The Militant(logo) 
    Vol.63/No.10           March 15, 1999 
 
 
`We Want Our Land Back'
Hundreds of farmers protest at court hearing  

BY BRIAN WILLIAMS AND ARLENE RUBINSTEIN
WASHINGTON, D.C. - With every seat taken, and the aisles filled to capacity, some 450 farmers and their supporters packed the federal courthouse here March 2 for a day-long hearing on a proposed settlement in a class-action discrimination lawsuit filed against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) by farmers who are Black.

At its height some 150 participants had to wait outside the hearing rooms for seats in the court chambers to open up. From the beginning of the hearing to end, farmers put their collective stamp on the deliberations. Their mass presence and repeated applause for those who protested the proposed settlement altered the usual court decorum.

The majority of farmers came to express their opposition to a consent decree negotiated by lawyers for the plaintiffs and government and given preliminary approval by the judge in early January.

Attorneys for the USDA and lawyers for the farmers teamed up to win approval of the settlement, and to defend it from the arguments of farmers who oppose it. Said J.L. Chestnut, one of the lead attorneys for the farmers, "This case represents a watershed for justice for Blacks." It was evident that hundreds of farmers at the hearing did not have the same opinion.

A case in point is Timothy Pigford, one of the six lead plaintiffs and a farmer from North Carolina. Speaking on behalf of the plaintiffs, he urged Judge Paul Friedman not to approve the settlement. "This will only give temporary relief to a farmer in a desperate situation," he said.

Farmers traveled to the capital from many states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

In addition, a busload of supporters traveled 22 hours from Tchula, Mississippi, to be at the hearing. Among those making the trip were nine catfish workers who are fighting unjust firings in Belzoni, Mississippi, and several unionists fighting a three-year lockout by Crown Central Petroleum in Pasadena, Texas. Prior to the start of the proceedings, a spirited rally attended by some 200 people took place outside the courthouse entrance.

"USDA, it's real simple. We just want our land back," stated Gary Grant, president of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association (BFAA), who chaired the event.

"Justice for all or justice for none," chanted the crowd.

Dean Cook, a member of Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers Local 4-227 at Crown, told the crowd, "We all have a common enemy. We realize that, so we want to back your fight." He invited the farmers to attend a May 1 solidarity rally for the locked-out workers in Pasadena, Texas.

Joann Hogan, a leader of the Catfish Workers of America, also addressed the rally. "We're not going to give up. Stand by us. We believe in you."

Other speakers included John Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers Association; Quincy Smith, a retired farmer from Windale, North Carolina; James Harris, a leader of the Socialist Workers Party; Rev. Joseph Lowery, convener of the Coordinating Council of Black Farm Groups and former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and Rep. Eva Clayton from North Carolina.

An inadequate settlement
Under the proposed agreement, a "Track A" option promises farmers who prove "substantial evidence" of discrimination $50,000, along with relief from USDA debts if farmers can prove past discrimination. Others may seek larger sums of money under "Track B," but would have to submit documents to meet a much higher standard 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 rejected under either option cannot be appealed.

Henry Valentine, a farmer from Arkansas who grows soybeans, cotton, and wheat, described how he systematically gets loans late every year so he can't produce a good crop. Some loans aren't provided until the end of July when he should be receiving them in March. Late loans can force you to go out of business and lose your farm.

Vernon Breckenridge from Oklahoma was one of several farmers who submitted written objections to the consent decree and addressed the court at the hearing. He explained that he has been farming full-time since 1964. In 1986, he applied to the USDA for a disaster loan. "This loan has meant disaster for me and my family," he stated. "We don't feel we're getting a fair and just settlement. Track A is not enough. Today $50,000 won't even buy a medium-sized tractor."

"Most of us work an off-the-farm job just to survive," said Breckenridge, to applause. "We are not asking you to make the plaintiffs rich, your honor, just fair." Because of USDA discrimination, farmers had to seek other loans on shorter terms and at higher interest rates. Under this settlement there is no relief for loans outside of those made by the USDA.

Breckenridge also criticized the proposed settlement for making no mention about removing any USDA personnel guilty of discrimination. "We have to still deal with the same people who denied us loans in the first place," he stated.

Stephon Bowens, executive director of the Land Loss Prevention Project, pointed out, "We haven't talked about the social ills that have befallen Black farmers. We can show there is harm to farmers in excess of $50,000." He condemned the proposed settlement as failing to provide adequate relief, for limiting the ability of farmers to get records from the USDA proving discriminatory treatment, and for denying farmers the right to appeal arbitrators decisions that they feel are unjust.

"There is no talk about farm foreclosures in the consent decree," added Bowens.

"What would you suggest?" said the judge.

"Give the farmers back their land," Bowens replied.

Thomas Burrell, a leader of the farm movement from Tennessee, received one of the warmest responses from those attending the hearing. Burrell introduced himself to the judge by explaining that 18 years ago he led - along with 12 other Black farmers - a 21-day sit-in occupation of the FmHA office in Covington, Tennessee.

"Sir, nothing has changed since then," he said. "Today, there are less than 20,000 Black farmers who own 3 million acres of land, down from 16 million [acres] in 1910," he pointed out. "The real crime committed by the USDA is not discrimination against African Americans but dispossession of the land."

"This tentative settlement is not indicative of the value of the land taken from Black farmers," continued Burrell. "The USDA has defrauded, stolen, and expropriated 16 million acres of land from African-Americans. If this settlement is approved then the crimes of defrauding Blacks of their land would be sanctioned."

Burrell also educated the court on the "county committee system" used by the USDA on the local level to this day to deny loans to Black farmers. "It is nothing more than a club or federation made up of members who are the descendants of the `Sons of the Confederacy'.... The extent to which the county committee was so effective -with, of course, the sanctioning of the USDA - in dispossessing a nation of people of their land will cause military historians to re-think and re-write military strategy and tactics."

Also speaking at the hearing was Rev. Joseph Lowery, who joined the attorneys in praising the settlement. Referring to the proposed settlement, he said, "Mend it don't end it."

James Morrison, representing the National Black Farmers Association, described the decree in its current form as being inadequate. "Don't look at settling this case," he told the judge, "look at settling a problem." Morrison described the conditions facing farmers "as nothing less than pure hell."

Farmers take the floor
The most interesting part of the hearing came toward the end of the day when the judge permitted any farmers present who hadn't submitted written testimony by the February 15 deadline to briefly address the court. "No farmer should be left out of this settlement," stated Mattie Mack, a tobacco farmer from Brandenburg, Kentucky, and leader of the Minority Farmers of Meade County. "I don't agree with [Track] A and I don't agree with [Track] B. They both should be out," she said. "This is my fourth time in your courtroom. I made three other trips here. And its always the same old thing," said Mack.

Turning to the government's attorneys, Willie Head, a leader of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, said, "Here's my solution - raise the [$50,000] cap.

Turning to his own lawyers, Head asked, "Would you send your sons off to war with one bullet?" referring to the no- appeals side of the consent decree.

To the judge he said, "You were a man before you were a judge. What if your home and car were taken? Would $50,000 be enough for you?"

"I came 1,300 miles to this hearing," stated George Hildebrand, a farmer from Leavenworth, Kansas. "The FSA [Farm Services Agency] refused to give us loans. They have humiliated me and my family since 1989, threatening to foreclose on our farm. We lost our home and possessions in the flood of 1993. Stop those agents from harassing us all these years."

Several farmers, like L.C. Cooper, from Warren county, North Carolina, demanded "Let's go to trial. You cannot mediate institutionalized racism."

Eddie Slaughter, vice president of BFAA and a farmer from Georgia agreed. "If I were guilty of these crimes, I would be serving time. I want to have my day in court. I think this is one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of this country," said Slaughter.

One of the final speakers of the day was John Bender, who has a small vegetable farm and greenhouse in Johnstown, New York. Bender, who is white, drove from upstate New York to show his support for farmers involved in this important class- action lawsuit. "We have a government that admitted it did wrong in discriminating against these farmers, yet they fight out this case as long as they can." Bender called for ending this discriminatory treatment and also pointed to the police killing of Amadou Diallo, who was shot at 41 times in New York City, and the dragging death of James Byrd in Jaspers, Texas.

At the end of the testimony, the attorneys for the farmers tried to put forward their best arguments for settling the class-action suit. "This is the best deal you will get," said attorney J.L. Chestnut. "We've suffered too, spending $3 million of our own money," he added. "Where would we get $3 million to continue? The farmers don't have the money. We've carried them on our backs." Although most farmers wouldn't agree with that statement, Chestnut did make one accurate point. He said farmers were becoming more volatile.

After listening to the entire hearing, Linn Hamilton, a retired dairy farmer from Washington, Pennsylvania, said he supported the Black farmers' call for a complete redress of their long oppressive and unjust treatment by federal agencies. "The Black farmers are the most focused on what they want. They can set an example for the rest of us farmers who are white." After hearing a final plea from the attorneys for the plaintiffs on why this consent decree should be accepted, the judge said he will consider all of the objections. He will then issue his ruling on whether to accept or reject the proposed settlement.

Arlene Rubinstein is a member of the International Association of Machinists. Brian Williams is a member of the United Steelworkers of America.

 
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home