American labor leader and civil rights icon Cesar Chavez is being accused of sexual abuse and rape. Earlier this month, The New York Times published a multi-year investigation into Chavez misconduct, abuse and grooming.
The investigation found that Chavez sexually abused two girls in the 1970s at age 12 and 13 years old. It also found that Chavez raped female labor and civil rights activist Dolores Huerta who was his longtime partner in building the United Farm Workers (UFW) in the 1960s, many refer to Huerta as “the women behind the movement”.
Both Chavez and Huerta were considered leaders among Hispanics in the United States, especially among the Chicano community.
Huerta, who had never spoken publicly about the abuse, kept it a secret for nearly 60 years. She released a statement on March 18 when the investigation was published.
“I have kept this secret long enough. My silence ends here,” Huerta said in the statement, explaining why she never said anything about it. The story also revealed a shocking truth about conceiving two children from Chavez, a detail Huerta confirmed.
On March 17, just a day before the Times investigation was published, United Farm Workers (UFW) issued a statement confirming that they had learned about the allegations.
In 2014, President Barack Obama proclaimed March 31 as “Cesar Chavez Day” a U.S. federal commemorative holiday to celebrate the birth and legacy of the civil rights and labor movement activists. Across the country, Cesar Chavez's name has also been used to name streets, buildings and schools in his honor. Celebrations of Chavez have been canceled across the country at the request of the Cesar Chavez Foundation.
Chavez, who died in 1993, left a legacy in the farmworkers in the United States. He was known nationally for his early organizing in the fields, hunger strikes for farmworkers, and the early victories of negotiating farmworkers better wages and working conditions.
Now the conversation turns to the victims and how these cases occur and how accountability functions, particularly when allegations surface after an individual has passed away.
“César’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,” Huerta said in her statement.
But as a community, what should the balance be between an icon's legacy, movements, complexity and accountability?
Dr. Elizabeth L. Jeglic is a licensed clinical psychologist who specializes in sexual violence prevention, sexual grooming, child sexual abuse and sexual assault, expanded on this conversation with WUFT. She spoke of the roots of organizations, movements and victims being silenced, psychological impacts on survivors such as guilt and shame, and the importance of accountability and prevention.
The Q&A has been edited for clarity.
Interview highlights
WUFT: How does the allegations against Cesar Chavez affect and impact the farmworkers movement from a criminal, civil and psychological point?
Dr. Jeglic: In criminal law it is very hard to prosecute anybody when they’ve passed away, so there’s nobody to criminally prosecute. Different states have different statute of limitations when it comes to these types of allegations, some don’t have statute of limitations, others do. So, even if Chavez was still living, he probably would be outside of that statute of limitations because it happened so long ago.
In civil cases, there could be some options, if there are many allegations in a state, they could sue the state. Also, if there’s an organization that was silenced regarding the allegations but still functions and there’s somebody that in that organization could hold some responsibility if they knew but they didn’t do anything to protect young people.
Overall, we have to put in context the historical piece of this case because these happened decades ago and our understanding of child sexual abuse and child sexual grooming was not where it is today. Additionally, an organization such as the United Farm Workers (UFW) would not have had policies and procedures in place to protect young people at that period of time because the labor movement wasn’t specifically focused on youth, it wasn’t a youth serving organization, so it makes it complicated for sure to have some policies in place.
WUFT: How do grooming behaviors typically develop in relationships where there is a power imbalance such as age difference, professional or community authority or emotional dependency?
Dr. Jeglic: What we see is that perpetrators often have a very good reputation in the community. We see it in cases of both child and adult sexual abuse. Sexual abuse within the workplace and then the fear of coming forward and that prevents disclosure.
The survivors in the Chavez case talked about not wanting to hurt the movement because he was the movement so if they came forward with these allegations, that could potentially impact the work that they’ve been working towards.
But also, there is vulnerability. Chavez was in this position of power and even if somebody did come forward–think about 60 years ago– it probably would not have been believed or it would’ve been dismissed. So they’re vulnerable to that.
Chavez grooms them because of his role, his access to them. Many of these were children of his people within the movement, people that worked for him and believed in him so they were made to feel special.
In the post abuse stage, Chavez used a very strategic move in saying to the victims “don’t tell other girls because they will be jealous”, and that reinforced that specialness that “I chose you”. That strategic move prevented disclosure and that is a key grooming behavior across time.
WUFT: What psychological factors make grooming difficult for victims or bystanders to recognize in real time, especially 60 years ago?
Dr. Jeglic: It’s hard specially when we have cases with adolescent, sexual abuse happens when the perpetrator convince the young girl or boys that they are in love with them or that they are special, and these are people who are potentially emotionally vulnerable. Abusers make their victims feel important, like there’s something precious about their “relationship” and that immediately enables the abuse to continue without disclosure.
60 years ago people didn’t understand how child sexual abuse was perpetrated. Historically, adolescents and even adults, they would have thought it was a relationship, which we have now recognized that’s not the case. Especially in these types of power dynamics.
WUFT: How do public allegations affect survivors differently than private disclosures?
Dr. Jeglic: It’s hard because now your story is public, right? And part of sex child abuse is created in the grooming process. And that process creates shame and guilt that the victim lives with. So sharing with family and friends hopefully gets the victim the support to deal and cope with it.
But when it comes to the public, there’s still a lot of rape myths that are internalized by people that will say “why didn’t she tell for so long?” “why she go along with it?” and things like that. So it becomes not your story to control anymore.
Most of the time, the media goes with it and then there’s a public narrative, so that’s scary for someone who has been abused because that incident was the deepest, darkest secret and the victim has been ashamed for many, many years–not that they should be because it’s not their fault, but unfortunately that’s what the grooming process does, it creates guilt and shame. So when you share publicly, people start commenting and for victims that’s very scary and a vulnerable place.
I can understand why somebody waits their entire life, if at all, before coming out with these types of allegations because there’s such public scrutiny on the survivors.
WUFT: How do we balance due process with a survivor-centered approach?
Dr. Jeglic: One of the key things in a trauma-informed perspective is choice. So letting the survivor have the decision and the ability to have a choice in how this is going to happen.
In this case, the alleged perpetrator is no longer alive but the organization survives. So meeting with the organization and talking about how this has historically happened, what can be done, even offering apologies and providing support. I think a lot of survivors want their story to be heard so nobody else gets hurt. Putting frameworks in place so that future generations are heard, protected and have resources available is very important.
WUFT: In that line, how do we differentiate genuine accountability from performative apologies?
Dr. Jeglic: There is a concept called institutional betrayal -and we have talked about that before- so when institutions historically have not supported survivors, there’s not only betrayal by the perpetrator but by the organization that supported the perpetrator.
Part of that healing process for survivors is not just performative right? Like you’re not just saying “I am sorry” and doing lip services.
Walking the walk and working with survivors and saying things like “what do you need?” or “what do you think we can do to make a difference by working together in the healing process?”, and that creates safety within the organization and hopefully creates something good out of something bad. Abuse is harmful so “what’s the good that this collaboration, this organization can do working together with the survivors that something beneficial can come out of the harm that has been done”.
WUFT: How can communities respond to support survivors without causing additional harm?
Dr. Jeglic: Exactly what you are doing. Reporting the story and explaining the psychology behind it, all the grooming process and how disclosure works because most cases of sexual abuse are not disclosed. So educating the public is really important, supporting and listening to the victims stories is essential as well.
Recognizing that so many women, men, and children have been sexually abused and validating their stories and explaining the psychology behind it is important because some of the reasons why people do not come forward is because they are ashamed and feel guilty.
So if a community understands how the grooming process has happened and why it’s so normal for people not to disclose, it makes it all more understandable.
WUFT: How can communities build trust in situations like this one?
Dr. Jeglic: In Cesar Chavez case is really hard because he was the figure of the union, of the farmworker's movement. So, it’s hard because the movement itself is a positive thing and there was a lot of good that came out of the movement. But as much good as Chavez’s did, he also did harm according to the allegations.
So part of it is really that duality and recognizing that he did harm but there’s still something good that can be done because of the movement, like how can we go forward together?. And that’s the community healing piece. As an institution, yes there was harm but what can we do? Because yet we have a lot of good things to do.
In this case, the survivors themselves were a very integral part of this movement, so they want this work to continue and I think that’s why they kept quiet because they recognized the importance of the work. So you want to recognize the importance of the work and what has been done but at the same time prevent future harms and recognize the harm. And that’s also part of the healing process for victims and part of the restoration of building trust with the community.
Again, it’s not just about talking and saying “we are sorry” but really like listening to the survivors and saying “how do we make a difference based on this harm that has been done to you?”. Listening and making a change, that’s the behavioral response as well.
WUFT: Do you have anything else to add?
Dr. Jeglic: This is an opportunity to highlight that sexual abuse has always involved grooming. Our recognition and understanding of this is more recently developed and that explains why people haven’t disclosed historically and we are seeing people starting to recognize this process on how they were abused. And most people always think “it’s the stranger,” but it really isn’t.
