Does it Matter What Delegate Hargrove Said?

Does it Matter What Delegate Hargrove Said?
January 26th, 2007
Rabbi Gary S Creditor

My past ten days have been framed by following and being involved in the unpleasant episode of Delegate Frank Hargrove's comments. While the issue at the center of matters has been whether or not the Virginia legislature should apologize for slavery, the subject for another sermon, he compared it "to asking the Jews to apologize for killing Christ." It is hard to tell whether this registered in the wider world outside of the Jewish community. Maybe they don't read the paper too carefully. Maybe they are more focused on Iraq and whether or not to send more troops. Maybe they are paying more attention to the teens driving under the influence and killing people in accidents. Who knows? The black community was upset by the delegate's opposition to the motion, but the Jewish community was incensed with his seeming repetition of an accusation that has followed us for two thousand years. Did anyone hear it besides us and Michael Paul Williams, correspondent of the Times-Dispatch who called me for a quote? Maybe the lack of follow up indicates how little credence the public attaches to the pronouncement of politicians. Even better, maybe the general public dismisses out of hand such a statement that it doesn't warrant any further attention. The only option that worries me is if, after all the good and hard work, people really still harbor this lie and, behind a veneer, still believe it.

Perhaps because I allow for that last, very dangerous, possibility, I let loose with a broadside, when questioned by Michael Paul Williams. I really don't know the members of the Legislature. I pay attention to the big ticket items and those forwarded to me by our JCRC and Virginia Interfaith Council for Public Policy. While I had never met Mr. Hargrove before this past Wednesday, the quotation as reported pushed my hot button. I stress the phrase the quotation as reported. It came out of an interview with a reporter. Only those two know exactly what was said and the reporter has to translate an interview into and article and thus is born an issue which for us is core, and for the interview and legislation, peripheral or non-existent.

On Monday at the meeting of the Richmond Rabbinic Association we signed on to a fairly harsh condemnation of the quotation of Delegate Hargrove. It was to be sent to the entire Legislature. Who knows who would have read it, but we would have made a severe statement. On Tuesday I was invited to come with Ric Arenstein our member and active politically, and Anna Avital from our Federation to meet with Delegate Hargrove on Wednesday morning. It was an intensely sensitive meeting. We picked our words carefully in order to resolve a situation and not allow a crisis that could only result in lose-lose situation. Yesterday I wrote a letter to my Rabbinical colleagues and the statement which we endorsed was withheld. This is the text of my letter.

"Yesterday morning I accompanied Ric Arenstein and Anna Avital to meet with Delegate Frank Hargrove. I did not know that this opportunity would present itself when we were meeting on Monday. Ric has known of Delegate Hargrove for a long time and his connections enabled us to meet him 8:30 AM. It was a very amicable meeting. The three of us presented him the Jewish community's upset and response to the ways his words were reported. Ric represented the political fallout and discomfort. Anna talked about the perpetuation of the myth that the Jews killed Jesus by his words, and I spoke about its consequences, that that accusation has caused us millions of deaths for two thousand years. It was a low-keyed but very powerful presentation. I was honored to be part of the group. He assured us that he never desired to hurt anyone by his statement and four times repeated that he regretted if he had hurt anybody. While he did not use the word "apologize," we did not seek that word, but did want to make sure of his personal and political posture. He said that when talking to the newspaper man he was citing a series of situations in history where there was no apology given, such as by the Crusades, in its time the Catholic Church, in its time the Protestant Church, and so too the Jews and Jesus. He said that all of it was said in a rhetorical manner to indicate situations where apologies were not given. So, too, he did not feel that the Virginia Legislature needed to apologize for slavery. That was his subject and the rest were ancillary (my word but accurate) examples to prove his point. He did not in any way intend for his words to ignite all of us and this subject. He is eighty years old, has served with dignity in the Legislature, and did not sharpen his words in creating the analogy. He also cited the fact that his mother was a suffragette and his parents taught tolerance in a time in Virginia when that was not the premier value. But that is his upbringing and thus, again, he regretted if he caused anybody any harm. Ric did state that Delegate Hargrove had never been connected to any anti-Semitic statement, activity or contact. That is far removed from his background and history. I did give him opportunities to make a public statement of whatever sort to set this piece straight, but he did not take up the chance. Maybe I wasn't clear – blunt enough, but Ric and Anna both sensed that he sidestepped it. We ended warmly. He asked that we carry back this more accurate understanding of what transpired and his personal desire to never intend to hurt anyone, and his personal history that would belie such a thought. He did say that he was standing firm in opposition to motion on slavery. We said that this meeting had nothing to do with that issue. He also said that the quote about being "thin skinned" referred to slavery and not to the Jews and Jesus quote. We were not sure on that but did not pursue it further.

"While politics on this level is not my background, I felt that we had accomplished our mission at a proper level. He did not intend to make a theological statement. I am not sure that he talks in those terms. He is 80 and who knows whether he will continue in this position and run for re-election? He does not have a history of being intolerant, certainly not to Jews. It would have seen imprudent to force him into a wording that said "apology." It would have been disproportionate. But Ric is working on getting some letter on his stationary that will reflect the gist and tenor of our meeting. I hope it will be forthcoming.

"I think that we accomplished our purpose. The newspaper article in which I was quoted raised our indignation. We had access to the source and elicited the attitude and posture that we thought appropriate, namely, regret, and a sense of appreciation of the Jewish community and acknowledgement of our sensitivities. Our vigilance assured us that we could address such matters, that we did will be noted, that we always will. He did want us to bring the message of his posture to our constituents. I am going to work on it tonight and will share the text with you either tomorrow or Monday.

"In light of this development I don't think it appropriate to release the original statement. If he had been recalcitrant or refused to see us, then maybe we needed to bring 'bigger guns' to bear. That is clearly inappropriate at this time."

Yesterday I received the following letter that stands as Delegate Hargrove's statement. [statement...]

For me, this closes this episode. We achieved our goals. But what did we learn?

1. It will take more than political, historical and religious correctness to change an idiom that has been deeply ingrained. His words were simple, like he heard them in his youth and most of his life. They were unnuanced. Many people have this language in their memory banks even if they have cerebrally accepted the truth about that episode in Jewish and Christian history as now presented.
2. We need to be vigilant in what is said in the public domain. I stand by my initial blast in the interview. It taught the delegate and his staff, along with many other sources of complaint, that that language is not acceptable for the language perpetuates a myth that is rejected, but as a many headed hydra, keeps returning and me must smash it and annihilate it, even if it takes forever.
3. We must act with intelligence, discretion, and wisdom. Through the leadership organs of our Jewish community we must ascertain exactly the nature of matters and measure our response. The verse in Exodus "Ayin tachat ayin" – "eye for an eye" teaches that matters must be handled appropriately.
4. Lastly, there are many issues in which we as a Jewish community, either for our own welfare or because our Judaism demands our action on behalf of others, in which we are vested. To accomplish those goals requires that we create bridges of understanding, association of relationships. As Garth Brooke sang, you need "Friends in high places." Our agenda is nuanced, varied, self-centered and selfless, all at the same time.

I share with you this view from inside the looking glass of events of the past ten days that has intermittently made the newspapers and elsewhere. I am proud of what I said, of the company I kept, of the positions we took, and the outcome of the matter. May God give us wisdom to know who are our enemies, who are our friends, to know the difference between the two, and to make our enemies into our friends.

Shabbat Shalom.