Black farmers and family members from Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Kentucky, and elsewhere in the Southeast turned out for the conference. The meeting featured workshops on credit unions, cooperative development, the 2002 federal farm bill, sustainable agriculture and forestry, and other topics.

A discussion on the ongoing battle against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) over the settlement of a class-action lawsuit in which the agency admitted widespread discrimination against Black farmers received the most interest. Many members of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund (FSC/LAF) are party to the lawsuit and active in the fight.

The FSC/LAF’s conference also drew participation by USDA officials, members of several farm activist organizations, and academics.

Through marches, protest actions, and the class-action lawsuit, Black farmers were able to bring to public light widespread discrimination by the USDA in granting loans and other assistance--actions that helped to hasten Black land loss across the country.

In 1999 the UDSA signed a consent decree settling the lawsuit. Farmers who filed claims of discrimination were told that with minimum documentation--often hard to come by--they could receive $50,000 in tax-free grants from the government, as well as debt relief. This resolution, however, grew more and more entangled.

Since the settlement, some 12,800 Black farmers have been paid a total of $623 million, and around $17.2 million in loans have been forgiven. But as many as 40 percent of the farmers who filed a claim have been rejected. Many are appealing the decision, a complex and time-consuming process at best. In some cases, farmers who appealed have finally received their due. Another 60,000 farmers missed the original deadline. After another round of protest they were allowed to submit claims by September 2000, but few have been added to the list of approved claims.  
 
‘Double betrayal’
When the consent decree was first proposed as a way to settle the lawsuit, the attorneys handling the suit argued forcefully in mass meetings held around the country that the farmers should take the deal. Many farmers expressed serious reservations about the outcome, with many of them opposing the consent decree outright.

To add to the outrages committed against these farmers, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., recently issued a decision blasting the attorneys. The judges said the lawyers’ incompetent handling of the farmers’ claims bordered on malpractice, amounting to a "double betrayal" of the farmers. After receiving more than $14 million in payments from the government, the law firms representing the farmers failed to meet deadlines for filing papers so that individual farmers could get their settlements.

At the FSC/LAF meeting, a representative of the court-appointed monitor who oversees implementation of the consent decree fielded questions from farmers. "If we have to meet all these deadlines for the government," asked Kentucky soybean farmer Arnold Stewart, "why can’t we set a few deadlines for the government to meet?"

Stewart is appealing the denial of his claim. Five years of records are "missing" from his local farm loan office, something the government says it is his responsibility to rectify. "In this fight, in this lawsuit, you get stronger and you meet people you need to know," he added.

Several participants noted that some farmers had missed the deadline because of extreme circumstances such as being in the hospital with a stroke and asked why they could not now be included.

The ongoing denial of loans by officials at local offices is one of the issues of most concern to farmers. The consent decree did not hold the government responsible for changing or breaking up the entrenched county Farm Services Agency committees that make decisions on who gets USDA loans on a local level. According to the lawyer from the monitor’s office, "farmers who won their claim should get priority consideration on loans," but, he added, "you still have to meet the loan requirements."  
 
‘Worse now than before’
"Things are worse now than they were before," said Robert Binion, a farmer from Clanton, Alabama. The county Farm Services Agency committees "have to be held accountable."

Johnny Hughes, a farmer from Eutaw, Alabama, was one of the conference participants who joined a sit-in at the Brownsville, Tennessee, FSA office in early July. "Four or five farmers from that area applied for loans this year and were denied," he said, explaining what led to the sit-in by more than 200 farmers from across the South.

Under the impact of the civil rights movement, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives was formed in 1967. Today, more than 100 cooperatives, credit unions, and community organizations, including some 10,000 small farmers, most of whom are Black, belong to the FSC/LAF.

A major issue for small farmers, especially those who are Black, is simply being able to hold onto their land. In 1920, Black farmers owned 15 million acres of land; today, they own 2 million. By working together through the FSC/LAF, more than 12,000 Black farmers have been able to hold onto 200,000 acres of land that they might otherwise have lost.

Jeanne FitzMaurice and Janine Dukes also contributed to this article.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home