The second tweet doesn’t seem to exist anymore. My guess is someone commented the same way you did.
It seems pretty obvious if someone is named from their own campus with warnings to report them to the police if they do show up, then yeah, it’s way past the “alleged” phase.
Perhaps not obvious enough.
Doesn’t seem like they got the hint…
Nope. Definitely a fuckup.
Quite a lot of people; they were getting thoroughly ratioed.
https://www.saa.org/quick-nav/saa-media-room/saa-news/2019/04/17/saa-issues-an-apology
Okay, let’s rate this apology:
Overall, I’d rate this apology a 4/10. It’s an improvement upon their initial responses, to be certain, but it’s difficult to accept an apology as sincere when the apologizer never really goes into what they did wrong, and why it was wrong.
Apolohwait.
I have very much grown into the business of rating apologies, and this is a good rubric. Nice job. I tend to weight 2, 3 and 7 at two points in my scale.
Thanks. Myself, I haven’t specifically weighted these, but I would think that #4 would have to be the one I would weight highest. When you pester a kid into making an apology, how does the conversation go?
“Now apologize.”
“I’m sorry.”
"And what are you sorry for?"
“I’m sorry for [whatever].”
If your apology doesn’t actually go into what you did wrong, I can’t see how #7 can properly work to prevent you from doing the same thing again.
I received a public apology about 6 mo ago that completely missed the point. It was a self-aggrandizing apology meant to convince people the apologizer had learned. Thankfully, people saw straight through it.
I still believe this person has no idea what they did wrong.
I once saw a play called “Self-Help for Dummies” (it apparently has since been renamed to “Self-Help by Dummiez” so I guess there was a trademark issue).
One of the characters was a compulsive apologizer, and had spun that into a career by composing apologies for large corporations.
Near the beginning of the play, one character does something to offend another (it’s been years; I honestly can’t remember what) and the apologizer steps in to offer an apology to the aggrieved party on behalf of the offender. The person who for apologized to gets stopped in his tracks, and gets upset that he no longer has anything to be upset about, because “That’s the most perfect apology I’ve ever heard.”
Later, the character explains his job, and how he specifically words the apologies to avoid attributing fault or acknowledging harm (e.g. “Mr. Smith expresses regret for the events which occurred as he certainly did not intend any harm you may have received”).
It’s definitely helped tune my ear to the tricks people use to make apologies that don’t actually apologise for anything.
The opening paragraph was a bit cringy. They didn’t say what happened, they didn’t say whose fault it was, and they didn’t say they were upset by it or that it was completely contrary to their principles. What’s more, they offered an “I’m sorry you were hurt” to the victims, and I could hear the crickets chirping as they offered precisely nothing to make it up to those victims.
The other two paragraphs were empty verbiage designed to give the illusion of wheels being in motion, but in the immortal words of Babu Bhatt, "There are no wheels. There is no motion. "
I give this apology a D minus. They turned something in, but they barely tried and it’s obvious they learned nothing.
One step above an apolohno (not to be confused with the figure skater)
Speedskater (although given how well he did on Dancing with the Stars, I can see how there might be some confusion).
Trigger warnings out the wazoo…
A gang rape so bad that the first trial for the first defendant (the only minor) came back with a strong guilty verdict and the judge in that case actually commented on the record regarding the decision in the following case with the two adult defendants, because of how egregiously wrong it was:
I wonder why this was a bench trial and not a jury trial. Did the defendants request it, knowing that they’d have a better chance to convince one person that it was consensual than twelve?
Probably.
Probably their lawyer recognised that the judge would be sympathetic, whether due to past decisions or comments at dinner parties about poor men’s lives getting ruined by false accusations, and petitioned for it.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of those on the bench.