It took seven years of lobbying and legislative efforts in California to establish March 31 as Cesar Chavez Day, an official paid state holiday.
Now, two weeks after reports of sexual assault allegations against Chavez, one of the most prominent civil rights leaders of the 20th century, Gavin Newsom has officially renamed Cesar Chavez Day to “Farmworkers Day.”
Around the country and in our local community of Long Beach, city officials have already begun erasing his name from numerous schools, parks, streets, and community centers.
This comes after the New York Times investigation featuring at least three women who came forward and accused Chavez, co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America (UFW) founded in 1962, of grooming and sexually assaulting them. At least three survivors came forward, including Dolores Huerta, Ana Murguia, and Debra Rojas.
Huerta is a renowned civil rights leader who was Chavez’s partner in the Farmworker Movement. She conducted strikes and boycotts with Mexican and Filipino farmworkers, among other minorities, that eventually led to better wages and working conditions for them.
The report outlined alleged abuse by Chavez, including assaults against Murguia and Rojas as children and Huerta as an adult. The abuse reportedly resulted in two pregnancies by Huerta, fathered by Chavez, dating back to the 1960s. These two kids were given away by Huerta to be raised by others.
Huerta indicated she kept the pregnancies secret to protect the movement and those who could benefit from it.
In the wake of the report, LBCC Superintendent-President Mike Munoz released an email statement on March 19 calling for the suspension of all upcoming events and programming associated with Cesar Chavez.
An “Organizing 101” workshop in his name was scheduled on March 24, which was intended to offer an introduction on how people can “build collective power in workplaces and communities” by creating campaigns and ultimately change. This workshop was canceled following the statement’s release.
In response to the report, the LBCC District Board of Trustees will be voting on a proposal to name or rename facilities or programs after Huerta or others associated with the labor organization, as said in the email statement.
While honoring figures like Huerta is important, replacing Chavez with other individuals raises a broader concern about whether recognition should move beyond a singular leader to better reflect the many people who shaped the movement.
When speaking to the Viking News, Mike Munoz said, “board policy and administrative procedures really outline the process for naming buildings and when we review that policy, built into most contracts agreements is a way to exit out of the naming should there be something that come to light that would create an embarrassment or an issue for the college or that would be direct conflict with our values… giving us the ability to address that should those things arise.”
The discussion around the renaming of buildings and streets also highlights the need for institutions to be diligent in their selection process and to ensure that the individuals honored are deserving of such recognition.
“Anyone who is considering naming a building after someone needs to find out their history and research the personal details that might come out in the future,” Board of Trustees member Vivan Malauulu said.
The public concern is not just about individual wrongdoing, but about how naming buildings after single figures can overshadow the broader Farmworker Movement and the millions of people whose collective efforts made it possible.
Ethnic studies professor at LBCC, Candace Dickerson, addresses concerns about simply replacing one individual with another.
“I think we have to be careful that we’re not just replacing one name with another because then we’re still centering a single person. The Farmworker Movement was never about just one individual; it was about thousands of workers, families, and organizers who sacrificed so much. When we shift recognition from one figure to another, we are still overlooking those collective contributions,” Dickerson said
She emphasized the importance of approaching this moment with nuance and critical reflection.
“I think that ethnic studies can hold both truths, that we can honor the struggle, especially here with labor rights, but then also take the allegations and survivors seriously. It’s not one or the other, it’s both,” Dickerson said.
She continued, “This allows us to move forward, because it is about the movement and not about one particular person… we forget about the workers themselves, the thousands of people whose sacrifices made the movement possible.”
As institutions continue to grasp how to respond, the conversation is shifting beyond the legacy of any one individual. Instead, it raises broader questions about how history is remembered, who is recognized, and whether true acknowledgment lies with a single figure or a collective behind them.
