For those of you not in the United States, about a month ago it was reveled that a very famous (now dead) labor organizer named Cesar Chaves was in fact a serial sexual predator. He organized the migrant farm workers in the west, especially California in the 1970s. He got them unionized, which brought them health care and decent wages.

Even his right-hand aide in the in the movement, Dolores Huerta, who is still alive, came out and said she was raped by Chaves, but never reported it, and never spoke of it until last month.

To give you an idea of how big he was, there are over 50 schools in California alone named after him. Also multiple parks, rec centers, and streets. California even has a state holiday named after him.

Recently, comedian and political commentator Bill Maher on his show “Real Time” commented on the Chaves controversy. Maher pointed out that Chavez “undeniably made the lives of millions better.” But he also posed the question: “If you could go back in time and kill him to spare the young girls he assaulted, would you?”

“A purist says yes. I say no,” he continued. “Which is also what Dolores Huerta said. She was Chavez’s right-hand aide in the movement, and also one of his rape victims.” He shared a quote from Huerta explaining why she didn’t come forward after allegedly being assaulted by Chavez.

The formation of a union was the only vehicle to accomplish and secure (farmworkers) rights, and I wasn’t going to let Cesar or anyone else get in the way, the farmworker movement has always been bigger and far more important than any one individual.

Dolores Huerta

While removing Chaves from the farm workers cause would not have stopped the work, it would have been a major impediment, and likely set back the gains made by many years. Chavez’s personal reputation was central to the movement. He wasn’t just an organizer, he was the public face and moral symbol of the struggle. He drew heavily on nonviolence, sacrifice, and religious imagery (inspired in part by figures like Mahatma Gandhi). An early scandal involving a serious crime would have undermined that moral authority. Many supporters, especially religious groups, middle-class allies, and students, might have distanced themselves quickly.

As I found myself being sympathetic with Huerta’s decisions, I wondered if I was hypocritical by not taking the same position with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or any other Church member that has done a lot of good, but also hurt people.

Is the Mormon Church “far more important than any one individual”? I think this is the mindset of our current leadership. In a 1987 Ensign article, then Apostle Dallin Oaks said “It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true”. The idea being that it may harm the Church, and it is more important to protect the Church, and all the good it can do (bringing salvation to the world) than to hurt the cause by criticizing the leader. Is this on the same level as Huerta’s decision not to report (criticize) Chaves? Or is this different?

Is this the same mindset that the Church takes today in telling Bishops not to report sexual assault on children that was learned in a confession? In reporting to authorities, it could make the local (or national) news, and make the Church look bad, and reduce the likelihood that people will join the Church. Again, is the Church “far more important than any one individual”?

What do you think of Huerta’s decision not to report Chaves? If she did she could have saved other young girls from his assaults, but destroyed all the advances they had made in the farm workers movement. Is her decision any different from the Church trying to protect all the good it has done by keeping sexual assaults by members out of the courts?

Are the inactions by Huerta and the Mormon Church any different from how the MAGA faithful treat Trump? They let him get away with just about anything, because to them it is more important to ignore Trumps sins so as not to take down the great good he is doing.

Your thoughts?