Apologies are a personal thing for many people. And if you are like me, you’ve had to make more than a few over your lifetime. Apologies don’t always come easily because people often render them for pretty serious transgressions. Of course, apologies are not one-size-fits-all. Apologizing for bumping into someone in a theater line is different from knocking over and breaking a family heirloom as you wildly wave your hands, telling some exaggerated story, one likely aided by your bourbon and ginger ale. In both cases, the apologies may be sincere. But more importantly, they happen at the time of the offense, not years after.
Nevertheless, some apologies occur well after inflicting an injury to someone or hurting their feelings. That can be added embarrassment. Often, these late acknowledgements are revealed by others or by an unanticipated revelation, which then demands an apology. We see this in criminal cases, sadly, only after a person is caught. There are many examples of that. The list is too long to enumerate.
And of course, institutions are occasionally compelled to apologize when their employees commit errors or offend in some fashion. Sometimes, there is retribution in those cases where the employee is let go or otherwise punished. Unfortunately, often those apologies end up being somewhat empty, particularly when there is no apparent contrition from the person who initially provoked the apology. We see that in a case involving the University of Chicago, which recently condemned the violence of one of its professors who was charged with serious felonies during an anti-ICE riot in Chicago’s suburbs. Left unsaid by the university is whether the professor is still teaching classes.
The specifics seem straightforward, and the university was correct to issue a statement; however, it may have been anodyne. Associate Professor Eman Abdelhadi was arrested and charged on 3 October with two counts of aggravated battery to a government employee, a Class 3 felony, and two counts of resisting and obstructing peace, a Class A misdemeanor. She is a notorious far-left personality and a virulently anti-Israel activist whose social media accounts often reference a “genocide” in Gaza. In other words, she is hate-filled.
The University of Chicago’s tepid response began by saying “Safety is a paramount concern,” and that “violence runs contrary to the University’s core values of free and open inquiry, dialogue, and debate.” They solemnly conclude, “The University promptly looks into any safety concerns, and takes action if necessary to uphold the safety of the University community.”
I am sure we’re all grateful for the school’s willingness to take responsibility for the act of a professor, but it took no immediate action against her. That is singularly astounding since the professor has said of her employer, “F–k the University of Chicago, it’s evil, you know it’s a colonial landlord. Like, why would I put any of my political energy into this space?” Indeed, why is she there at all? So much for the university’s inaction that could have been more meaningful if these words were added to their sheepish announcement: “We have summarily fired her.”
What should be the public’s response to this lukewarm effort to hold a virulent leftist accountable for her disgusting behavior and language? For most of us, not much can be done unless you are a donor to the university. So, your outrage is pretty limited unless you have a child who is a student there. Closer to home, however, your response might be more impactful, particularly if you are a voter in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Here we have a Democrat nominee for Attorney General, Jay Jones, who wished that the former Republican Speaker of the House of Delegates would be shot in the head with two bullets and that his two young children were “fascists.” He has also reportedly suggested that if more police officers were killed, they would be less likely to shoot people who are breaking the law. Be mindful of this. This hateful man is running to be the chief law enforcement officer in Virginia. Mr. Jones has acknowledged his infamous death threats and apologized for them. He has denied saying police should die, but since he favored ending qualified immunity for police officers, one must be forgiven if one thinks he is lying about the second comment.
Like the Chicago case, establishment Democrats in Virginia have termed Jones’s comment as indefensible. Yet, they have not called for him to withdraw from the race, but rather support him, even after the Fraternal Order of Police demanded that he withdraw. Democratic leaders say his apology is sufficient to allow him to continue campaigning to be Virginia’s premier law enforcement officer. Stunning.
True enough, some apologies arrive late. However, others—tardy ones—remain insufficient when withdrawal is the sole option. Remember that on 4 November.
0 Comments