Countless streets, parks, and schools across America are named after Cesar Chavez, a Farm Workers union organizer and 1960s icon of Latino activism and the labor movement. There is even a holiday commemorating his life and legacy, on March 31, that is officially observed by four Western states (and unofficially by many others): Cesar Chavez Day. But on Thursday, lawmakers in one of those states — Chavez’s home state of California — announced that they would change the name of the holiday to Farm Workers Day. Other states and municipalities may follow suit.
That’s because on Wednesday, the New York Times published an explosive and alarming report explaining it Chavez’s sexual abuse of two young girlsDebra Rojas and Ana Murguia, who spoke publicly about their experiences for the first time with the Times. Rojas was only 12 years old when the abuse began; Murguia was only 13 years old.
In the same story, Dolores Huerta – a close ally of Chavez’s party and a historical figure and labor hero in her own right – recounted that in 1960, he pressured her and persuaded her to have sex, and that in 1966, when she was 36 years old, Chavez raped her. Both encounters resulted in pregnancy; Huerta gave birth to Chavez’s two daughters, and arranged for them to be raised by other families. (Huerta he says more that for a long time he has reunited with his daughter and that they have been close.)
The revelation is a shock to anyone who has spent decades understanding Chavez as a hero — a figure revered in murals and statues for tirelessly and courageously uplifting his fellow workers and Latino Americans. It is now clear that he was, as another survivor put it in a Times story, “just a man” – who committed a series of horrific acts.
To better understand the math required by Chavez’s memory, I spoke with Matt Garcia, professor of history and Latin American, Latino, and Caribbean studies at Dartmouth, and author of a 2012 biography of Chavez. From the Jaws of Victory: The Triumph and Tragedy of Cesar Chavez and the Farm Workers Movement..
In Garcia’s eyes, the Chavez revelation is not just the story of one man’s crime, but of a larger movement and its allied organizations that were subjected to emotional coercion. internal cleansingand hero worship – all of which made it difficult for victims to come forward.
Our discussion, held over two days, touched on what activists and ordinary Americans should take from this story, how it affects the legacy of Chavez and Huerta, and what responsibility for this crime – given that Chavez died in 1993 – could look like. Part of our conversation is transcribed below; edited and condensed for clarity.
When did you first hear these allegations?
So I published a book in 2012, and I revealed some of Cesar’s extramarital affairs in that book. However, I did not know at the time that it was a young woman who wrote to Helen his wife and made her leave him for a while. That came to light later, and then it took several years for it to settle down. And then in a closed email Facebook group among veterans of the movement, some of the victims began to speak.
The veterans knew that I was a critical voice, and they asked me to facilitate communication with a media outlet that could monitor this. I had a close relationship with the New York Times, and so I facilitated the whistleblowers in 2021. It was on June 7, 2021, that I contacted Manny Fernandez, who is now the author of this (New York Times story) and Sarah Hurtes. I have been involved from the beginning and before.
Were there any other hints or implications in the research for your book that this kind of abuse of young girls – or undue influence on children – was something to consider? Did that happen while you were researching the book?
It is not sexual in nature. I am documenting Cesar’s cleanup of volunteers and people, residents of (UFW headquarters) La Paz. There was aggressive behavior against people he saw as traitors to the movement and him.
Are you in touch with any current UFW members or Latino labor activists, especially in California? And if so, how do they handle all this?
Many of these people knew about these claims. They are people who felt like it was past time for women to express their opinion. So there is a bit of relief, but there is also a sense that it is too late. And there is also a feeling that there needs to be more accountability within the community and for the remaining leaders who were guilty in the 1970s and 80s.
What do you think accountability should look like?
I think for one, the Cesar Chavez Foundation and the UFW benefited greatly from Chavez’s legacy which we now know was fraudulent, and given how sexual harassment and the legal consequences have changed since (Harvey) Weinstein, I wonder if these victims have taken action.
I would be all for it, as other victims of (Jeffrey) Epstein have done the same, as well as (those of) Weinstein. So I think these are the questions we should be asking. We have to think in the future, not just in the past.
Are any of these organizations already discussing restoring Chavez’s central role in their narratives now?
There is a good example of an organization that I think took the right step. This is the San Antonio chapter of Cesar Chavez…I don’t know the exact name, but the foundation that has Cesar Chavez as its name. (Editor’s note: César E. Chávez Legacy & Education Foundation). And they just fell apart. They agreed and said, we are done.
One thing I strongly disagree with – and some people think this is a good feature; I think they are corrupt. (The Cesar Chavez Foundation) established a confidential channel or hotline for other possible victims of Chavez and (requests) them to report to them. I think this is at a point where I think, definitely, the state government of California or maybe even the federal government should start those emergency calls and control the consumption at this time.
There are Chavez murals all over California and beyond. There are all these streets and parks and schools that are named after him all over the country. His movement has been an example and inspiration for labor organizers and protesters of all kinds on the left for decades. I wonder what you think about those memories and activists, and about the people involved in these movements. What should they do with these revelations? Do you think all these honors should come down?
I think there are certain things you can’t do. I think you can be like Fresno State; they threw a black curtain on their statue of Cesar Chavez which cannot last forever. The walls, which are beautifully rendered according to Chavez’s drawings – are difficult to whitewash. In fact, it is a memory and an important symbol of society throughout the country.
But I also want to say that this kind of thinking, that we have to hold himIt is what allowed the women to suffer for so long, and us to hold on to the notion that Cesar was an enlightened leader of the union. In fact, my point is that the union was more successful when it worked together, and at times defied Cesar Chavez.
So my feeling is that we need to do some kind of democracy to respect the movement. I would like to see individual communities with buildings and statues of Cesar Chavez and symbols of honor change in ways they see fit.
There were leaders, there were community activists – there were movements in places like Bellingham, Washington, and Woodburn, Oregon, and places across the country, big and small that were touched by Chavez. But the movement there was led by their own community. And so I think that would be very useful for us to remember the farm worker movement as that collective that had its various colors and permutations in these particular areas. And having art and symbols of honor reflect that.
I don’t think anyone is thinking about that right now, though. A lot of people – I mean, I’ve seen on social media, people are saying: Well, let’s replace Chavez with (Dolores Huerta). And I think that’s a big problem.
Dolores Huerta is a historical figure in her own right. Now he has revealed that Cesar Chavez raped her, and gave birth to two children with her whom he placed in other homes. He says he kept quiet until now out of fear that it would hurt the movement, and because he was worried that no one in the union would believe him. It’s a lot. He is almost 96 years old, and he is this living icon and symbol of the movement.
What? How does this story affect our understanding of his role in this movement?
I think it’s very liquid. It should be. I think there are people who rush to judge, saying that he is an automatic savior. He is, but I think it needs to be seen in the broader context of what was happening in the mid-’70s, and how he also participated in cleaning up innocent volunteers sometimes.
To be clear, you’re not talking about sexual harassment, are you?
Nope. Not sexual harassment, no. But that (other) abuse is talked about, it is described in great detail in my book.
He was a person who participated in cleaning people who were called, as Chavez said, “ass.” And what he meant there are people who betrayed the movement.
There was also psychological abuse in the context of “The game,” which was an integral part of the community where people were encouraged to yell at each other, call each other names, and make false accusations of wrongdoing and just a general kind of unproductive behavior in the movement, and especially in La Paz.
(Editor’s note: Huerta did not speak to Garcia for his book, but his account is corroborated by tapes of the episode, witnesses who spoke to him, and another guarantee. He was asked about this period of inner cleansing by Los Angeles Times in 2006 and He said some of the anxiety has been caused by death threats against Chavez.)
I think the broad picture you’re painting here is a group full of paranoia, in the sense of looking for traitors in the neighborhood, traitors within, trying to point the finger at anyone who might be outside to bring them into their movement.
And that can create the kind of environment where if someone knew about Chavez’s sexual abuse, they might be reluctant to share it or disclose that, let alone if they were a victim themselves, because the person they’re telling – in their mind – might be looking to use that information to punish them or backstab them.
Yes, I think that now is something that we have to consider: that Cesar had a secret to keep, and he knew that the secret, if revealed, would make him responsible not only for criminal behavior, but for losing the primary goal of the (movement) – which was to achieve the rights of the farm worker. So yes, he knew he was more dangerous.
What about ordinary Americans and people who may only know or remember the basics of the movement, but are still shocked to hear this? How should the rest of us understand Cesar Chavez’s legacy in its entirety now?
It’s a part of American history that we’ve been coming to terms with for several years now. First in Me Too, in the Weinstein revelations, and then more recently in the Epstein dossier revelations.
What we are seeing here is that all of us, regardless of our race and color, have participated in a kind of medical patriarchy, or enabling welfare, and we need to question it.
So if you know what Cesar Chavez represented and what he achieved with that social movement that I have just described, it does not matter. The point is that he is yet another uncontrolled person who abused his power, because we in society turned a blind eye to it, and we allow it, and in fact we enable it. So I think that’s the biggest lesson, and I really want people to connect time and space, because they’re all there for us to learn from.
