The NY Times today published accusations that Cesar Chavez sexually abused at least two minors in the 1970s and sexually assaulted farmworker leader Dolores Huerta in 1966. Be aware, the stories in the linked article are disturbing. Evidently it’s been a whispered secret for several years and is finally becoming public now.
On the west coast, he’s one of, if not the biggest hero in the Latino civil rights movement. I’ve been a resident in two cities when streets were renamed for him. Who knows what will happen with those now. Yesterday, even before the story was published, the United Farm Workers cancelled upcoming celebrations honoring him after learning of the upcoming report.
I really wonder how many men with power and influence didn’t either abuse their power or at minimum cheat on their wives? I suspect it is a small percentage.
This is bad, but in light of so many other controversies, hardly shocking.
This. Not to excuse it, but let’s recognize the reality of human nature, especially for men (yes, men) in power…and frankly for female underlings who are impressed by that power. This has been true throughout history!
I was one of those females when I was young (40-50 years ago) and so were many of my women friends, married and single.
I am more than filled up on current officials at the highest level and their sexual crimes. Am I supposed to add this to the list…or be worried about this instead the ongoing mess?
The Catholics have a shrine for Chávez practically like a saint’s shrine. I think I heard that some have wanted to start him on the process toward canonization. (Now I have to wonder how many canonized saints were abusers but nobody found out or it was covered up.) We should still support UFW.
I suspect that as well. But there’s a big range on this: cheating on spouses isn’t a great look, but it’s not in the same ballpark as raping 15 year olds.
Absolutely sucks, but the UFW is much more than one man, even if he has become synonymous with it. I hope the union can weather this storm. But, dang, this really sucks.
That didn’t take long. Portland has already announced they are looking into changing the name of the street. They’ll start with community discussions so nothing will happen fast.
I don’t know if these allegations are true or not. If true, they are unfortunate. I don’t want to discount the seriousness of the alleged assaults, nor am I making excuses if they are true, but Cesar Chavez is held in high esteem for what he - along with Dolores Huerta and Larry Itliong - did for those who had little or no voice of their own. It’s interesting too, that Huerta continues to champion Chavez, even decades later. I’ve seen her speak a number of times (I live near her adopted hometown), and she always speaks glowingly of Cesar.
The article says she now accuses him of raping her in 1966.
One night during the winter of 1966 in Delano, Calif., she said, Mr. Chavez drove her out to a secluded grape field, parked and raped her inside the vehicle. Ms. Huerta, who was 36 at the time, said she chose not to report the assault to the police because of their hostility toward the movement, and she feared that no one within the union would believe her. She also described an earlier encounter in August 1960, when she said she felt pressured to have sex with him in a hotel room during a work trip in San Juan Capistrano in Southern California.
Ms. Huerta turns 96 on April 10. Her memories of the details of the assault that night in Delano are at times hazy. But she speaks of the attack in a startlingly matter-of-fact manner.
She described being stunned by Mr. Chavez’s aggression, and then numb to it. She framed her silence at the time not as an absence of pain, but as a kind of strategic necessity, particularly as a woman fighting for respect in the male-dominated world of 1960s union organizing.
It goes on to say that he impregnated her twice and she hid the pregnancies before giving the kids up for adoption.
ETA: Huerta has released a statement confirming the Times’ reporting.
Absolutely not! I am “suggesting” that these events from 60 years ago should be investigated before actions are taken, and they should not be used to drive away the mention of the current ongoing and much worse problems currently besetting us. When we react immediately to problems while the other side buries theirs, with the help of The New York Times it seems, the Far Right wins.
I suppose that somewhere on reddit someone is accusing the New York Times of carrying water for big agriculture. But such misdirection will be rare even among anonymous posters. And the union, and congressional Democrats, won’t do it at all.
Sure, right wingers will be bringing this up in posts for the next fifty years. Progressives and liberals will respond that they accept evidence, whereas the wingers ignore it when it comes to their heros. At worse, that stuff will balance out.