Black Farmers Ongoing Struggle for Justice

Soulclap to Black Politics on the Web for bringing us this commentary by Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III.

---

In 1997, Timothy Pigford and 400 other African American farmers filed suit against the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) for discrimination, Pigford v. Glickman or Pigford I. They alleged that the USDA treated Black farmers unfairly when deciding to allocate loans and subsidies. For example, the USDA on average took more than 380 days to process a loan application from an African American farmer while processing an application from a white farmer in less than 30. Also, the top ten percent of corporate and white farmers received on average $1M per year in farm subsidies while African American farmers received on average $200.

On April 14, 1999, Judge Paul Freidman approved a settlement agreement and consent decree in Pigford I. The consent decree established a two-track dispute resolution process (Track A and Track B) for farmers seeking relief. Track A provided a monetary settlement of up to $50K plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and tax liability. Track B allowed those seeking actual damages to pursue relief provided they could meet a higher standard of proof by supporting their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

According to the Congressional Research Service, “The deadline for submitting a claim as a class member was September 12, 2000. A court appointed Oregon based facilitator, (Poorman-Douglas Corporation) was selected to notify known and potential members of the class that a settlement had been reached, to receive and screen potential class members’ claims to determine whether they met the class definition, and to assign the claims to the adjudicator and arbitrator for action.”

Poorman-Douglas’ core business is software development not claims administration. As a result of their inexperience in necessary processes compounded by their geographical distance and unfamiliarity with the affected class; more than 70,000 African American farmers were not notified in a timely manner of the Pigford I settlement. Failure to notify all of the potential claimants and not allowing those affected individuals to file timely claims resulted in the need for the Pigford II case.

Over 25,000 additional African American farmers were certified as a new class of litigants, Pigford II. On February 18, 2010, Attorney General Holder announced an additional $1.25B settlement in the case of Pigford II. Under Pigford II, claimants can seek Track A payments up to $50K plus debt relief, or pursue Track B payments for damages up to $250,000.

As the court works through the final details of what has become the Pigford II settlement Epiq/ Poorman Douglas’ (formally Poorman-Douglas) is again being considered as the Claims Administrator. This is causing great concern among the Pigford II claimants. Also, no minority businesses have been provided the opportunity to participate in the processing or administration of the claims process. Why is the company that dropped the ball in Pigford I being considered for a second opportunity in Pigford II?

Steve King (R-IA)

Also, why are individuals such as Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) calling for hearings to investigate these settlements after they have been adjudicated in US Courts and stating the Pigford settlement “is full of fraud” and “amounts to paying reparations to Black farmers in America. We don’t do reparations in America.” There is absolutely no proof that any “fraud” has been found in claims submitted in Pigford I and no claim’s have even been submitted as a result of Pigford II. Why should African American farmers be treated any differently than the Native Americans in the Cobell case who were awarded $3.4 billion over claims that they were cheated out of royalties overseen by the Interior Department for resources like oil, gas and timber.


It is important to understand that redress under Pigford I or II does not make the victims whole. These remedies merely allow the impacted farmers to walk away from these cases of government sanctioned discrimination with some sense of redress.

If Rep. King is correct and “We don’t do reparations in America,” why did President Reagan sign The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 to redress $20,000 to Japanese American detainees for damages caused for wrongful interment during WWII? Also, in 1992, an additional $400 million was awarded Japanese American detainees and George H. Bush issued another public apology in accordance with the amendment to the act.

Why do members of Congress continue to treat African Americans in a different manner than other Americans? The same mentality that caused the problems for African American farmers with the USDA is now impacting their ability to expeditiously administer the court sanctioned remedy. Failing to allow competent minority owned businesses that are tied to the affected areas and can relate to the affected class to participate in the management and administration of the Pigford claims would be an additional slap in the face to the African American community above and beyond what has been done to America’s Black Farmers.

Even while celebrating their victory in court, America’s Black farmers struggle for justice.

---

Well, villagers ... what say u about the issues faced by our nation's Black farmers?

President Obama Honors His Campaign Promise to Black Farmers and Native Americans

I'm a straight-up city boy. I think that the only time I've been on a working farm was to take my youngest daughter on a field trip. The only other time was to take my son to his Pee-Wee football game that was played on a football field rented out by a local farmer. Neither of those farms were Black-owned.

As such, I haven't been as close to the situation with the decades-old claims of discrimination by African American farmers and Native Americans that the government mistreated and swindled them out of billions of dollars. However, I am glad the federal government is finally going to do right by these farmers and original Americans ... and that the settlement process will be starting soon.


My understanding is that President Obama is going to sign the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 authorizing payment of $4.6 billion to settle claims that arose in class-action lawsuits. This is another example of President Obama working with Congress to honor one of his campaign promises.

The package would award some $3.4 billion to American Indians for royalties for resources like oil, gas and timber. Another $1.2 billion would go to African American farmers who claim they were unfairly denied federal loans and other assistance.

Well done President Obama!

Obama Proposes $1.25 Billion for Black Farmers

Field Negro (BBR #9) and others took the Obama administration to the woodshed for reneging on a promise to the impoverished Black farmers. As such, I was glad to see that Obama did the right thing when push came to shove.

President Barack Obama is proposing that the government give $1.25 billion to settle discrimination claims by Black farmers against the Agriculture Department.

The White House said the money would be included in Obama’s 2010 budget request.

Earlier this year, Black farmers and lawmakers criticized Obama for neglecting the need for more money to fund claims under a 10-year-old, class-action lawsuit against the government.

In a statement, Obama said the proposed funds would “close this chapter” in the agency’s history.

"My hope is that the farmers and their families who were denied access to USDA loans and programs will be made whole and will have the chance to rebuild their lives and their businesses," Obama said.

John Boyd (shown in photo shaking Obama's hand), head of the National Black Farmers Association, has called the proposal a "step in the right direction," but said additional funds would be needed.

"We think this is a good step in the negotiating process. We're glad to know this issue is on the president's radar screen and we commend him for taking this step," he said. But "we need to make sure that none of the Black farmers are left out."