BY ARLENE RUBINSTEIN
ALBANY, Georgia - More than 700 farmers filled the Civic
Center here February 13 to find out about the proposed
settlement of a class-action lawsuit against the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). The suit demands redress for
years of discrimination against farmers who are Black.
The meeting was part of the annual Georgia Farmers Conference Marketing and Trade Show sponsored by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund (FSC/LAF). The discussion and debate among farmers and lawyers reflected tensions over crucial issues in the suit.
Attorneys for the farmers and for the USDA have already agreed to the deal. The federal judge in the case has also given his preliminary approval and is expected to finalize the deal at a March 2 "fairness hearing." Many farmers think that the terms of the consent decree are inadequate. Small groups of farmers opposed to the settlement attended the February 13 meeting to educate fellow farmers on its real content and urge them to continue the fight. A group of 13 farmers from Tennessee and Arkansas held up signs throughout the meeting that read, "Don't get railroaded. Avoid Track A and B," "Avoid the Spring Round-up - Opt Out," and "Keep [the] $50,000. We want our land back."
The consent decree as it stands, is divided into two tracks. Those farmers who settle for track A and meet the requirements are promised $50,000 in a cash payment along with relief from debts to the USDA that they can prove are the result of past discrimination. Farmers who go for Track B are eligible for a greater amount of relief but must meet much higher standards of proof. Track B claims are decided by a mediator whose decision is final, including if he decides that the farmer is ineligible for any relief. Claims that are rejected under either track cannot be appealed, and a farmer who settles for Track B cannot go back to A.
The meeting began with long presentations by several of the attorneys in the suit, and remarks by Rosalind Gray, Director of the USDA Civil Rights Division. Then Rev. Joseph Lowery, convener of the Coordinating Council of Black Farm Groups, chaired a discussion period.
Thomas Burrell, who presently farms cotton and soybeans in Covington, Tennessee, was the first speaker. Burrell is well- known to many farmers. In 1981 he led a 21-day sit-in at his county Farmers Home Administration office. Burrell and 11 other Black farmers were fighting the very same things that farmers are protesting now - that the USDA and its county committee system were co-conspirators in the systematic denial of farm loans. Farmers from the Missouri and Oklahoma chapters of the American Agriculture Movement also joined the sit-in for a few days.
Later in 1981, Burrell was charged with a nine-count federal indictment for alleged misuse of government funds, which carried a jail term of up to 45 years. He was not granted any loans while the charges were pending and as a result lost his 4,000 acre farm. The case against him was later dropped.
"For all of those who have ever worked on the land, who have ever farmed, for those who have done without, all of the diabetes, all of the heartache, with everything else that we have suffered, the settlement that we are talking about here is totally inadequate and will not do any of us justice, " began Burrell.
"Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glick-man's admission of racial discrimination toward Black farmers is admission to guilt to a lessor crime. The real crime of the USDA is not discrimination, but expropriation of the land ownership of Black America. The proposed $375 million settlement is not indicative of the value of the land - of the dispossession of 16,000,000 acres - taken from Black farmers."
J. L. Chestnut, a prominent Alabama civil rights attorney, responded that no lawyer associated with the current lawsuit would try to stop any farmer from trying to recover land. "But let me tell you about my pedigree with Black folk. I was the only Black lawyer in Selma in 1959 when 150 Blacks were registered to vote out of 150,000. My office has been shot at more times than a Hollywood cowboy," Chestnut continued. "I think the lawsuit is a signal achievement. Like I told you, it does not solve all of your problems. We are lawyers, not magicians."
The next speaker at the microphone was Eddie Slaughter, a Buena Vista, Georgia, farmer and the vice president of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association (BFAA). The BFAA is holding a rally on March 2 in Washington, D.C., and is organizing farmers to attend the hearing on the consent decree. "When the government does not admit discrimination, when the consent decree does not force the USDA to investigate, sanction or remove those persons responsible for discrimination, and when this is all over, and we are once again faced with retaliation, racism and discrimination -because it has not stopped - it is continuing to this day, then we have to say this settlement does not address the problem, does not address our condition."
Slaughter also demanded that the government pay punitive damages, and that lead attorney Alexander Pires explain why no discovery motions were filed against the government.
Willie Head, Jr., a third generation farmer from Pavo, Georgia, and leader of the Georgia FSC/LAF was the next speaker. His objections were the discrepancies between "what the lawyers told us verbally and what came in the claim package." Quoting from the government forms, he read, " `You must attach to the claim sheet documentation for each item you check. If you do not attach proof, your claim will be rejected.' Why do the farmers once again have to prove discrimination?" he asked.
Referring to some of the comments by the lawyers and Lowery, Head and other farmers appealed to the speakers to respect their audience. "There have been a lot of jokes here and that's OK because we need humor in our lives. But we need to be serious. We need answers, so that later we won't have tears."
Larry Vanderbilt, a cattle farmer from Mason, Tennessee, reprimanded J.L. Chestnut for "calling us fools, because we are protesting, and carrying our picket signs, doing what we have to do."
Other farmers raised questions about relief from bank loans borrowed when the USDA denied them government loans. These loans are not covered under the terms of the settlement. A farmer from Savannah who is fighting foreclosure appealed for help. He was told by lawyer Pires that his situation "fell between the cracks."
After the meeting was adjourned, farmers stayed around to talk to the attorneys and to farmers who had protested the settlement.