jenny Martinez and Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne apologized to Judge Kyle Duncan for the disruption of an event at which he was invited to speak at the law school. Some progressive groups and commentators objected to the apology, and suggested Dean Martinez should apologize to them. So who should be apologizing to whom?
Let’s step back for a minute and think about the role of an apology. The purpose of an apology is to acknowledge and accept accountability for one’s own actions (or inaction). It is about recognizing that one did not behave as one should and owning up to it. Whether or not one should apologize has nothing to do with whether the person mistreated is worthy of an apology. It’s about you, not about them.
If you mistreat a bad person, you should apologize to them. If it was in response to something they did, perhaps they should apologize to you too. That “they did it first” or “they did it too” is not an excuse (as we should have all learned in grade school). We should each be responsible and accountable for our own conduct. And if two sides of a dispute both did wrong, then both should apologize.
How does this apply to the dust up at SLS? First, I think it indicates that it was perfectly appropriate for the Dean and President to apologize
Article from Reason.com
