BY FRANK FORRESTAL AND JAMES HARRIS
DURHAM, North Carolina - About 120 people attended the 3rd National Black Land Loss Summit and first national meeting of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association (BFAA) here February 19-20. The gathering marked an advance for farmers seeking ways to advance their fight to keep their land. The meeting was all business, marked by civil debate and give-and- take discussion. Many drove all night to get to the meeting on time.

Reaching out to other farmers and mobilizing others to attend the March 2 hearing on a proposed settlement in a class- action discrimination suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) were the most important decisions taken at the meeting.

The BFAA adopted a clear position in opposition to the proposed consent decree settlement, which they argue will not stem the rapid loss of land by farmers who are Black. Many of the farmers present are part of the suit, which was filed against the USDA in 1996 demanding redress for decades of discrimination.

According to a press release issued by the Land Loss Prevention Project, close to 1,000 farmers and farm groups, approximately 25 percent of those involved in the suit, will file an objection to the proposed consent decree.

Conference participants learned more about the content of the proposed settlement, noting in particular contradictions between what lawyers for the settlement have told farmers and what is actually written in the consent decree and claim sheet.

The consent decree is divided into two tracks, A and B. Farmers who settle for track A and meet the "substantial evidence" requirements contained in the settlement are promised $50,000, along with relief from USDA debts that farmers can prove are the result of past discrimination. Track B allows for greater relief, but farmers who choose this path must meet a much higher standard of proof.

One farmer from Oklahoma, capturing the spirit of many at the meeting, said, "With $50,000 I can't come close to getting my land back. $50,000 is chicken feed. It is an insult to our heritage." Farmers said they should receive at least $250,000-$300,000.

Farmers who are Black are losing farm land at a rate two- and-a-half times faster than U.S. farmers as a whole. They face the same conditions as all working farmers - low commodity prices, debt, and threat of foreclosure - plus the added onus of racist discrimination. Over a 15-year period from 1978 to 1992, farmers who are Black lost half their land - down from 57,000 farms and 4.2 million acres of land in 1978 to 18,816 farms and 2.3 million acres in 1992.

The meeting consisted of two plenary sessions and workshops. Of the 120 participants, 80-90 were farmers, the biggest number of them from North Carolina and Georgia. Smaller groups of farmers came from Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Tennessee. Students, academics, trade unionists, farm activists, and a few lawyers also attended.

During the first plenary discussion, BFAA president Gary Grant pointed to the large agribusiness monopolies that exploit working farmers. "This fight is not just about the Black farmer, it is just as much about all family farmers," he said. Grant noted that New York dairy farmers, most of whom are white, are being foreclosed on at an accelerated rate. In addition, Grant said, the BFAA was proud to stand up for the locked-out Crown oil workers in Texas, who just held a successful rally marking the third anniversary of their struggle.

`We need moratorium on foreclosures'
"Right now I'm being jammed by the bank, who's ready to pull the plug on me," said Wayne Alexander, a farmer from Stafford, Texas. "We need a moratorium on all bank foreclosures. We need to get the word out that we mean business." A later plenary session adopted the call for a moratorium.

"We want our day in court," said Eddie Slaughter, a leader of the BFAA and a farmer from Georgia, "and we demand that the government pay punitive damages." Slaughter brought to everyone's attention the fact that the settlement does not allow discovery motions, a legal procedure through which farmers could collect evidence that could be used in trial proceedings. As it stands now, the burden of proof is on the farmers.

For example, the claim sheet farmers must fill out to apply for redress reads, "Identify... the name and address of each white farmer who was situated similarly to you, and state in detail the specific manner in which your treatment was different from the treatment accorded each such white farmer."

Not having the tool of discovery makes this nearly impossible. "How are we supposed to get this information?" asked one farmer at the meeting.

"This is one of the main reasons we should reject the settlement," said Stephon Bowens, executive director of the Land Loss Prevention Project (LLPP), organized by the North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers. "Most of you won't be able to get the information you need. What's in the consent decree does not set the stage for getting financial relief." The LLPP has filed an objection to the consent decree on behalf of 150 farmers. A February 12 press release by the LLPP explains the reasons for the objection:

"The proposed Consent Decree does not provide relief to all affected black farmers. Relief is limited to those black farmers who complained between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996.

"The proposed compensation does not cover the average black farmer's outstanding debt not owed to the USDA which is a direct result of the discriminatory actions/omissions by USDA.

"The proposed Consent Decree does not require USDA to admit its liability or discriminatory practices.

"The proposed relief is not equitable among the class members; it fails to account for the farmers' individual actual damages and lost opportunities.

"The proposed Consent Decree does not require systematic change by USDA. There is no requirement that USDA employees who openly and blatantly belittled, misinformed, ignored, threatened and otherwise discriminated against black farmers will be sanctioned and/or terminated despite well documented incidents of discrimination."

Need to reach out to other farmers
Farmers at the conference realize they are a distinct minority up against the USDA, the Clinton administration, a battery of well-paid attorneys, the big-business media, as well as the NAACP, the AFL-CIO officialdom, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, mainstream farm groups, and a host of others.

How to confront this was taken up at the workshop entitled: "What do Black farmers and landowners want." The clearest position was presented by Thomas Burrell, a longtime farm leader from Covington, Tennessee. He stressed that in addition to racial discrimination, which he called a "lesser crime," the main crime is the fact that farmers who are Black are losing their land. (see below).

At the workshop, Burrell described organizing farmers in his home state. "Most were lulled to sleep by the settlement lawyers, who have convincing arguments. These farmers think they are going to get $50,000," said Burrell. "We organized a meeting of 50 farmers and invited Stephon Bowens, who explained why the settlement should be opposed. Finally, there was another version beside the USDA one," said Burrell. "These farmers have heard both sides, and many are against it now."

Burrell also talked of the need to reach out to farmers who are directly affected by the settlement, more than to the NAACP and churches. "They are selling this settlement all over the South," he said.

"Everybody is saying take the agreement. We need to go to these meetings with placards protesting the settlement and talk to farmers," he said.

To underscore the point, Burrell brought a dozen placards that he and other farmers used at an Albany, Georgia, meeting the previous weekend. The February 13 meeting in Georgia, sponsored by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund (FSC/LAF), was designed to sell the settlement to the affected farmers. Despite opposition from FSC leaders, Burrell led a group of farmers into the meeting who held there signs up during the entire meeting. More than 700 farmers attended.

"We came in a bus with farmers from Tennessee and Arkansas. By picketing inside the meeting farmers came to us with questions and found out the truth. If we hadn't protested, they wouldn't know what was going on." During the BFAA meeting Burrell was talking up the need to protest the next meeting to sell the settlement, which will take place in Pine Bluffs, Arkansas on February 24.

Five more meetings of this character are planned in March. The meetings, all of which are scheduled from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., include: Orangeburg, South Carolina, March 4, Smith, Hamilton, Middleton Memorial Center; Fresno, California, March 5, Law Offices of Richtel & Smith; Baton Rouge, Louisiana, March 10, Southern University and A & M College Smith-Brown Memorial Union; Langston, Oklahoma, March 18, Langston University, Multi-Purpose Building; and Memphis, Tennessee, March 23, Martin Luther King, Jr. Labor Center.

The meeting ended with a clear vote on opposing the USDA settlement and working to organize the largest turnout possible at the March 2 hearing in Washington, D.C. Gary Grant was elected president of the BFAA and Eddie Slaughter was elected vice president. Farmers left the meeting determined to make March 2 a rallying point for advancing their struggle for justice on the land.

Frank Forrestal and James Harris are members of the United Transportation Union.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home