From early mornings to heated debates, the human stories behind the farm labor movement unfolded before me.
The monumental downfall of the late farm labor leader Cesar Chavez brings back vivid memories of my time as a young journalist covering the grape strike in California’s San Joaquin Valley vineyards during the 1970s.
It was a slice of a defining moment not just for farmworkers, but for the broader American labor and civil rights landscape. And it felt that way on the ground as I drove to vineyards and fields ready to gather details with notebook in hand.
It seemed that dust always hung in the air over the fields. I know that sounds like a writer’s cliche, but that’s my memory more than four decades later. The picket lines stretched along rural roads, and sheriff’s deputies were there to keep the peace.
What I saw was a standoff between growers and workers that wasn’t just symbolic. It was raw, immediate, and unresolved. I saw it up close on a blistering August day in 1973 at a vineyard in Fresno County.
Growers and their allies took up their positions ready to defend the harvest. Across from them, hundreds of United Farm Workers picketers held the line on the dirt shoulder of the public road. Many were Catholic nuns and priests. Others were young activists who had driven for hours to be there. The scene had the feel of a moral crusade as much as a labor dispute.
And that was no accident. Figures like Joan Baez and Daniel Ellsberg didn’t show up because this was just about wages and working conditions. They came because Chavez and UFW co-founder Dolores Huerta had successfully reframed the fight. They turned a local struggle into a national test of conscience.
That reframing was their genius.
On this summer day, reporters and cameras lined the road beside a Fresno County vineyard because Joan Baez and Daniel Ellsberg were there. This moment mattered in part because the movement could now be seen on national television, even if only in a 30-second sound bite.
Two exchanges that morning stayed with me all thee years later. Ellsberg, trying to make small talk with the farmers, approached a farmer’s wife holding an American flag and asked if he could hold it. She replied, “Bring your own flag, Mr. Ellsberg.” He quietly responded that she should take good care of hers.
The second involved a farmer’s daughter who had once been a fan of Baez. The 17-year-old walked out of the vineyard carrying one of Baez’s albums and handed it to the singer, saying she could no longer keep it because Baez was supporting the enemies of her family.
Baez and the girl had a quiet exchange and Baez would later say she understood the girl’s reasoning. Baez would later sing to the farmers in the vineyard, a powerful moment for the farmworkers.
So the UFW understood something many traditional labor leaders did not: The optics mattered as much as contracts. By invoking sacrifice, faith, and nonviolence, they drew in Hollywood, clergy, students, and East Coast liberals. They made farmworkers who were once invisible impossible to look away from.
Chavez’s charisma was undeniable. It energized a generation and helped drive real change. But charisma can also concentrate power, discourage dissent, and shield leaders from accountability. The same force that elevated Chavez helped insulate him as he carried out horrific abuses against women and children.
His reckoning arrived only days ago (more than three decades after his death) when The New York Times published a meticulously reported investigation detailing his abuses, drawing on documents and firsthand accounts from his victims. It was a takedown no crisis communications expert could have blunted. I’ve rarely seen the “other side” fold so swiftly and completely. In this case, everyone seemed to accept the allegations as undeniably true.
I’ll leave the deep analysis to other pundits, and in this piece I want to talk about what I saw as a reporter for The Fresno Bee observing the UFW picket lines in Fresno, Tulare and Kern counties. What I witnessed in those fields was real conviction and real showmanship.
What followed, as with so many movements built around towering figures, is far more complicated. For now, we know how the Chavez story ends. But the story along the way is powerful.
“Don’t eat grapes” became the rallying cry of the UFW as they were trying to bring grape growers to the bargaining table. What made the slogan powerful was its simplicity. It turned everyday consumers into participants in the struggle.
The union’s nationwide boycott of major grocery chains such as Safeway proved crucial. Picket lines appeared not only in California but outside supermarkets in cities like New York, Boston, and Chicago, where volunteers urged shoppers to reconsider their purchases of table grapes. The economic pressure mounted steadily, forcing growers to confront a reality they could no longer ignore.
I also saw a sense of momentum. A movement rooted in the fields of the San Joaquin Valley rippled outward, reshaping public opinion across the country about the role of farmworkers in putting food on the table in American homes.
Chavez’s fasting campaigns drew national attention. Huerta’s fiery speeches energized crowds, and the union’s disciplined nonviolence (at lest outwardly) gave it moral authority. For a time, it seemed as though the movement had tapped into something larger than itself.
And yet, that is what makes the later unraveling feel so monumental. The very qualities that built the movement would, over time, contribute to internal strains and missed opportunities.
Looking back, those early days in the fields and on the picket lines still hum with the electricity of possibility, and also carry the quiet weight of what might have been. I hope the Chavez mess does not besmirch the dignity of the Valley’s farmworkers or the vital work they do every day to keep our economy moving.
Institute for Media and Public Trust at Fresno State 
Leave a comment