Bill Bennett's Racial Comments - No Apology Needed?

It's been a bad week for apologies.

Last week, an innocent man was freed after 19 years of prison. It was discovered that a corrupt police officer bribed and intimidated a witness into falsely testifying that Barry Gibbs dumped a prostitute's body under a Brooklyn bridge. Gibbs's reaction sobers any feeling of joy at this delayed justice: "I was a legitimate guy, and now I have nothing." One hopes and expects that some judge, or perhaps the police commissioner, offered Gibbs a personal and heartfelt apology for such an eggregious mistake.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

Another story last week reported that the FBI, when conducting wiretaps for terrorism investigations, occasionally uses the wrong phone number and intercepts conversations of everyday people who have nothing to do with terrorism. One hopes and expects that some FBI public relations specialist would say "I'm sorry" for such a fundamental invasion of privacy. However, the agency could not reveal whether the spied-upon innocents are ever notified of the unwarranted spying.

So I'm guessing they're probably not getting an apology either.

Then came the corker. Last Wednesday, former Education Secretary William Bennett uttered the following remark on his syndicated radio talk show: "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could--if that were your sole purpose--you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down." A horrible and racist idea, if ever there was one. A hypothetical argument grounded in genocide and genetics--African American infants arrive as criminals from the womb. And this from a former Education Secretary. One hopes and expects that...

Not a chance. When asked if he owed people an apology, Bennett responded: "I don't think I do." He trotted out some of the good old defenses--taken out of context, comment misrepresented, only a hypothetical, etc., etc. Specifically, Bennett defended his words by assuring us that he was not advocating a black genocide, because such a position would be "morally reprehensible." But, of course, the position isn't the only thing that's wrong with the hypothetical, the ideas supporting it are false as well. The notion that eliminating African Americans would reduce crime has no basis in fact and is anchored in racist beliefs about blacks and crime. Of course. Nevertheless, no apology needed. In fact, Bennett added, "I think people who misrepresented my view owe me an apology."

So, what's up with that? Why no apology, Bill? It's what one does when one messes up. We were taught this at a very young age. And it's not a bad thing. Apologies, although brought on by our faults, demonstrate some of our most admirable traits: responsibility, empathy, compassion, morality, even politeness. The apology has had a proud tradition.

But no longer. Some communication scholars use the term "mortification" to describe the process of taking responsibility, asking for forgiveness, and apologizing. In the dictionary, mortification means humiliation and loss of self-respect. This meaning seems to have spilled over to the meaning of apologies in our political world. In the quest to regain and maintain power, politicians believe that apologies show weakness and weakness can never be shown. Saying "I'm sorry" recognizes that you were wrong and your opponents were right. And in a polarized Washington D.C., that is simply unacceptable, even for a day, even for an hour. Apologies are off-message, hard to spin and, therefore, no longer a viable communication option. That's why Bill Bennett won't apologize when he knows he should. That's just politics in 2005. The problem, however, is this: If our current political climate, a climate of partisan bitterness and cynical power games, does away with apologies, it also does away with forgiveness. And where can we go from there?