This consent decree was forced on the farmers by the administration of William Clinton and a number of liberal lawyers who worked with the USDA to diffuse rising struggles of African-American farmers in the 1990s.

The farmers are demanding that the case be reopened or the consent decree modified “to force, legally and judicially, the USDA to rid itself of wholesale racial discrimination, as admitted, against African American farmers.” The 1999 settlement did not provide “present and future relief from pattern and practice of discrimination”—that is, legal guarantees that individuals responsible for the government’s racist treatment of Black farmers would be removed and the institution changed.

“Justice for Black farmers in this country, if it moves at all, moves at a snail’s pace,” said Thomas Burrell, president of Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, (BFAA) Inc. speaking to the press May 17. “We deserve more. The USDA has been a den of racism and bigotry.”

Calling the 1999 settlement fundamentally and legally flawed, Burrell stated, “At a March 2, 1999, hearing every individual who spoke representing Black farmers objected to it. The judge noted that there were no forward-looking provisions, no injunctive relief.… Every single employee of USDA found guilty of discrimination has either been retired, promoted, or remains on the job. The result has been to throw Black farmers back onto the lap of the very persons responsible for the discrimination against them in the first place.”

The number of Black farmers in the United States fell from 900,000 in 1920 to 26,000 in 1997. In 1992, Blacks owned 1 percent of the country’s farmland, down from 14 percent in 1920. Black farmers have faced systematic racist discrimination from the USDA in getting the credit and relief needed by all farmers to stay in business.

“African American farmers were and are more concerned about substantive change at USDA than they were and are concerned over dollars, as meager as they were,” states the legal brief filed in support of the motion. “The settlement… is neither just, adequate or fair.”

Leading up to the filing of the motion with the court to reopen the case, BFAA, Inc. organized meetings of farmers across the country. Hundreds attended each of these gatherings in Richmond, Virginia; Montgomery, Alabama; Chicago and elsewhere. At the meetings, farmers who are Black and their supporters have discussed how to continue the fight against the ongoing discrimination they face at the hands of county committees responsible for approving loans. Many have also described the economic difficulties they continue to face despite the settlement’s financial provisions.

Eddie Slaughter from Georgia told reporters, “If you can’t receive justice in this country, how am I supposed to feel about America? They froze $11,000 so I couldn’t plant. I go to court, but I still can’t get justice.”

William Miller, another Georgia farmer, described his 23-year-long fight with USDA officials to keep his farm outside Marshallville. “I bought farm land in 1979 with loans from USDA and in 1981 they tried to tell me I was a poor risk,” he said. “In essence they tried to foreclose on me. How could I be doing poorly when I had more than 1,500 acres of land, three of the largest tractors you could get, and was planting all of it? I beat that back and still have 1,346 acres.

“They’ve been offsetting my social security money and other government payments against loans they say I still owe. We put some land under soil conservation and planted trees. They take all the money from that.

“Now they’re trying to take my peanut quota. I guess the USDA supervisor in Macon County figures he’ll starve me out if he can’t do anything else.”

When a U.S. district judge approved the consent decree on April 14, 1999, farmers were told that if they met minimal requirements for proving discrimination they would receive $50,000 from the government. For the majority of farmers who have been victims of the USDA’s racist practices, this has proved to be a lie.

The vast majority opted to follow a provision called Track A, under which farmers who could meet a minimal burden of proof that they had faced racist discrimination would receive a lump sum payment of $50,000. Of the 22,200 farmers who filed under that provision a little more than half, 13,500, actually received payment. Only 181 farmers opted to follow Track B, which imposed a greater burden of proof of racist discrimination, but allowed for greater compensation for the devastating effects of the USDA’s racist practices. Whether they opted for Track A or Track B, however, few farmers have seen any of the money coming to them.

On the other hand, the lawyers representing the farmers, the Consent Decree Monitor, and other administrators have grown fat off fees and salaries. In April the court extended the Monitor’s authority until March 2007, citing a backlog in processing claims.

More than $20.5 million has been paid to lawyers representing the Pigford class to date, according to the farmers’ brief. While farmers have received roughly $650 million in direct payments, the Monitor and other administrators under the decree have received close to $120 million in salaries and expenses. That total, not including the plaintiff’s lawyers fees, could top 30 to 35 percent of the total monies paid to farmers by the end of the process, the brief states.

Janice Lynn contributed to this article.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home