The Right Thing: May 2026

Sunday, May 17, 2026

What dictionaries make of our words, right or wrong

In a Right Thing column I wrote about five years ago, I responded to a former student who asked whether I had really used the word “jamoke” in a 1998 Inc. magazine column about laptop cases. I had. She and a friend had debated whether “jamoke” carried any derogatory connotation. When they looked it up in Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, she was surprised to find one of my sentences used as an example. I reassured her there was nothing derogatory about the word.

Since then, I’ve discovered that Merriam-Webster has used other sentences I wrote long ago to illustrate how it defines certain words. In that same laptop case article, I had used the word “schmear.” The dictionary also cites two words from a sentence I wrote in a 2019 Right Thing column: “peddle” and “condone.” In that column, I wrote: “There’s no excuse for items promoting racist tropes to be peddled to the public nor for the rest of us to condone them.” I was responding to a reader who had found an item at a big-box office-supply store bearing a supposedly inspirational quotation that could be interpreted as an ethnic slur.

When I wrote that sentence about racist tropes, I meant it. But does it matter that that sentence was later used, on its own, to illustrate a dictionary definition? I didn’t write it for a dictionary. I wrote it in a specific context, for a particular audience, and with the purpose of responding to a reader’s experience.

Now that the sentence stands on its own, it might carry a broader authority than I originally intended. Does the editor (or algorithm) who selected it know that I stand behind the broad moral judgment expressed in that sentence, even though it was written about a particular incident? I don’t believe the editor knows me, so that seems unlikely, although the algorithm might have a good idea of where I stand based on scouring the internet for other things I’ve written.

Most writers give considerable thought to the words they choose. When I used “jamoke” and “schmear” in that earlier column, I did so deliberately, aiming for a particular tone with a particular audience in mind. Word choice is rarely accidental by most writers.

I appreciate the credibility that comes with being cited by Merriam-Webster. Still, I find myself wondering what happens when our words take on a life of their own beyond their original purpose. A sentence pulled from a column to serve as a general example of usage may carry more weight than it did when it first appeared. Within a column, I have some control over how my words are understood. Outside of that, I have very little.

That loss of control raises an interesting challenge. We can’t anticipate every way our words might be reused, nor should we become timid or overly cautious in writing. Yet this experience is a reminder that what we write can have a long shelf life, reaching audiences and serving purposes we never imagined.

We can’t control how our words will be reused. But we can try to control whether they hold up when they are. The right thing is to write as if any sentence might one day stand alone, and to make sure that if it does, it still says what we believe.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

Sunday, May 10, 2026

What do you owe someone who helped you?

If you do a favor for someone should you be disappointed when you receive no favor in return?

That’s the question that a reader I’m calling Nigel asked. For about a decade, he helped a former colleague find work. When that colleague was between jobs or looking to supplement his income, Nigel made introductions, passed along leads, and even helped him secure occasional work at his own workplace.

The colleague has now had a steady job for about two years and appears to be in a position to help Nigel find similar opportunities. Nigel says he made clear he’d welcome any leads, yet the colleague has made no effort to assist.

Expecting some measure of reciprocity isn’t unusual. When someone has been consistently supportive, it’s natural to hope that support might be returned. Professional relationships, like personal ones, often rely on a sense of reciprocity, even if it’s not formally stated.

But favors don’t always create clear obligations. While it would have been thoughtful and generous for the colleague to return the help, he may not view Nigel’s past support as something that requires repayment. People don’t always keep track of these exchanges in the same way, and some may simply not recognize when an opportunity to reciprocate presents itself.

Once Nigel expressed interest in finding additional work, however, the absence of any response becomes harder to ignore. Even if the colleague wasn’t in a position to help, a brief acknowledgment would have been thoughtful. Nigel may have taken his silence to be dismissive.

If this lack of reciprocity nags at Nigel, he could try talking to his former colleague. He could tell him that he’s tried to be supportive over the years and had hoped for similar consideration. There’s a chance that the colleague simply hasn’t thought about the situation from that perspective.

If being helpful is part of how Nigel wants to be, his former colleague’s inaction doesn’t have to change that. He’s not required, however, to keep engaging in a relationship that feels one-sided. Setting limits seems a reasonable response to any relationship that seems out of whack when it comes to mutual concern.

If his colleague asks for help again, Nigel can choose to help as he has in the past, lessen how much assistance he offers, or just decline to help. He could tell the colleague that he’s hoping for more mutual support in the future. The right thing is to set expectations without turning past generosity into a running tally. That would allow Nigel to continue to be helpful but also let his colleague know that he hopes for occasional help in return.

A challenge of being generous and kind to others is that it works best if you truly want to be generous or kind rather than expect something in return. Don’t get me wrong: Receiving generosity and kindness from others can spark all kinds of joy. But doling it out with the expectation that it will always be given back in equal measure is bound to be disappointing.

Sunday, May 03, 2026

When fair isn’t equal in family giving

What’s the right thing to do when an aging parent, still mentally sharp and financially secure, gives one adult child tens of thousands of dollars over time, but gives nothing to another?

A reader we’re calling Louise says that for years her mother has been quietly handing her cash gifts: $1,000 here, $1,200 there, despite repeated objections. Louise estimates the total has exceeded $25,000. Each time she protests, telling her mother she doesn’t need the money. But her mother insists, sometimes angrily, that she wants to give it and expects it to be accepted.

Complicating matters is that her mother has chosen not to give similar gifts to Louise’s sister. When Louise has pointed this out, her mother responds that the sister is well-off and “doesn’t need it.”

Louise believes the arrangement is unfair. She also worries about the potential strain such gifts could create between her and her sister once they are discovered. If these gifts aren’t openly acknowledged to both Louise and her sister, they could result in misunderstanding or resentment.

She has considered returning the money without her mother’s knowledge or, after her mother’s death, trying to square things up so both sisters will have received equal amounts. That either action would go against her mother’s wishes gives Louise pause.

Louise’s mother has the right to decide how to distribute her money, even if Louise finds those decisions inequitable. Many families strive for equal treatment among children, but others define fairness differently, based on need, circumstance or personal judgment. Whether or not Louise agrees, her mother has been clear about her intent.

Louise may not be able to change her mother’s behavior, and it may not be her place to do so. She can, however, decide how to respond. If accepting future gifts feels wrong or potentially harmful to her relationship with her sister, she might choose to say so clearly and consistently, even if her mother disagrees.

If Louise feels strongly that accepting the money is inconsistent with her values, she might also choose to refuse future gifts. If she takes that path, the right thing would be to do so with kindness and directness. Her mother may respond that giving brings her joy. Louise can acknowledge that generosity with gratitude while still explaining that accepting the money does not bring her joy, but makes her uncomfortable.

Waiting to try to “fix” the imbalance later by redistributing the money after her mother’s death might result in causing her sister to resent that such an action needed to take place. It would also not honor Louise’s mother’s wishes. That’s why choosing to be honest and direct with her mother in refusing to take the gifts could be her best choice.

Perfect fairness might be impossible to achieve. But if Louise can find a way to respect her mother while being honest with her about her reasons for refusing these gifts, it could help get closer to the level of fairness Louise desires. It might not be a perfect response and it could result in some challenging conversations with her mother. But by being honest with her mother, she might come closer to a resolution with which they both can live.