Melissa Click, the University of Missouri professor of mass media who was seen on video trying to boot a student journalist from a protest, yelling “I need some muscle over here!” then grabbing at and trying to cover another student journalist’s camera, has apologized. It’s not a good apology.

The backstory: In this video, Click appears at around the 7:12 mark. The student journalist, senior Tim Tai, says to her, “I’m media; can I talk to you?” She replies, “No, you need to get out.” She keeps repeating “You need to get out,” and he replies, quite reasonably, “I actually don’t.” She then is seen grabbing the video camera of another student journalist, Mark Schierbecker; when she can’t dislodge it, she yells for muscle, then tries to cover his lens with her hand. When he says, “This is public property,” she puts on a slurring dumb-dumb voice and says thuggishly, “Yeah, that’s a really good one? I’m communication faculty? And I really get that argument?” Then she repeats some more, “You need to go. You need to go.”

On Tuesday, Click resigned from the Department of Journalism (she’d held a courtesy appointment there, but didn’t actually teach, and she resigned during a faculty meeting about whether to remove her) but maintained her assistant professorship in the Department of Communication. On Wednesday, Schierbecker filed an assault complaint against her.

As the Columbia Journalism Review pointed out, students of color have good reasons to mistrust the media. But the media also have a First Amendment right to cover protests, and certainly a professor of mass media should know that. To be fair, some student protesters get that media can help them tell their stories and have legal protection while doing their jobs.

Mizzou #ConceredStudent1950 are talking again! pic.twitter.com/MXp3mcUfW1

— collier meyerson (@collier) November 10, 2015

Click’s behavior and the bullying of some students without media training shouldn’t detract from coverage of the reasons behind the protests.

But we’re here to talk about Click’s apology! Which is bad!

Yesterday was an historic day at MU — full of emotion and confusion. I have reviewed and reflected upon the video of me that is circulating, and have written this statement to offer both apology and context for my actions. I have reached out to the journalists involved to offer my sincere apologies and to express regret over my actions. I regret the language and strategies I used, and sincerely apologize to the MU campus community, and journalists at large, for my behavior, and also for the way my actions have shifted attention away from the students’ campaign for justice.

From this experience I have learned about humanity and humility. When I apologized to one of the reporters in a phone call this afternoon, he accepted my apology. I believe he is doing a difficult job, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak with him. His dignity also speaks well to the Journalism program at MU. Again, I wish to express my sincere apology for my actions on Carnahan Quad yesterday.

Starting off with “Yesterday was an historic day at MU — full of emotion and confusion” is not, as we in the biz say, a good lede. It doesn’t strike a note of apology or take ownership of one’s actions. It’s an excuse. “It was all so confusing! And historic! And emotional!” (I will forgive her for saying “an historic” even though it annoys me.) Click goes on to say she’s “reviewed” the video — she doesn’t remember doing what she did? she has to see how it looks to others? — and now wants to offer “both apology and context.” No. “Context” does not belong in an apology. An apology has to stand on its own — you mean it or you don’t. If you say well, I did a thing BECAUSE OF REASONS, you aren’t apologizing; you’re excusing. Again.

And we see repeated use of the word “regret,” which is an apology red flag. Regret generally means “I’m sorry I’m in trouble,” not “I’m sorry I did a bad thing.” Regret is about how the apologizer feels, not about how the apologizee feels.

Click says she regrets the “language and strategies” she used, but not for grabbing someone’s camera, covering a lens, speaking abusively and mockingly to a student, and worst of all, attempting to deny someone his Constitutional rights. The University of Missouri is justly famous for its journalism school; for Click, an appointee there, not to acknowledge that her actions were a betrayal of fundamental tenets of journalism is truly problematic.

Finally, by apologizing for the way her actions “have shifted attention away from the students’ campaign for justice,” once again she’s blaming journalists rather than taking responsibility. It’s their fault the focus has shifted away from the students; it’s not her fault for doing something heinous that pulled away that focus. It’s unclear how she’s learned about humanity and humility; in general, the apology fails to spell out what she did or what she’s learned. I think she means that she appreciates the student journalist’s dignity and humility in accepting her apology; perhaps she means that she appreciates his humanity in staying calm while being attacked by her, an authority figure. I don’t see any humanity or humility coming from this apology.