Not A Job Interview So Much As A Trap
DEAR MISS MANNERS: A student at the university where I teach part-time was invited to a job interview over lunch. The interviewer staged a call to the restaurant, paging the student, so the student would have to leave the table during the meal.
Our student folded his napkin loosely and placed it on the table to the left of his plate, as advised by the Emily Post etiquette book he had read. This book explains that putting the napkin on the chair may soil the chair, and upon returning, the diner's clothes.
The interviewer scathingly rejected him for the job, and pointed out that Letitia Baldrige's etiquette book says to put the napkin on the seat of the chair, since other diners don't want to look at a soiled napkin.
What is the correct rule? Isn't it unfair to criticize people for violating an etiquette rule when the experts can't agree on the rules?
When I visited a chess club I'd never been to before, no one there said, "In our club, it's OK to move a rook diagonally."
GENTLE READER: Is this an accredited university?
Because your interest here should be in reassuring the student that it would have been foolish to work at a place that plays such stupid and mean-spirited tricks.
Also, Miss Manners would think that a teacher would have a more complex understanding of rules. If your university has a law school, go over there and ask whether laws are ever disputed, contradictory, subject to change, different in different jurisdictions, or misapplied.
Most laws have a practical basis, as do some etiquette rules. The object of both systems is to maintain a civilized society. But etiquette also has rules that are purely conventional, defining rituals in the interest of having a common cultural language.
Rules about eating are mostly conventional, which is why they are able to vary greatly in different societies.
But in the cases you cite, Miss Manners' distinguished predecessors are approaching the parked napkin question in practical terms: Which placement is the least offensive to other diners? Both make good arguments, although frankly, Miss Manners would not have thought that other diners much noticed or cared. Even she has a hard time caring.
But this has nothing whatever to do with the rules of a game or a sport. These must be agreed upon ahead of time by all involved. Otherwise, the game is impossible to play -- let alone win.
DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have read that the proper honorific for public officials depends on the exclusivity of the office. For example, an ex-president cannot properly be styled "Mr. President," since only one U.S. president holds office at a time. But a former governor may still be called "Governor," since there are many governors at once.
However: If the globe entire is considered, there are many presidents of nations, and if only a single U.S. state is considered, there is only one governor. So is this rule fixed at the borders of the nation in which one is currently present? The nation of one's birth? Does it depend on the geographic area from which those present hail?
GENTLE READER: You know who doesn't know the basic rule here?
Former presidents of the United States. They call one another "Mr. President." Maybe they just like the sound of it.
But no, it is an American rule, which applies -- and is violated -- within our borders.
========
(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, gentlereader@missmanners.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)
Copyright 2026 Judith Martin
COPYRIGHT 2026 JUDITH MARTIN
Comments