The Unseen Hand of Power Brokers—still a danger to black farmers—and others, too

After all of the “this can't be happening” and angry emails, the fact is that HarryYoung of Owensboro Kentucky still is dispossessed, is still getting threatening phone calls and still lives in fear of his life after numerous incidents of vandalism, threats and gun shots at his house. And is still charged with allegedly making a threat to a US Department of Agriculture employee, a fact that he denies.

At 82 years of age, Mr. Young has seen a great deal of change in his stay. And he has also seen a great deal of “the more things change, the more they remain the same.”

Young's ancestral farm in western Kentucky sits on coal reserves estimated to be anywhere from $10 million to $750,000,000. Yet, despite the great wealth that sits beneath his farm, the US Department of Agriculture's loan bureaucracy—the Farm Services Agency, foreclosed and sold the land for less than half a million dollars. Over a debt that Young says he did not owe.

It all started more than 20 years ago, when Young received a loan during a bad crop year. Deciding not to plant that year, he didn't use the loan. And that is where his trouble began.

While the loan stayed on his books, charged to his account, it another farmer allegedly used it. A white farmer. And Young has never been able to access his account records to prove his case.

On the other hand, Mr. Young has a supervised account. This means that he could not use any of the money without an FSA loan officer signing off on the check.

Now, this is where the good stuff comes in. The agency can come up with a loan document which Young and his wife signed, but they have never come up with a check that Mr. Young cashed and spent.

Time and again, Young has said he wants to see his file, he wants to see the proof that the agency has—other than the application and a verbal statement from FSA saying he owes the money. And, time and again, those who are unfamiliar with the way the agency operates, say they can't understand what the problem is.

They say the government says the man owes the debt, and that must be so. Unfortunately, the history of the agency and the institutional racism with its environs is not common knowledge, despite the so-called Black Farm Settlement, which paid of thousands of farmers because of the agency's historic racial bias.

The question is: how can anyone expect racism not to permeate the Farm Services Agency, particularly in the South, when the jobs were reportedly political patronage positions to the party faithful?

As one comment on a blog put it:

One major problem in the South is that many of the D of A (USDA) posts were given as patronage by white powerbrokers at the state and county level. Especially in the rural areas of the south there is still a strong bias against black famers by the right-wing types who hold power. (democraticunderground.com)

And those local and state groups fought like mad to keep the federal government from turning those political patronage jobs into civil service positions with accountability to the feds.

Claiming the non-civil service system had more flexibility than a civil service system could produce, opponents to President Clinton's program came out firmly against wresting control of the local Farm Service Agency from political patronage.
“This farmer-elected committee system comes closer than any other system in government to meeting the Administration’s stated goal of having federal programs administered by personnel closest to the people served. It ensures that local decisions address local problems. This system, because it is not part of the civil service, also provides flexibility that is not present in agencies with only civil service personnel.” (Draft Copy, Chronology of NASCOE Positions Re: Reorganization)

In no uncertain terms, the agency employee's lobbyist said:
In general, we support the creation of a Farm Service Agency which utilizes the Farmer Elected Committee system. We also feel the FSA would be a better deal for farmers, ranchers, all taxpayers and employees if at least the technical service portion of SCS (dealing with production agriculture) would be included. One stop shopping, with one boss, under control of a locally elected committee makes the most sense for operation of farm and production agriculture conservation programs.” (Ibid)

The problem with the “local committee system” is that it is a political patronage position, created in a racist climate decades ago and determined to preserve its base of white-male farmers. How can anyone expect such an organization to promote policies—Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity—when those policies are designed to level the playing field and eliminate white male, race-based bias?

Would a system willingly adopt a system which would bring about the downfall of its creators?

Those employees who contest the system and speak out run the risk of all kinds of reprisals, from an agency known to protect the status quo and to actively run black farmers out of business. Relating his family's experience with institutional bias, Gary Grant, the founder of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association (BFAA) told a congressional subcommittee:
After all, in a 1978 meeting with the three leading FmHA officials for the state of North Carolina, at the Halifax County FmHA (predecessor to FSA) office, my father and mother, along with my sisters and brothers and myself all in attendance, were boldly told:. (and I quote) "Matthew, you can call and write to 'whoever' you want to....you can bring who ever you want to, it 'don't matter.' We are going to sell you out!" (Gary Grant presentation to Congress, 1999)

In the decade since the black farm settlement, not a lot has changed on the local level. Minority and women farmers are still being run out of business—many are warned at the the closing of their farm or ranch purchase that they will be run out of business.

Such was the case of two brothers in Texas. At the closing of their property, were once the only black farm/ranch owners in their county. They were told when they bought their land that the local good ole boys would run them out of business—and they did. One brother's cattle were gut shot, and he was put on a supervised loan program by the FSA, even though he had good credit.

By the time the local machine got through with him, the rancher lost his land, his cattle and his home. His brother was driven out of business a year later.

For USDA, the more things change, the more they remain the same. In a 2001 Civil Rights Statement, Lawrence Lucas, President of the USDA Coalition of Minority Employees noted major deficiencies in the way the agency handled complaints and processed class action lawsuits:
 
In the area of class action complaints, some of which have been going on for years, the USDA (OGC) position remains adversarial, constructing barriers to prevent resolutions. What is lacking here is the desire on the part of USDA to identify problems, to respect employees, and to move forward together in a good faith collaboration to improve the hostile working environment. USDA claims to have settled a couple of class action complaints. The USDA impulse is to protect discriminating managers. Trust and good will are missing. USDA retards class and individual complaints through a drawn out process of structured delays, which is controlled by USDA and administered by the Assistant Secretary for Administration. These structured delays, long ago identified, constitute systemic discrimination against USDA employees who have filed EEO complaints. All the class action complaints could be settled tomorrow, if only USDA senior management, OCR, and the Office of General Counsel (OGC) were to become willing and good faith partners to such efforts. This does not happen, however, simply because USDA (senior agency administrators, OCR, and OGC) do not negotiate with complainants, whom are viewed as adversaries. If the USDA were anxious to address class cases, they would find suitable negotiating positions for each of the cases. As it is, these cases are allowed to linger through the indefinite and time-consuming regions of the EEOC Office of Federal Operations. (USDA Coalition of Minority Employees, Civil Rights Statement 2001)

Now, some 8 years later, many of the problems Lucas noted remain. Particularly the issues with trust and good will between minority clients and employees and some federal agencies, particularly the USDA and FSA. As one research group noted, racist backlash need not be active, violent, or known. In a bureaucracy, it is often passive—a paper pusher's weapon of choice.

White backlash does not always take the form of direct reprisals. It can also take the form of inactivity, a form of passive reprisal. Managers in various locations around the country simply can remain silent or take no action.... (Resource Group, “Underrepresentatioan of African Americans in the US Forest Service”, 2004)

Minority, women, disabled and elderly farmers continue to bear the brunt of the wrath of these federally employed paperwork terrorists. Loan documents aren't processed in a timely fashion. Unprofessional, racist and biased comments in loan files, illegally sharing farmer/rancher loan information with local banks and other businesses, even forgery and theft remain problems in the nation's farm loan agencies.

Bureaucrats have long memories. Particularly those in the farm loan agencies. Many who are unfamiliar with the way the agencies work often don't understand why “foreclosure” takes so long.

Often the disputes last for a generation, siphoning resources from targeted families, destroying their credit and their peace of mind. As Grant noted of his family's experience:
In almost twenty-five years neither my father nor mother has had a peaceful night's sleep, nor a day without fear and anxiety that their home, their means of making a living, and their way of life would be destroyed, because of the racist and illegal actions against them by FmHA and USDA. (Ibid)

With all of the atrocities against them, and the illegal forclosures, threats, bogus court actions, black farmers have been notoriously peaceful. As Grant put it:

We have to wonder - is this ongoing hell that the US government persists in putting the Black farmer through not meant to "inflame" and to "incite unrest and violent acts?" Is there not something sinister and evil and calculating about terrorizing and keeping your foot on the necks of Black farmers, and hacking away at their ability to make a living, destroying their pride and self esteem, and driving Black farmers into a state of poor mental and physical health and decay, and even driving many to early deaths?...and then to have government employees noxiously lying and destroying documents and conspiring to cover up this violent inhumanity. I ask, Is this not a conspiracy? (Ibid)

Given these forshadowing words, one has to wonder what is really behind the charge that Harry Young “made a threat” to a USDA employee over the phone? First, they banned him from the local FSA office because of an alleged threat 3 years ago. Now, they're at it again, claiming he made another threat—and the last “threat” generated his arrest right after a farm activist announced a high level meeting between Young and some of the President's advisors.

If this man is so out of control, why does he spend most of his time writing letters to Congress, giving interviews over the phone and working his rented fields? Why is this man a threat? Because he is NOT an out of control whacko, but a man who continues to use the system to regain his property. He is the one who receives threatening phone calls, whose house has been shot at, whose property has been vandalized.

He is the one who still has faith in this country and who continues to count his blessings, despite his loss. And, because he is softspoken and continues to use non-violent, legal means, he is a threat to the document deception con artists and institutional thieves who have stolen millions of acres and billions of dollars worth of black farmland and continue to steal farmers blind.