In 1997, thousands of black farmers consolidated their civil rights complaints against the United States Department of Agriculture and filed the largest class action lawsuit in U.S. history - Pigford v. Glickman. The lawsuit was filed for decades of discrimination by USDA in its credit and other farm programs. In 1999, the case was settled with a consent decree between the farmers and USDA requiring settlement with all farmers who qualified for the class and provided evidence of discrimination. USDA reported on November 7, 2001 that of 22,684 claims filed, 56% were accepted and have or will receive compensation. The other 44% have been rejected with limited chance for appeal. To date, the case has cost the Department over $6.2 million in direct payments and debt forgiveness, with many cases still pending and many producers awaiting payment. At the same time, no fundamental structural changes have been made to root out continuing discrimination in the locally-administered county offices of the Department which are fully supported by federal dollars.

For over two decades, farmers and their advocates have called repeatedly upon USDA to address issues of racial discrimination, inequity and injustice within the department. Plaintiffs in the Pigford case cited decades of documentation of racial discrimination and preference in approving USDA loans and administrating services. Following the settlement of the Pigford case, two similar cases have been filed by groups of Latino and American Indian producers who cite the same barriers in receiving equitable services from local USDA offices due to racial injustice and bias.

Local county committees are elected by farmers and charged with informing producers of USDA loan programs, helping them with the application process and, in the end, approving the applications and the loans. These committees, though elected, are rarely operated without bias, and while this system of local control has worked better in some places than others, many times it serves to exclude producers who do not meet the local idea of an eligible farmer. Election procedures and the committees themselves are controlled by what many farmers refer to as "the old boys network," virtually without oversight.

In 1997, out of 8,148 elected county committee members across the U.S., only 37 were African-American, 65 were Hispanic, 21 Asian or Pacific Islander, and 68 American Indian or Alaskan Native. In Massachusetts, 2 out of 35 committee members statewide were African-American, even though the state has only 61 minority farmers. In comparison, Alabama had only 1 black committee member out of 189, although the state had 1,642 minority farmers (data from USDA Census of Agriculture,1992).

Rather than address these problems in response to the claims and settlement of the Pigford case, the USDA has stopped releasing data on county committees, county committee elections and farmer participation in programs of the department. The settlements of the department have in a sense been used to buy out, retire and otherwise keep current minority producers at bay and preoccupied with settlements. Meanwhile, the USDA maintains the policies and practices that will surely put them out of business in the end.

The Juicy Truth

Despite the millions that the USDA will eventually pay out to producers as a result of Pigford and other cases that are pending, the truth is that these cases failed to put the department in the "hot seat." The Pigford settlement, and the suits filed by groups of Latino and American Indian producers, require or request only that those who have been discriminated against be monetarily compensated. They do nothing to correct the institutional structures or policies of the department that led to this discrimination and don't require any type of accountability or action against employees or offices where a pattern of discrimination may exist.

The House of Representatives passed their farm bill, the Farm Security Act of 2001, on October 5th. A group of House members worked hard to pass legislation that would benefit minority producers, require real accountability and transparency, and move the USDA toward greater equity. Rep. Earl Hilliard offered an amendment, that was accepted in committee, to strengthen and increase to $25 million the Minority Farmer and Rancher Outreach and Technical Assistance Program, Section 2501 (see July Juicer). Rep. Eva Clayton authored another amendment, accepted in part, to remove barriers to new lending for farmers who previously resturctured debt or had civil rights settlements.

With Rep. John Conyers and other members, they also drafted a Minority and Small Farm Equity and Accountability Amendment. The goal of this amendment was to set in place a system that would allow USDA and the public to routinely monitor and address any continuing or future failures to provide equitable service. Offered by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) on the House Floor, the amendment included two provisions:

Equitable Participation and Accountability of County and Area Committees.

In order to ensure that county and area committees operate in an equitable manner, elections must be fair and USDA field employees held accountable for equity in services. Ballots must be opened and counted publicly, and election participation data and election results made available to the public on USDA county, state and national websites.

Revision and Extension of Target Participation Rates.

Establishes a proactive system to identify gaps in services to socially disadvantaged and women farmers and ranchers. Requires that USDA calculate and publish on its website: