"Thanks for all the comments on this post. No one could ever say that you're acting as the Police of Political Correctness. Besides, you can't have enough things that are PC anyway. Nobody would waste their time turning a quick joke into a highly-charged epithet.

"So keep those comments coming. Presumably you'll manage to fit them in between protest marches against "The Producers" outside Mel Brook's house and the orchestrated boycott of reruns of Hogan's Heroes."

First, the apologizer cannot expect the people he has harmed to greet him with open arms. Many will be understandably suspicious that the apology was prompted by an ulterior motive and is not sincere. This is particularly true if the apologizer has justified his offensive words or harsh deeds after first criticized for his behavior.

Second, the apologizer does not withdraw his apology simply because not everyone is ready to accept it. An admission of wrongdoing is a moral act. It cannot be conditioned upon its acceptance by others.

Third, people are quite correct to view an apology with suspicion until they see that the apologizer did indeed experience a transformative moment, i.e., really did GET that the behavior was morally wrong. The harmed parties do not require more apologies or further explanation. They will be convinced, if ever, of the apologizer's sincerity only if he amends his ways in accord with what he claims is his reformed nature.

Later in the article cited, I note what Bill Wilson, founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, had to say about making "amends" to the hardest audience possible -- the family of the alcoholic who has heard these promises of sobriety before.

"there may be some wrongs we can never fully right. We don't worry about them if we can honestly say to ourselves that we would right them if we could. Some people cannot be seen -- we send them an honest letter. And there may be a valid reason for postponement in some cases. But we don't delay if it can be avoided. We should be sensible, tactful,
considerate and humble without being servile or scraping." The "Big Book" of Alcoholics Anonymous at 83.

Finally, here are the "steps" that follow the making of amends, steps that the most successful mutual aid society of all time suggests are necessary to the process of recovery:

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to
improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all of our affairs.

Id. at 59-60.

I have to say that Anonymous (and I, too, wish they had been willing to identify themselves) has a point.

I admire Bodine for his willingness to acknowledge his wrong and to apologize publicly. But what happened here emphasizes how important it is to respond carefully. Contrast his initial response to that of Carolyn Elefant, who first praised Bodine's post and then immediately issued a gracious apology, sans defensiveness. He's earned well-deserved praise for his apology, but Anonymous is right to remind us that he could have made different choices from the beginning.

As someone who has a talent for stuffing both feet into her mouth, I feel for these two bloggers. Believe me, I know how hard it is not to get defensive -- even for mediators like me who should know better. But this leads to a question that I raised in a post yesterday -- how is it that we screw up in the first place? Specifically, how is it that two smart, observant people missed something so big the first time around? How did they miss the anti-Semitism of a cheap gag (not to mention how insulting it is to lawyers, too, and to women for that matter -- did nobody catch the fact that the pitch repeatedly refers to businessmen)? And if they missed it, every one of us could miss it, too.

I'm interested in why that happened. If we know why, if we can prepare ourselves for it, then maybe next time around we won't miss it. We'll see it, clear as day.

"Ken: the guy was JOKING. It was humor. To achieve a laugh, one must often exaggerate. The joke may offend you, but it works great for this rainmaker. Everybody's got a different style. You should use the one that works best for you. ~Larry Bodine"

His next offensive reply was posted by Anonymous, above. His final "heartfelt" one still blamed "rural Illinois" for starting the commotion.

This doesn't show how to apologize; it shows Larry Bodine was finally backed deeply enough into a corner that he couldn't defend the comments any longer.

We can never truly know the mind of another, particularly the sincerity of a belated apology for passing along as "a good business conversation" a remark that many (but not all) people believe should have struck any thoughtful person as beyond the pale.

I'm going to tell you something now I have NEVER TOLD ANYONE, including my immediate family.

When I was a first year associate working for two brothers in a small plaintiffs' P.I. law firm, I used the phrase "Jew me down" in regard to salary negotiations with my Jewish employers. I was 28 years old. I had both a University and a law school education. I'd been an activist in the women's movement and hanger-on in the anti-war movement.

I have NO excuse for having made this remark. The REASONS I made it would all sound like pathetic excuses. This is how my family of origin talked. "Cute little pickaninnies" was also in my family vocabulary (though by that time I'd banished it from my own). I'd MOSTLY scrubbed my language clean and was still fighting the "girl"/"woman"/"chick" and Miss/Mrs./Ms. wars (this was 1980).

Still, there was a pocket of total unconsciousness or perhaps actual anti-Semitism lurking just below the surface of my otherwise pretty thoughtful speech. I do not believe that at the time I even thought the word "Jew" meant "Jewish." SERIOUSLY. It was a phrase my family used. I didn't even THINK to look for a substitute.

I did not defend my remark, but burned with shame the moment I saw the startled expression on my boss' face. It was (I know this is shocking) the FIRST TIME I put together "Jewish" with "Jew me down." Those my own age might think "Mexican stand-off" or "Irish drunk" or "no tickee, no laundry".

It's been 28 years since I used this GROSSLY OFFENSIVE PHRASE and I STILL feel ashamed of myself for having done so. I will never forget it.

The point? We ALL have these little pockets of heedlessness; of thoughtlessness; of default phrases based upon racist assumptions that we accumulated in our vocabulary over the dinner table with our first representatives of the adult world - for better and worse - our parents.

Larry Bodine's reference to the Nazi doctor was clearly and undeniably offensive. It appears to have taken him awhile to realize that fact. If we wish to judge the sincerity of his apology, we might first ask ourselves what motivates us to do so, remembering that behind every accusation is a plea for help. For surely none of us is free of the unconscious moment, the public faux pas, the attempt to justify our behavior when we are suddenly exposed as something less than perfect, and our eventual recognition that what we have said or done is hurtful to another. Our decision to apologize.

There is no requirement, as I've set forth in my comments here, for injured parties to forgive others their trespasses or to give the other guy the benefit of the doubt. But it is good to remember that we are all in this together and that someday we will stumble ourselves and hope to be pardoned when we finally have the courage to admit our "sin" and apologize for our human frailty.

It is, after all, our human frailty that joins us most deeply to one another.