Trigger warning for discussion of sexual assault.
Yesterday, New York Times published a devastating expose of labor icon Cesar Chavez’s misdeeds, including sexual assault and inappropriate relations with minors. The backlash has already been swift and harsh, with states and organizations deciding not to celebrate Cesar Chavez Day (March 31st), and communities across the country consider renaming streets and locations named after him. It’s a sad, messy story which is causing many people to reevaluate what they know, or think they know about Chavez and his United Farm Workers.
Long an icon of the progressive left, Chavez has been accorded a status similar to Martin Luther King Jr. His battles for the oppressed, including his famous role in organizing a grape boycott in California and hunger strikes in favor of workers’ rights, his undeniable oratorical and organizational skills have made him an icon both for labor organizations and Hispanic Americans. This idolization, of course, overlooked his known shortcomings, such as the organization’s sexism, or Chavez’s later efforts to turn the United Farm Workers into a bizarre cult of personality. But however troubling some of his behaviors, it’s been easy to frame them in terms of a great man’s decline, or a cautionary tale in how power corrupts.
Which is not surprising. The Left isn’t any less susceptible to hero worship than the Right, to inspire the same kind of dogged defensiveness when their icons are attacked. The Times article quotes associates of Chavez who deny the allegations, on the familiar basis that Chavez never acted that way towards them. One of Chavez’s victims, Debra Rojas, attempted to come forward a decade ago, only to be shouted down for sullying the reputation of a great man. And it is, at the very least, disquieting to learn that one of the greatest icons of modern social justice was at best extremely flawed, at worst a monster.
And there lies the problem: the idea that a movement, or an organization, is defined by the actions of a Great Man (and it usually is a man), rather than the efforts of an organization, or hundreds of lesser-known individuals. It becomes difficult to disassociate a cause from an individual, which makes the former hostage to the fortunes and reputations of the latter. If the UFW was righteous, so must be Chavez. And if Chavez was a flawed man, well perhaps the UFW and the cause it fought for wasn’t so righteous after all.
Dolores Huerta, a fellow organizer in the United Farm Workers and civil rights icon in her own right, issued a statement recounting her own treatment at Chavez’s hands. She emphasizes that the cause they fought for was righteous, and it deserves to survive these revelations:
The farmworker movement has always been bigger and far more important than any one individual. Cesar’s actions do not diminish the permanent improvements achieved for farmworkers with the help of thousands of people. We must continue to engage and support our community, which needs advocacy and activism now more than ever.