Brian Kilmeade’s Apology
On Sept. 10, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade was having a discussion with his co-presenters on the show “Fox & Friends,” discussing the death of a woman in North Carolina, who was said to have been stabbed by a man who was both living in a homeless shelter and reportedly mentally ill at the time.
Kilmeade’s cohost, Lawrence Jones, expressed the opinion that people like the accused man who refuse treatment for mental illness should “be locked up in jail.” Kilmeade replied that they should be subjected to “involuntary lethal injection.” Euthanasia, in other words. Death not for the murder, but simply for the “crime” of being mentally ill and unhoused.
Refusing treatment for medical conditions, including mental illness, is still a right, although there is an alternative in place in many locations—AOT, or Assisted Outpatient Treatment—a procedure with safeguards and rules that benefit a person who doesn’t recognize their own incapacitation. Apparently, Kilmeade has no knowledge of such programs—nor, I suppose, should we expect him to, as he’s one of the hosts of an entertainment talk show.
The talk of getting the homeless mentally ill off city streets is in service of the growing clamor to get rid of “useless” people by one means or another—jail, “wellness farms” (as proposed by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.), institutionalization, or, apparently, summary execution. The unhoused and mentally ill are seen as a drag on society, consumers of resources who do not produce anything of value. Their problems are attributed to “bad choices.” They are thought to be not worth the money that society spends on them and their indolent, nonproductive lifestyles.
I don’t know about you, but I took this personally. I’m far from homeless, and I have been productive and earned a living, but I am mentally ill. And it’s only a short step from threatening the unhoused mentally ill to threatening the mentally ill themselves with involuntary euthanasia. (I’ve read the Martin Niemöller poem. They could conceivably come for me, too.)
Mr. Kilmeade apologized during another episode of “Fox & Friends” and posted a video of the apology on social media. “I am obviously aware that not all mentally ill homeless people act as the perpetrator did in North Carolina,” he said. “And that so many homeless people deserve our empathy and compassion.” (Not all, note.)
Sorry, but that’s too little too late. Forgive me if I doubt the sincerity of the apology and attribute it to a backlash from the public, or maybe from his bosses realizing that he had stepped over a line.
I, for one, do not accept his apology. It doesn’t contain the elements of a valid apology: admission of a fault, recognition of why it was offensive, a promise never to make that transgression again, and action that will help repair the fault or prove the sincerity of the apology. For example, Kilmeade could have said that involuntary lethal injection was appalling and inhumane (indeed, illegal) and that most unhoused mentally ill people pose no physical threat to the populace. He could have said that he had learned his lesson and would never again talk about the homeless mentally ill in that cavalier manner. And he could have made a donation to an organization that helps people who live on the streets or people with mental illnesses.
I was taken to task for expressing this opinion on the timeline of someone who posted that the apology was sufficient and laudable, that it gave Kilmeade an opportunity to learn, grow, and do better. While I admit that I should have kept my opinion on my own timeline rather than responding in that person’s space, I still don’t agree that forgiveness is required. In my opinion, the person who has been injured (or, in this case, insulted and threatened) has the option to accept the apology or not. Forgiveness doesn’t come automatically just because you said, “Oops, sorry.”
And if there’s any doubt that Kilmeade made a sincere, lasting apology and learned his lesson, he recently said that “what we need to do is either leave the U.N. or we need to bomb it. Maybe gas it?…we need to destroy it. Maybe can we demolish the building? Have everybody leave and then we’ll demolish the building.” The other program hosts could be heard laughing.
I suppose it’s laudable that he pulled back from suggesting demolishing the building while it was occupied, but that’s what he first proposed. Apparently, human lives mean nothing to him unless they’re people that he approves of. And that approval is conditional, based on the people’s utility and their agreement with his political stances.
And that’s simply not enough for a sincere apology.



Recent Comments