Northwestern prof: Sorry you’re stupid

March 9, 2011 By

Mollie mentioned last week the human sexuality class at Northwestern University that watched a live sex act after class, and at the sanctioning of their professor. Now we get a report of that professor “apologizing” — for doing, as he sees it, absolutely nothing wrong at all.

The AP reports:

A Northwestern University professor apologized Saturday for letting a couple demonstrate the use of a sex toy after one of his classes, but he said he still sees “absolutely no harm” in what happened.

Psychology professor J. Michael Bailey said he regrets hurting Northwestern’s reputation and “upsetting so many people in this particular manner. I apologize.”

See, he said. Happy now? Except Bailey then proceeded to justify a woman being penetrated by a sex toy in front of a 100-student class.

“During a time of financial crisis, war, and global warming, this story has been a top news story for more than two days,” Bailey said. “That this is so reveals a stark difference of opinion between people like me, who see absolutely no harm in what happened, and those who believe that it was profoundly wrong.”

In other words, Bailey thinks he did nothing wrong and it’s everyone else who has their principles all screwed up.

I don’t really care either way, though I attended a supposedly liberal public institution and I certainly would have been surprised by such a post-class class activity.

Is there a journalism angle to all of this?

There is. What I am offended by is the lede to this story. Bailey says he is apologizing — fine, quoting him saying that. But the first line of this story, before Bailey is quoted says “A Northwestern University professor apologized,” and yet I don’t know a single person who would consider Bailey’s response a apology.

Bailey apologized not for doing something wrong but for being ignorant to the delicate sensibilities of those offended by things he finds proper. That’s not an “apology,” and even children know that you’re not actually sorry when you say, “I’m sorry but …”?

To be sure, the story sort of hangs Bailey on his own petard. And maybe I’m being a bit too nit-picky here. After all, the non-apology apology is as much a stock damage-control response as the troubled celebrity finding Jesus and blaming God for their mistakes. But I still think the reporter could have chosen a different term — “regretted,” “downplayed,” “blamed others” — that better captured what Bailey had said rather than just borrowing the word “apologize” from Bailey’s statement.

If you disagree, well, I’m sorry.

IMAGE: Get the shirt on Zazzle

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Academia, Sex, Social Issues
  • Matt

    And the religion angle is…?

  • Brad A. Greenberg

    Seriously? This post is about reporters choosing their words a bit more carefully. Religion reporters are reporters, and the advice here is relevant to both GA reporters and religion reporters.

  • Deacon Michael D. Harmon

    I would imagine the angle is the parallel to actually repenting of a past misdeed and simulating repentance. “I’m terribly sorry I was caught” is common among prominent religious figures found to have their fingers in the collection place (or other body parts in other places). It helps to be able to parse the phrasing for genuine as opposed to fake responses.

  • Deacon Michael D. Harmon

    Plate. Collection plate.

  • Harold

    It is an apology and the reporter was correct. It is now up to the reader to decide how sincere that apology is based on the journalist’s reporting. I don’t really want journalists making that decision, thanks.

  • R9

    Agreed with Harold. The lede already has a “, but” halfway through that clues us into Bailey’s true sentiments.

  • Brad A. Greenberg

    But reporters make such judgments all the time. That’s reporting; it’s not being a stenographer. And you’re right: the rest of the story is framed to clue the reader to Bailey’s lack of sincerity. So why use the word apologize?

  • Harold

    If a reporter covering the Pope decides that he really isn’t sorry when he apologizes for the abuse scandal and his actions are contrary to the apology, should that reporter decide not to use the word “apology”? I mean, the reporter is making a judgment and it is arguable that the Vatican’s actions are contrary to given apologies.

    Is that the kind of reporting you want?

  • http://ingles.homeunix.net/ Ray Ingles

    Religion reporters are reporters, and the advice here is relevant to both GA reporters and religion reporters.

    But this isn’t a site about general journalistic practices. According to the “Why We’re Here” link in the banner, it’s a site about “facts and stories and faces linked to the power of religious faith.”

    So what’s the religious ghost here, exactly?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    “Bailey apologized not for doing something wrong but for being ignorant to the delicate sensibilities of those offended by things he finds proper. That’s not an “apology,”

    Mr. Greenberg is right; it’s a misleading lede.

  • R9

    It’s a misleading lede if you only read the first half of the sentence, perhaps.

  • JamesG.

    Ugh. These kinds of “apologies” are always self-contradictions born in the pool of one’s pride. NO professor is so woefully ignorant as to not know, or not understand, why this would be a problem. He’s being provocative, and getting the attention he intended to get all along.

  • Brad A. Greenberg

    R9, I think you give many readers too much credit.

  • J

    I agree with Matt. No religion angle.

  • Bill

    Hmmm… might there be a religious ghost in a value judgement that the act was wrong? How many people see something at least vaguely immoral about what the professor did? Or was it just a breach of good taste? If it’s just a matter of manners, and manners are relative, then is the professor correct?

    I think running deep under the surface are religious currents.

  • http://fkclinic.blogspot.com tioedong

    the “religion” aspect of this (for the clueless) is if religious students were offended at the demonstration, if they were invited and if they declined, would it affect their grades, and of course, if the professor thinks sex toys are an important part of his class, does his course have a bias toward technical sex with no connections with morality and reproduction?

    Indeed, does the course even mention “the theology of the body” as part of it’s philosophy, or is it biased toward amoral promiscuity?

  • Dave G.

    “During a time of financial crisis, war, and global warming, this story has been a top news story for more than two days,”

    I’ve long grown tired of that lame defense.

    As for a religion angle, I suppose it fits in the overall context of our society and its attitudes and priorities. After all, not too long ago a Catholic Professor was ditched because he said he agreed with the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuailty. Later, he was let back and found to have been improperly let go. Just putting the two stories side by side and how they were approached, to me at least, is a wonderful snapshot of attitudes in our society today. That is, our tendency to treat sex like we used to treat religion, and religion like we used to treat sex.

  • Bain Wellington

    “a religious ghost in a value judgement that the act was wrong”, Bill? I am with Brad and Dave G on this. It’s self-evidently a moral issue (which makes it a religious issue). The benighted professor’s bafflement at why anyone should consider his initiative “wrong” is an education in itself. Lack of a sense of human dignity, the false idea that true freedom consists in having no boundaries, the banalization of sex: Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict can see why this is the real battleground. Can’t you?

  • http://demographymatters.blogspot.com Donald

    tioedong: Who says it was amoral promiscuity?

  • BJ Mora

    I suppose the angle is journalistic rather than religious.

    It’s what I would call “a qualified apology” – I’m sorry IF… I’m sorry THAT… not just plain “I’m sorry” or “I apologize, what I did was wrong,” which is a true apology.

    If the journalist had opened the story with “A Northwestern University professor made a statement Saturday about his letting a couple…”, would he have been criticized? Perhaps he would have injected a bit of commentary in an otherwise factual piece, but I would argue it might have been more “objective” and less inherently contradictory to say it that way. Again, let the reader decide if it was an apology.

  • Bain Wellington

    Bill, I entirely misread you (hastily focussing on your use of the term “value judgement” and then misconstruing what followed). It is obvious to me now that you consider this to be a moral issue. I apologise.