With the recent passing of former United Farm Workers union official, Dolores Huerta, the accolades and luminous eulogies are being written. Much of what will be said in her honor will focus on her work as the trusted aide of UFW leader Cesar Chavez who himself enjoyed a stellar reputation as an honored labor leader until unmasked earlier this year a rapist of girls and adult women including Dolores Huerta. The praises for Huerta will center on her work for the UFW. That work, however, interfaced and coordinated with the politics of Cesar Chavez, the man she served loyally for decades. What were the politics of the Chavez-Huerta leadership?
Various histories of Chavez and the UFW have brought to light an unflattering story much at odds with the prior praises bestowed upon Chavez after his passing in 1993. From the research we can construct the historical record of the labor politics of Cesar Chavez. The major points are these:
+a UFW 1974-75 “Campaign Against Illegals” that involved voluntarily working with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS or “la Migra”) to locate and apprehend undocumented migrant farmworkers and, additionally, establishing a UFW “wet-line” along the Arizona-Mexico border to capture and viciously beat Mexican workers coming across the border.
+the repression of the pro-farmworker paper El Malcriado and the theater group Teatro Campesino.
+the purge of Leftists from the UFW.
+reliance on a collective anti-Left leadership: his top three white advisors (Fred Ross, Bill Kircher, and LeRoy Chatfield) were long-time anti-communists as was his trusted aide Dolores Huerta.
+the suppression of dissent and discussion; Chavez dictated policy and used “attack therapy” to psychologically subordinate staff to his rule.
+promotion of individual religiosity and moral struggle over collective action, hierarchy over equality, obedience to the leader’s authority over debate.
+preference for the boycott over the strike.
+the 1977 endorsement of the dictatorial, anti-labor Marcos regime in the Philippines – an endorsement that caused the Filipino vice-president of the UFW, Philip Vera Cruz, to quit the union in disgust taking with him the last remaining vestiges of the militant, Filipino leadership that inspired the creation of the UFW and whose foundational legacy was intentionally minimized (if not erased) along with the activities of militant undocumented Mexican field workers.
+promotion of a culture of hetero-patriarchy within the UFW (the suppression of gender equality has been the least discussed flaw of the Chavez-led movement; after the horrid March 2026 revelations of adolescent rape perhaps this will be rectified).
This history has long been known to scholars and many former UFW activists and members. As Fernando Gapasin wrote in 2012 reviewing recently published works detailing the absence of democracy in the UFW: “In some of the reviews of Pawel’s book, middle-class supporters of the Grape Boycott were shocked and disappointed to hear that humble, self-sacrificing, Gandhi-like César Chávez could have been so committed to La Causa, and a utopian vision, that he used undemocratic methods in an attempt to control the UFW. For those who worked closely with the UFW, this is not new information. In fact, the same ground has been covered in books that are fifteen years old and that even predated Chávez’s death, …” (Fernando Gapasin, “Perspectives on César Chávez and the Farm Workers Movement,” New Labor Forum, A Journal of Ideas, Analysis and Debate, August 2, 2012, page 3 – a review by the nephew of Philip Vera Cruz of books by Miriam Pawel and Frank Bardacke on the UFW.)
More recently, Frank Bardacke has re-emphasized this point about the anti-democratic character of the UFW under Cesar Chavez and his lieutenant, Dolores Huerta. In a Labor Notes interview with Jane Slaughter Bardacke pointed out: “From the beginning, say in the early 1960s, the structure [of the farm worker movement] was basically volunteer organizers appointed by Chavez … The structure lasted even when the UFW Organizing Committee (UFWOC) became an actual union. They continued this organizational structure of volunteers. They did not set up union locals. The union constitution did not have provision for union locals. There was no way that an ordinary farmworker could elect anybody; everybody served at Chavez’s pleasure. That included the field offices in local places where there were farmworker contracts. … There was no tradition of arguing and debating and voting as in other unions” (Jane Slaughter, Labor Notes, April 6, 2026).
This dictatorial power was maintained through periodic purges of those who disagreed with or were merely suspected of disagreement with Cesar. Demands for hearings regarding expulsions were routinely denied or ignored. The point person for many of these expulsions, according to Bardacke, was Dolores Huerta.
Here is the political record of Chavez as UFW leader: He promoted individual piety over collective power, consumer boycotts over worker strikes, deportation of undocumented workers over labor solidarity, hierarchy over equality, male chauvinism over gender equality, dictatorial command and control within the UFW over democratic debate, purges of Leftists and other dissenters within the UFW, and endorsement of the anti-working class martial law dictatorship of U.S. ally Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines – an endorsement that made clear that Chavez was no critic of U.S. imperialism in Southeast Asia.
As people prepare their eulogies for the recently departed, let me ask a few questions that seem, to my mind, to be pertinent:
When Chavez prevented democratic debate in the UFW, did Huerta oppose him and, if so, did she do so publicly? Why did she find dictatorial rule in the UFW acceptable?
When Chavez expelled Leftists from the UFW, did Huerta complain? In light of her rabid anti-communism, why would she? She was such an anti-communist that, when she first met Fred Ross of the Community Service Organization, she thought that Ross, as an organizer of the poor, might be a communist. She asked an FBI contact to let her know if Ross was indeed a communist; the FBI reported that Ross had a clean bill of political health (Thompson, 2016:126,127). Asking the FBI to check on Ross was a not-so-subtle way of snitching and Huerta, early on, revealed her opportunist anti-communist loyalties to the Cold War state. Was her anti-communism a reason she became lionized as a great labor leader?
When Chavez worked with la Migra to apprehend and deport the “illegals,” did Huerta object? (Given her support for the UFW “Campaign Against Illegals,” it was only fitting and proper that on May 29, 2012, she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from “Deporter-in-Chief” Barack Obama.) You understand, of course, that labelling fellow workers as “illegal” and assisting the Immigration and Naturalization Service in identifying, apprehending, and deporting foreign workers was not only a betrayal of working-class solidarity but was also a template for today’s fascist program of seizure-detention-deportation by ICE?
When Chavez used Synanon’s “attack therapy” to berate and belittle his staff to make them more compliant, did Huerta oppose this?
When Chavez gave his endorsement of the anti-worker Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines, did Huerta push back in defense of our Filipino brothers and sisters? The Marcos dictatorship was a fascist regime that seized and tortured tens of thousands of labor organizers, students, and intellectuals who had anti-fascist politics. Hundreds, if not thousands, were ‘disappeared” – they were killed and their bodies thrown away or buried in unknown places never to be found. The public endorsement of the anti-working-class Marcos regime by Chavez cannot be attributed to naivete; nor can it be described as an unfortunate but forgivable gaffe. By giving Marcos his stamp of approval Chavez revealed his depraved politics. If there ever was an obvious and public opportunity for Dolores Huerta to come to the defense of our working-class brothers and sisters in Southeast Asia, this was it. So, what did she do? Did she call out Chavez, condemn his remarks, and show the world her solidarity with workers in the Philippines?
When Chavez used male chauvinism to bully and abuse women, did Huerta organize the women to fight back? Did she confront the men – including Chavez who she said raped her twice?
Apparently, the answers to these questions are that Dolores Huerta was far more in agreement with the policies of Chavez than against. Indeed, she was often the enforcer of such policies against those who did have the courage to confront Chavez.
Were Chavez and Dolores Huerta leaders for the workers or were they misleaders? Were the demonstrations, marches, and fasts used to effectively build a participatory union democracy or were they publicity stunts and photo ops serving to recruit new dues-paying members and contributions from a sympathetic public? From the point of view of the governing class the need to offer exploited workers an inspirational semblance of hope for a better future was fulfilled by Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta. Who better than media-anointed “heroes” who favored blind obedience to personal dictatorship over union democracy, martial law in a Southeast Asian American colony over workers’ rights, male chauvinism over gender equality, boycotts over strikes, fasting over organizing, prayer over education?
From the point of view of the farm owners, the capitalist class in general, and the major political parties, Chavez and Huerta well deserved their accolades from the political establishment. Think about this: If Chavez had not been identified as a rapist of girls, he would still enjoy high honors despite his terrible political record. What does that say about the politicians, the media, and the teachers who promoted his reputation prior to March 2026? Are today’s eulogies Huerta’s posthumous reward for defending the anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian politics of Cesar Chavez year in and year out?
Let’s be clear: Even if Cesar Chavez had never raped anyone, his political record as a labor leader was, from the point of view of the working class, awful. And, because Dolores Huerta was his most trusted aide and confidant, she shares that record.
Today in California there are a little more than 400,000 employed farmworkers; the UFW can claim somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 of these workers as members. This is no more than 1.75% of the total workforce. This depressing statistic tells us that the UFW does not and cannot represent the farmworkers in the battle for social justice. For the workers, a 1.75% union membership percentage is a failure; for the growers, however, it’s a success. And this failure of the UFW cannot be explained solely by political repression. Its own internal contradictions destroyed it. While espousing values of social justice and offering inspirational catchphrases (sí, se puede), the Chavez-Huerta team and their anti-Leftist lieutenants (Ross, Kircher, and Chatfield) subverted the potential of the UFW turning it into an Establishment-approved cult of personality based on Cesar Chavez. And for this “accomplishment” people want to call Dolores Huerta a great leader and labor organizer?
The growing fascist politics of our era demand political sobriety on the part of all workers and perhaps especially on the part of the progressive professors who teach history and the liberal journalists and editors who popularize it. If you are offended because I have spoken ill of the dead, please pause to consider the essential point of this essay: it is an argument that we are being played. We are not presented with actual history with its messy and tragic contradictions. Instead, we are being manipulated with hagiographic eulogies hiding the political contradictions that we need to confront and analyze incisively when facing fascists determined to intensify capital’s exploitation of our labor.
References
Articles:
Frank Bardacke, “Cesar’s Ghost: Decline and Fall of the U.F.W.,”
The Nation, (July26-August 2, 1993, 130-133); reprinted 2006.
Paul Buhle, “California’s Fields Ablaze,” Review of Trampling Out the Vintage: Cesar Chavez and the Two Souls of the United Farm Workers by Frank Bardacke, (Verso: 2011), New Left Review 75, May-June 2012
Jeff Coplon, “Cesar Chavez’s Fall From Grace – Parts I and II,”
The Village Voice, August 14 and 21, 1984
Steve Early, “Beyond the Fields,” Jacobin, March 26, 2011
Fernando Gapasin, “Perspectives on César Chávez and the Farm Workers Movement,” New Labor Forum, A Journal of Ideas, Analysis and Debate, August 2, 2012 – a review of books by Miriam Pawel and Frank Bardacke on the UFW.
Fred Hirsch, “An analysis of our AFL-CIO role in Latin America, or under the covers with the CIA,” Fred Hirsch, San Jose, January and April 1974. Labor Education Project on AFL-CIO International Operations. A 46-page report written by former UFW volunteer Fred Hirsch who left the UFW in July 1968 because of its anti-democratic oligarchical politics.
Robert Lindsey, “Criticism of Chavez Takes Root in Farm Labor Struggle,”
New York Times, February 7, 1979 (Lindsey’s NYT article was based on research by Tom Barry.)
Ana Raquel Minian, “Indiscriminate and Shameless Sex: The Strategic Use of Sexuality by the United Farm Workers,” American Quarterly, 65 (1): 63-90
Miriam Pawel, “Farmworkers Reap Little as Union Strays From Its Roots,”
LA Times, Jan. 8, 2006, A1, A29-30. Article subtitle: “The movement built by Cesar Chavez has failed to expand on its early successes organizing rural laborers. As their plight is used to attract donations that benefit others, services for those in the fields are left to languish.”
Miriam Pawel, “Decisions of Long Ago Shape the Union Today”,
LA Times, Jan 10, 2006, A1, A18-19. Article subtitle: “In the late 1970s Cesar Chavez grew intent on keeping control. He crushed dissent, turned against friends, purged staff, and sought a new course.”
Aaron Petcoff, “The Problem with Saul Alinsky,” Jacobin, May 10, 2017
Jane Slaughter, “A Lack of Democracy in the United Farm Workers Gave Chavez Immunity,” Labor Notes, April 6, 2026
Michael D. Yates, A Union Is Not a “Movement,” The Nation, November 19, 1977
Michael Yates, “The Dubious Legacy of César Chávez,”
Left Business Observer, (2009) – a critical review of Randy Shaw’s, Beyond the Fields: César Chávez, the UFW, and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century (2008)
Michael D. Yates, “The Rise and Fall of the United Farm Workers,”
Monthly Review, Vol 62, No. 1, May 2010, 51-59 – a review of Miriam Pawel, The Union of Their Dreams: Power, Hope, and Struggle in Cesar Chavez’s Farm Worker Movement (2009)
“NEWS FROM UFW,” United Farmworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Office of the President, La Paz, Keene CA, 93531, April 18, 1979.
Books:
Frank Bardacke, Trampling Out the Vintage: Cesar Chavez and the Two Souls of the United Farm Workers (2011, 2012) – perhaps the most comprehensive history yet.
Matt Garcia, From the Jaws of Victory: The Triumph and Tragedy of Cesar Chavez and the Farm Worker Movement (2012)
Mario T. Garcia, Memories of Chicano History: The Life and Narrative of Bert Corona (1994)
George Mariscal, Brown-Eyed Children of the Sun: Lessons from the Chicano Movement, 1965-1975 (2005)
Matt S. Meier and Feliciano Ribera, Mexican Americans/American Mexicans (1994)
Miriam Pawel, The Crusades of Cesar Chavez: A Biography (2015)
Craig Scharlin and Lilia V. Villanueva, Philip Vera Cruz: A Personal History of Filipino Immigrants and the Farmworkers Movement (1992, 2000)
Jeff Schurke, Blue Collar Empire: The Untold Story of US Labor’s Global Anticommunist Crusade (2024)
Gabriel Thompson, America’s Social Arsonist: Fred Ross and Grassroots Organizing in the Twentieth Century (2016)
Zaragosa Vargas, Labor Rights Are Civil Rights: Mexican American Workers in Twentieth-Century America (2005)
