Canceling Cesar Chavez And More
Cesar Chavez is not a person I knew a lot about. I am generally familiar with his leadership of migrant farm workers (I teach State v. Shack) and know that "Si se puede" was the progenitor Barack Obama's "Yes We Can" mantra. But beyond those high-level bits, I couldn't tell you much about Chavez. Yet in certain circles Chavez was elevated to the level of Martin Luther King. Indeed, my daughter has a box set of biographies of famous Americans, which includes people like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, MLK, and Chavez. I questioned the inclusion of Chavez, but realized that he represented an important demographic, even if his contributions to America were not even in the same ballpark as great American presidents.
This background helps explain my response to the news about Cesar Chavez. The allegations against him are awful. Worse still, people who knew about these allegations stayed silent to avoid harming the broader migrant farm worker movement. As is all too common, people in positions of power can silence those they hurt, especially when there is a "greater good." And lurking in the background is the "machismo" culture that still prevails in society. Chavez's bodyguards almost certainly knew what happened. I suspect there will be more victims who come forward now that the dam has broken. The New York Times's article has a box asking for tips on other potential abuse.
The response to the allegations has been swift: summary cancelation. California was to celebrate Chesar Chavez's birthday as a holiday on March 31. It was canceled. The City of Los Angeles will rename the holiday "Farm Workers Day" and untether it from Chavez's birthday. (I generally agree with moving holidays from a fixed day to a floating Monday.) Texas apparently celebrated Chesar Chavez Day (I had no idea). It too has been canceled. At Fresno State University, a statue of Chavez has been covered. (Will the Chavez statue get the Roger Taney treatment?) Academic programs, schools, and streets named after Chavez will likely be renamed.
It is stunning how quickly a revered figure can be wiped from the face of the earth. Cancellation has primarily been employed for people on the political right, but liberals, when motivated, can cancel their own.
How should society evaluate important figures based on their private lives? One approach is to judge a person based not on the standards of the present day but based on the standards of their time. It seems the allegations against Chavez occurred from 1960s through the 1980s. And during that time, rape--including statutory rape--was illegal. So there is no temporal relativism at play.
How should we assess the personal actions of important historical figures that were legal, but not immoral? Here, I am thinking of the namesake of another holiday: MLK. It is well established that Martin Luther King, Jr. engaged in rampant adultery, having relations with dozens of women, and fathered an illegitimate child. But there are far more serious allegations that are not as widely known. An FBI recording reveals that King "looked on, laughed and offered advice" while a friend who was also a Baptist minister raped a woman described as one of his "parishioners." During an orgy, one woman did not want to perform an "unnatural act," so King said performing such an act would "help your soul." These events were only captured because the FBI was secretly recording King. (This alleged orgy occurred at the Willard Hotel, a few blocks from the White House.) It does not seem that any of the women involved in these scandals ever went public.
How many people victimized by King, like Chavez's victims, stayed silent so as not to harm the civil rights movement? If King apparently offered advice on how to commit a rape, did he ever engage in such action himself? Were all of the women at these orgies providing full consent? If Chavez thought he could act with impunity, perhaps King did as well.
The predictable response would be that such charges are racialized and an attempt to diminish a leader's great work. Even if that response is accurate, the allegations still need to be assessed on their own merit. And I don't think there was ever a full "reckoning" for King, even during the height of the #MeToo era. All of these allegations are well known, but there has been no effort to cancel King.
Let's say, hypothetically speaking, it comes out that MLK did have sex with women without their consent. Would people drop MLK day as swiftly as they dropped Cesar Chavez day? Would people stop listening to the "I have a dream speech"? What would the fallout be? Or is it only the fact that Chavez engaged in statutory rape that warrants his cancellation? Would his rape of Dolores Huerta have been enough to cancel him?
I'll admit, these allegations about King eased my concerns about proposing a move for MLK day. I thought it would be better to celebrate what King stood for, rather than to celebrate the man himself.