Long-Standing Boycott Shouldn't Be Supported

The Crimson staff, in declaring its opposition to the return of grapes to the dining halls (Staff Editorial, "No Grapes: Support Grape Pickers" Nov. 4), has opted to accept the United Farm Workers' (UFW) version of events in California instead of considering the true facts of the situation. As a native of one of California's most productive agricultural areas, I am disturbed that The Crimson has chosen to perpetuate myth and an unjustified boycott. I urge The Crimson to rescind its editorial support of a 14-year-old boycott against an industry that is a leader in providing good wages, benefits and working conditions to its employees--a boycott that has been rejected by farm workers themselves. Consider these facts:

1. Farm workers in California are protected under a comprehensive state law allowing them to select through secret ballot which union, if any, they want to represent them. Time and again, California farm workers have rejected the UFW as their representative and have selected other unions to represent them.

2. Roman Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahoney, who marched with UFW founder Cesar Chavez, came out against the UFW's grape boycott because of California's unique labor relations law that protects farm workers. Mahoney served as the first chair of California's Agricultural Labor Relations Board. Massachusetts does not have this type of protective farm labor law and many growers in this state perpetuate poor conditions for farm workers.

3. California farmers do not harvest grapes year-round. From late November until May, all grapes sold and consumed in the United States are imported from foreign countries, in most cases South American nations. Therefore, a ban on grapes at Harvard during the school year would hurt foreign producers more than it would hurt the California producers that are targeted by the UFW.

4. The boycott did not originate as a protest against working conditions, as the staff editorial indicates. In fact, the boycott began in 1984 as a complaint against California's governor at the time. The following year, the boycott campaign expanded to focus on the elimination of pesticides. Working conditions have always been a concern of the UFW, but they were not the original reason for the boycott. Additionally, Stanford University does not currently endorse the grape boycott, as the Crimson staff indicated.

5. In accepting the UFW's statements about working conditions, the Crimson staff exposes its lack of knowledge about present-day conditions on California farms. True, when the UFW began its campaign for better working conditions in the 1960s, working conditions on many farms were poor. Today, however, farms are held to strict regulations when it comes to field sanitation, health insurance, drinking water and pesticide use. Growers who apply pesticides to their crops (and nearly all do) must file pesticide application records with local authorities, and must keep workers out of those fields for a specified number of days after application. The UFW has met with limited success recently in unionizing California farm workers due in part to the excellent working conditions that most farm workers currently experience. --Adam R. Kovacevich '99