|
''Pigford v. Glickman'' (1999) was a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), alleging racial discrimination against African-American farmers in its allocation of farm loans and assistance between 1981 and 1996. The lawsuit was settled on April 14, 1999, by Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.〔''Timothy Pigford, et al., v. Dan Glickman, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture'', US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 97-1978 (PLF). Paul L. Friedman, U.S. District Judge.〕〔"The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers", Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2009. Fetched February 9, 2009 from ().〕 To date, almost US$1 billion has been paid or credited to more than 13,300 farmers under the settlement's consent decree, under what is reportedly the largest civil rights settlement to date. As another 70,000 farmers had filed late and not had their claims heard, the 2008 Farm Bill provided for additional claims to be heard. In December 2010, Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for what is called ''Pigford II,'' settlement for the second part of the case.〔 ==USDA discrimination against African-American farmers== With pressure on small family farms through the 20th century, both whites and African American farmers were struggling to survive in the South. The USDA made its loans dependent on applicants' credit, but African Americans were discriminated against and had difficulty gaining credit. They had been disenfranchised by southern laws and policies for much of the 20th century. Divested of political power, African Americans were even less able to gain credit. White planters used their wider political connections and power, and credit to gain monopolistic control of agricultural production. By the early 20th-century, southern states had established one-party political rule by whites under the Democratic Party. In Mississippi, where black farmers made up 2/3 of the total of farmers in the Delta in the late 19th century, most lost their land by 1910 and had to go to sharecropping or tenant farming. White dominance of the Democratic Party in the South and their power on important Congressional committees meant that, during the Great Depression, African Americans were overlooked in many programs established to help struggling Americans. The New Deal programs effectively protected white farmers by shifting the risk to black tenants. Many black farmers lost their land by tax sales, eminent domain, and voluntary sales. The USDA has admitted to having discriminated against black farmers. By 1992 the number of black farmers had declined by 98%.〔Christopher R. Kelley, "Notes on African American Farmers," ''Agricultural Law Update,'' p. 4 (August 1999)〕 Studies in the late 20th century found that county and state USDA authorities, who were typically white in the South, had historically and routinely discriminated against African-American farmers on the basis of race.〔Susan A. Schneider, ''Food, Farming, and Sustainability'' (2011)〕 A USDA official might overtly deny an equipment loan, telling the black farmer that "all you need is a mule and a plow", or telling the black farmer that the disaster relief is "too much money for a nigger to receive."〔Roger Thurow, "Soiled Legacy: Black Farmers Hit The Road to Confront a 'Cycle of Racism' - Many Lost Lands, Dignity As USDA Denied Loans Whites Routinely Got," ''The Wall Street Journal'' (May 1, 1998)〕 But more often, the USDA used paper-shuffling, delaying loans for black farmers until the end of planting season, approving only a fraction of black farmers' loan requests, and denying crop-disaster payments for black farmers, which white farmers were routinely granted.〔 USDA carried out its operations through county organizations. Under such agencies as the Soil Conservation Service, for instance, decisions to grant credit and benefits, and to approve or deny farm loan applications were decided by 3 to 5 committee members who were elected at the county level. Even after African Americans regained the ability to vote in the late 1960s, the committee members elected were overwhelmingly white. * In the Southeast, where African Americans had constituted a majority of population in many counties through the 1930s, and continued to do so in many agricultural areas, 1% of the committee members were African American. * In the Southwest, 0.3% of the committee members were African American. * In the remaining regions, not one county committee member was African American. * Nationwide, there were only 0.45% African American committee members. On average it took three times longer for the USDA to process a black farmer's application than a white farmer's application.〔Susan A. Schneider, ''Food, Farming, and Sustainability'' (2011) (discussing ''Pigford v. Glickman,'' 185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1999))〕 The black farmers who filed suit in the Pigford case had all been subjected to racial discrimination and humiliation by USDA officials; for instance, Mr. Steppes applied for a farm loan and it was denied. As a result, he had insufficient resources to plant crops, he could not buy fertilizer and treatment for the crops he did plant, and he ended up losing his farm. Mr. Brown applied for a farm loan. After not hearing back, he followed up and was told his loan was being processed. After not hearing back again, he followed up and was told that there was no record of his application. He reapplied, but did not receive the loan until planting season was over. Additionally, his loan was "supervised", so he had to get a signature by a USDA official to take money out. It was routine for the USDA to make this a provision for black farmers, but not for white farmers. Mr. Hall lost his crops and was eligible for disaster relief payments. Every single application in his county for relief was approved by the committee except for his. Mr. Beverly applied for a loan to build a farrowing house for his swine. He was told that his loan was approved, and he bought livestock in anticipation. Later, he was told the loan was denied and his livestock were useless. He ended up having to sell his property to settle his debt.〔 While the law and regulations implementing them were colorblind, the people carrying them out were not. The denial of credit and benefits to black farmers and the preferential treatment of white farmers essentially forced black farmers out of agriculture through the 20th century. African-American farms were foreclosed on more frequently. African-American farmers were subject to humiliation and degradation by USDA county officials. The USDA's Civil Rights office was supposed to investigate complaints about treatment made by farmers, but the USDA's records show this office was functionally nonexistent for over a decade.〔 During investigations of USDA policies and operations, the USDA's Secretary of Agriculture reported that the process for resolving discrimination complaints had failed. He testified that the USDA has not acted in good faith on the complaints: appeals were too often delayed and for too long; favorable decisions were too often reversed. The USDA Inspector General reported that the discrimination complaint process lacked integrity, direction, and accountability. There were staffing problems, obsolete procedures, and little direction from management, which resulted in a climate of disorder. In response, in 1998, Congress tolled the statute of limitations for USDA discrimination complaints, which allowed the Pigford class to bring this suit.〔Lisa Shames, ''U.S. Department of Agriculture: Recommendations and Options Available to the New Administration and Congress to Address Long-Standing Civil Rights Issues,'' Testimony before the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-09-650T (April 29, 2009)〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Pigford v. Glickman」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|