Return to the example of twelve members of my philosophy department apologizing for our insensitivity to gender issues in our curriculum. I should emphasize that although we have had many discussions regarding gender in our curriculum, I intend this as a fictional example and do not mean to suggest that my colleagues would respond as I imagine in this hypothetical situation. My experiences as a departmental administrator, however, have offered some insight into the complexities of deliberation within even this small and, in many respects, homogenous group. It would make sense within this example for us to express contrition jointly if we all shared culpability, regret, a commitment to fix the problem, and a desire to apologize. If we reach a consensus on all relevant issues, then a collective apology seems appropriate. We could evaluate such an apology according to the considerations discussed throughout this book.

Alternatively, imagine if only four members of the department strongly feel that an apology is necessary. Each of the four has slightly different reasons for taking this position, but in the end they draft an apology that all four of them support. Suppose that two senior professors within the department openly refuse to apologize, one of whom supports his position by claiming that “there are no women philosophers worth reading” and we should not pander to “political correctness” by apologizing. This professor is the most prominent researcher among us. The other senior professor who refuses to apologize holds the department chair.