14 Apr ‘Rethinking His Legacy Doesn’t Mean Erasing History’: Kennedy Students Reflect on César Chávez

César Chávez sits for an interview in 1979. (Photo by Marion S. Trikosko / U.S. News & World Report via Library of Congress / public domain)

Editor’s note: A March investigation by The New York Times reported allegations that César Chávez — long seen as a central figure in the farmworker rights movement — sexually abused teenage girls and raped fellow labor leader Dolores Huerta. In response, we asked a class of students at Kennedy High School in Richmond to examine Chávez’s legacy, reflect on what they had previously learned about him and consider how he should be taught today. We also invited them to share how the allegations affect their views and to think about what it means to “unlearn” or reconsider a public figure’s legacy. Responses have been lightly edited for clarity. This is part 1 of 2. (Read Part 2.)

Commentary, Various Authors 

In school, César Chávez was taught as a peaceful leader who fought for farmworkers’ rights through nonviolent activism. I learned about the United Farm Workers, the grape boycott, and his use of fasting to protest unfair conditions. Lessons and César Chávez Day activities focused on values like perseverance, unity and standing up for justice. This shaped my view of leadership as being about discipline and helping others instead of just using “power.” Chávez’s story made activism feel achievable, showing how ordinary people can create change, even though the lessons sometimes simplified the broader struggles behind his work. 

“Unlearning” a public figure’s legacy means looking beyond the simplified version that we were taught and recognizing both achievements and flaws. In César Chávez’s case, new information and allegations oppose the image of him where he was seen as only a heroic, nonviolent leader. Rethinking his legacy doesn’t mean erasing history; it can be a form of accountability. Removing his name from certain places may hold him to a higher standard, but it also risks reducing him to just his controversies instead of acknowledging his full impact.  

Personally, it doesn’t completely change how I see him, but it does make me question how one-sided his story was in school. And with the recent news and allegations, schools should now teach Chávez in a more balanced and honest way. This means including both his role in fighting for farmworkers’ rights and the criticisms or controversies surrounding his leadership. I would also add more perspectives from farmworkers, women, and other leaders in the movement, not just Chávez himself. I’ve seen mixed reactions from others. Some people think this new information is important for accountability, while others feel it disrespects his legacy or erases Latino history. Overall, it seems like more people are pushing for a deeper, more complete understanding rather than a simplified version.
— Joshua Morales, 16 

César Chávez has been taught as a good leader who fought for farmers. I learned about him and the United Farm Workers in elementary school. Honestly, I didn’t learn much about Dolores Huerta, so it was like César Chávez overshadowed her. When I was a kid, I used to think César Chávez was a good person, and I saw him as a strong leader. I also learned that the United Farm Workers were underpaid, which is why they decided to go on strike, and it was all thanks to César Chávez, according to textbooks. 

Rethinking a public figure’s legacy could be for better or worse. In this case, it’s worse because César Chávez has [allegedly] committed awful actions. I think that removing his name [from streets, the holiday named for him, etc.] counts as accountability. This news did put him in a new light for me, and I was shocked to find out that [he could have done] such things. I thought he was cool up until I received the news. I’m disappointed in César Chávez, and I feel sorry for his [alleged] victims. I wish them a nice recovery. I feel like instead of Chávez, schools should teach about Dolores Huerta instead. I recently learned that she did much more than Chávez. After what Dolores has been through, she deserves to have the spotlight now.
— Aria Palacios, 17 

In many classrooms, César Chávez is taught as the quintessential face of the 1960s labor movement, often framed through the lens of nonviolent protest and moral conviction. Lessons typically center on the Delano grape strike and his use of hunger strikes, drawing direct parallels to the tactics of Martin Luther King Jr. By emphasizing values like sacrificio (sacrifice) and “Si Se Puede” (“Yes, we can”), schools present him as a leader who transformed manual labor into a cause for civil rights. This focus highlights the achievement of the first major union contracts for farmworkers, framing his legacy as a triumph of persistence and grassroots organizing. These lessons often serve as a primary entry point into Latino history for many students, shaping an understanding of leadership that is collective rather than purely individualistic. By learning about the United Farm Workers, students see activism as a tool for the marginalized to demand dignity and basic protections, like clean water and rest breaks. However, this narrative sometimes simplifies the broader movement, often overlooking the essential contributions of co-founder Dolores Huerta or the Filipino organizers like Larry Itliong. Despite those gaps, the core message taught in schools remains clear: Chávez represents the power of organized labor and the idea that social change begins with the people at the bottom of the economic ladder. 

Rethinking a legacy in light of such serious allegations is a process of shifting from mythology to accountability. Removing a name isn’t necessarily “erasing” history; rather, it’s a refusal to grant the highest civic honors to someone whose private actions caused profound harm. For many, this news is deeply disillusioning because Chávez was a symbol of moral authority. However, moving toward “Farmworkers Day” shifts the focus from a single, flawed individual to the collective struggle of thousands. It acknowledges that while the movement’s goals — dignity, fair pay, and safety — remain sacred, the leader himself was not. In schools, the curriculum should move away from “Great Man” history and toward a more honest, multi-perspective narrative. Instead of teaching Chávez as a saint-like figure, lessons should center on the diverse coalition of leaders like Huerta and Itliong, while also addressing the complexities of power and the importance of protecting the vulnerable within social movements. Online and in community circles, the conversation is polarized: Some feel that his labor achievements should be decoupled from his personal failings, while others, especially younger activists, argue that ignoring systemic abuse undermines the very social justice values the movement claimed to represent.
— Sarah Almorisi, 17 

In school, César Chávez was usually taught as this super calm but powerful leader who stood up for farmworkers using nonviolence. We mostly learned about the grape boycott and how he organized people to protest unfair working conditions. Teachers and assemblies really emphasized values like staying strong, working together, and fighting for justice in a peaceful way. César Chávez Day activities made it feel like he was this symbol of doing the right thing, even when it’s hard, and someone who used his voice to make real change. It’s not just about being in charge but about standing up for people who don’t always get heard. At the same time, the way it was taught felt a little simplified, like we didn’t always go deep into the struggles or the bigger picture of Latino history. Still, it made activism feel more relatable, like regular people can come together and actually make a difference if they’re committed. 

“Unlearning” a public figure’s legacy just means realizing the version we learned was kind of simplified and not the full story. With César Chávez, it’s not about saying he didn’t do important things, because he did, but more about understanding that he wasn’t perfect either. I don’t think removing his name automatically fixes anything; it can feel like accountability if it comes with real explanation, but if it’s just done quietly, it kind of feels like avoiding the issue instead of actually teaching it. For me, the news didn’t totally change how I feel, but it did make me question how much schools leave out and how often we’re given a “clean” version of history.  

I think schools should still teach [about] César Chávez, just in a more honest way. Keep the parts about the strikes and organizing, but also talk about the criticisms and different perspectives, so students can actually think for themselves. I’ve seen a lot of different opinions from people around me and online; some think people are overreacting and that he should still be celebrated, while others feel like we shouldn’t ignore the negative parts just because he’s important. It’s kind of split, which makes sense, but it also shows why schools should stop acting like history is just one simple story.
— Samantha Villanueva, 16 

I learned that César Chávez was a man who stood up for his people and how he helped his people grow and be better. When I learned about César Chávez, teachers would use words like hero, good, inspiring and leader. All of this shaped the history of Hispanics in a good way and a way of still having hope and positivity in the Hispanic world. They taught us that people like him are what makes Hispanic culture nowadays. Textbooks and teachers would tell us the amazing work and things he did and how he was brave enough to stand for his people. I have always seen César Chávez as a hero and a good person that made an impact on many people. 

I think what it means to unlearn or rethink a public figure’s legacy by learning new information is kind of pointless because this information might circle up to the surface, but you never [know] if it’s fake or true. I think removing Chávez’s name is erasing history because whether he did something or not, I am not sure about that. But whether he did or not, he made a change in the world that we live in. The reason why Hispanics have more freedom than back then is because of people like him. When I heard about this news, it truly broke my heart because it feels this country is trying to erase Hispanics for good, not only people but also figures that have inspired Hispanic/Latino people to be better and that there is hope. I think schools should keep teaching about César Chávez the way it was always taught because, if we are being real, we don’t have many Hispanic figures like him to lead by example. For now, I haven’t heard anything from people [I know], but there has been a lot of fuss about it on the internet.
— Estrella Calderon, 17