Cesar Chavez wasn’t a Saint: So Why Do We Teach Him Like One?

By: Mayra Coyoy

Word Count: 619

Estimated Read Time: 3 Mins

Dolores Huerta (far right) with the National Executive Board of the United Farm Workers, California, circa 1975, including Cesar Chavez and other leaders. (Photo by Cathy Murphy/Getty Images)

For decades, Cesar Chavez has been celebrated as a symbol of justice, sacrifice, and progress among Latinos. His name is attached to schools, streets, and a national holiday. In classrooms, he is often presented as a hero, someone students are encouraged not just to learn about, but to admire. 

But as new information and the constantly evolving standards reshape how society evaluates its history makers and leaders, it may be time to ask a more complex question: are we teaching history, or are we teaching mythology?

Objectively speaking, Cesar Chavez’s contributions are undeniable. As one of the co-founders of the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA), he helped organize strikes and boycotts that improved wages and working conditions for farm workers across the United States. His commitment to nonviolence and grassroots activism made him one of the most influential labor leaders in American history. 

For many, especially within Latino communities, Chavez represents empowerment and long-overdue recognition.

However, this version of Chavez is incomplete.

His legacy has often included criticism, particularly regarding his stance on undocumented workers. During labor disputes, undocumented immigrants were sometimes used as strikebreakers. In response, Chavez and members of the union took steps to report or remove them. Critics argue that it harmed vulnerable Latino workers and caused division within the very community he aimed to uplift. 

Moreover, journalist Miriam Patel, author of The Crusades of Cesar Chavez, stated that Chavez often used the term “wetbacks” to talk in a derogatory manner about undocumented immigrants. 

However, people such as Arizona State University Professor Matthew Garcia said: “Mexican-American and Latinos have a need for heroes for pinning their hopes and their dreams and their sense of themselves onto a kind of saintly figure.

San Francisco, March 18, 2026: A mural of Cesar Chavez is displayed; he has been accused of abuse within the farm worker movement.

More recently, Chavez’s legacy has come under renewed scrutiny. A 2026 investigation by The New York Times reported multiple sexual allegations  involving Chavez, including accounts from women who say they were harmed while involved in the movement, along with allegations of sexual misconduct with minors.

2017 Sundance Film Festival: Dolores Huerta, featured in the documentary Dolores, photographed in Park City, Utah (Jan. 20, 2017) for the Los Angeles Times.

Among those who have spoken is Dolores Huerta, Chavez’s longtime colleague, who described experiences of coercion and assault. While these claims remain allegations, their emergence has sparked a broader public conversation about how society should judge the legacies of influential figures.

This question is not unique to Cesar Chavez. Historical figures like Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., and Thomas Jefferson are often taught as heroes, yet they have documented complexities that challenge that image.

The pattern is clear: history, or at least its portrayal, often reduces individuals to symbols, glossing over contradictions to emphasize inspiration. 

But inspiration without honesty comes at a cost.

In settings such as classrooms, when presenting historical figures as flawless, they discourage critical thinking. Students are not required to wrestle with moral complexity or to consider how goodness and harm can coexist within the same individual. Instead, they are given simplified narratives that prioritize admiration over understanding. 

If the goal of education is not just to inform but to develop critical thinkers, then classrooms should move beyond hero worship. They must embrace nuance, even when it is uncomfortable.