Session 7: Who's Expected to Go First

Map a scenario's power relationships to work out who is obligated to apologise and who is excused

Weight: 1%

Before the session, construct (or bring) two versions of one structurally similar incident: the same kind of mistake, made once by someone with less power toward someone with more, and once by someone with more power toward someone with less. Keep the mistake itself as close to identical as you can; only the direction of the power relationship should change.

In the session, for each pair, argue one of two positions and be ready to defend it: either the obligation to apologise genuinely changes depending on who holds power, or the obligation stays the same and only the likelihood, speed, or form of the apology changes because of what the more powerful person can get away with. Use Week 7’s variables as evidence, not as the whole argument: does a personal response happen at all, how quickly, and through what channel. A senior person who never personally responds hasn’t necessarily lost the obligation to apologise — they may simply have avoided it at low cost to themselves.

Trade your pair with another group and see whether they land on the same side of the argument using your incidents. Where you disagree, identify exactly which claim you disagree about — the obligation, or only what actually happens in practice.

If your two incidents stop feeling genuinely comparable once you’re mid-argument — the harms turn out to differ in severity, not just in who caused them — say so and adjust rather than forcing the comparison through. A power argument built on two incidents that already differ in a second way won’t isolate what power alone is doing, and noticing the mismatch partway through is a legitimate finding, not a wasted attempt.

Afterwards, note one case, real or constructed, where a powerful person did apologise promptly and personally — and be ready to say why that case doesn’t disprove the pattern, if it doesn’t.

Check your understanding