Apologies should be sent back for revision

May 2004 | By Susan Cundiff Susan Cundiff of Eugene, OR is a national board member of Women's Action for New Directions and has worked as a school counselor in Springfield, OR for many years. This piece first appeared in the Register-Guard.

We’ve heard a lot about apologies lately: Richard Clarke's apology to family members of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; Donald Rumsfeld's acceptance of responsibility for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, and the lack of an apology from George Bush on Arab television; and, where I live in Oregon, our former governor Neil Goldschmidt’s statement of remorse about his sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl while he was Mayor of Portland during the 1970's.

Most media analysis focuses on these apologies' influence on others. As a school counselor of 30 years, I have seen the value of an apology: not for the recipient, but for the confessor.

During counseling, the perpetrator of abuse is often asked to craft an apology letter. The therapist scrutinizes it carefully: Does the writer try to diminish the extent of the abuse? To deflect the blame? To appeal for sympathy? Does the writer empathize with the victim's pain?

If not, the letter is sent back for revision - until the writer accepts responsibility. Only then is the letter offered to the victim; and only if the victim has given permission.

These letters are not meant to prompt forgiveness, or to lessen the abuser's sense of guilt. Instead, they indicate work that’s been done: Does the perpetrator really "get it"?

Many of the perpetrators who’ve spoken recently simply do not "get it."

When former Gov. Goldschmidt lists health concerns as his first reason for resignation from positions of trust, he appeals to our sympathy. "How can such behavior be erased when the damage to others and to myself lives on?" This is mostly about him. His agony is not the greatest issue for us: He committed third-degree rape while serving as Portland's mayor, and covered it up for 30 years. I don’t hear him taking responsibility for that.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says, "To those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of the U.S. armed forces, I offer my deepest apology. It was un-American. And it was inconsistent with the values of our nation." The therapist in me would send that letter back. This is not the time to proclaim the virtues of your nationality. Iraqis see the nature of Americans every day, in their country. Rumsfeld's nationalistic words will not override Iraqis' observations, and are not the point.

The secretary traveled 15.5 hours to visit Abu Ghraib prison - but didn’t enter the "hard tier" cellblock where the abuses occurred. This is a metaphor for his unwillingness to take responsibility. On his watch, reports from the Red Cross and Amnesty International went unheeded. We need to hear what changes he’s going to make so that this won’t happen again.

When President Bush appears on Arab television and says, "The people in the Middle East must understand that this was horrible," he misses the point completely. The work that needs to be done is his, not theirs.

He needs to understand the extent of the humiliation Iraqis have felt at our hands - from their cultural perspective. A Palestinian friend told me that he and his brother have never seen each other naked. Whoever suggested the inhuman practices our soldiers carried out must have understood the debilitating shame they would cause. Does Bush understand?

The president avoided an opportunity to apologize directly to the Iraqis. Instead, he told King Abdullah II of Jordan how sorry he was two days later. By making this choice, he dehumanizes the prisoners again.

In stark contrast to these statements, we have Richard Clarke's apology. He spoke with directness and clarity to the surviving family members of Sept. 11. He admitted there were mistakes and failures. Evidence had been overlooked or mishandled. Their government had let them down.

He was not pressured into these words. It marked the first time any government official had acknowledged responsibility for the events. When sorrow is expressed with full disclosure, the words ring true.

Instead, the apologies of our former governor, the defense secretary and the president all need to be sent back. These officials haven’t done their work in recognizing their responsibility. They still don't "get it."