In case you hadn’t heard, yesterday Judge Kavanaugh appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to respond to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that he sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers. His testimony, both what he said and how he said it, provides much for us to analyze. Consider this exchange with Senator Amy Klobuchar:
Klobuchar: You’re saying there’s never been a case where you drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened the night before or part of what happened.
Kavanaugh: You’re asking about, yeah, blackout. I don’t know. Have you?
Klobuchar: Could you answer the question, Judge? Just so you have—that’s not happened? Is that your answer?
Kavanaugh: Yeah, and I’m curious if you have.
Later, Judge Kavanaugh apologized. “She asked me a question at the end,” Kavanaugh said, “and I responded by asking her a question and I’m sorry I did that.”
Notice how this apology focuses on what we might call a formal error—responding to a question with a question—but in reality is addressed to the relational breach caused by his combative manner and tone. If you did not witness this exchange but instead just read the transcript above, you may not be able to recognize how disrespectful and uncomfortable this exchange was. Watching the exchange provides a more complete picture of what happened and why an apology was necessary.
Studies show that people appreciate apologies, even insincere or incomplete ones. That said, this apology is troubling for at least two reasons. One, it’s disturbing to think that the phrasing of an apology may alter how we understand (or remember) what happened and why it was offensive or problematic. Two, it shows how easily people can apologize, and perhaps get social credit for apologizing, without actually dealing with the harm they have caused.
Kavanaugh’s apology is an example of the communication disconnects that run through this entire confirmation hearing, and also in the broader sociopolitical landscape right now: the inability of survivors of sexual abuse to have their stories taken seriously, the starkly gendered norms governing appropriate behavior and speech, the grandstanding and doublespeak of politicians on both sides, the dog whistles, the deflections, the unbelievably horrific trolling and threats that people in the public eye endure.
For her part, Senator Klobuchar accepted his apology.
Kavanaugh’s behavior demonstrated dangerous traits for any judge to have. Senator Klobuchar treated him with respect; he did not reciprocate. She had a responsibility to the American people to ask those questions. She gave him fair and ample opportunity to deny blackouts–instead, he chose to counterattack her personally. I find Kavanaugh’s apology shallow. Although he said he was sorry for asking the question back to her, he does not explicitly apologize for his disrespectfulness. His “apology” also mentions “a tough process” as if that was an acceptable excuse for his behavior. It has been excruciatingly tough process for the entire Nation, not just him. His lack of maturity, misleading statements and evasiveness speak volumes. He should not be a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Thank you, Jen, for providing your analysis of this exchange and helping to put labels on the subtle communications, attitude and motivations that underlie a transcript. The same response towards a male’s query would certainly not have contained the same judgment and coded blame-the-victim strategy.
Apologies consist of 3 elements: acknowledging the act for which one is apologizing, acknowledging the harm to the other person (their experience), and expressing remorse or regret.
What he apologized for was asking a question in response. That’s not the error. The error was treating another person (regardless of her role or position) disrespectfully and dismissively. For that there was no apology.
This is exactly right. Watching the exchange, however, it was clear that the subtext of the apology was for the real offense (being disrespectful) even though the words were directed only at the formal error. I think that’s why Klobuchar accepted the apology, and why Kavanaugh was reported to “have apologized” for his behavior. So in the moment, he sort of apologized for being rude. But looking back on the transcript later, this dimension of the apology is lost because it is not recorded. I find this troubling.
Jen – great insight!
One of the things that stood out to me by the hearing is just how bad lawyers are at testifying under oath. We all know this, but it’s still hard to watch.
From a purely trial ad viewpoint, the Judge violated all three of the fundamental rules of giving testimony:
1. Don’t interrupt the questioner
2. Only answer the question asked
3. Keep the answers short