| dc.description.abstract |
In 1999, a class of African American farmers and landowners led by North Carolinian
Timothy Pigford sued the United States Department of Agriculture under the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, alleging discrimination in loan-making within USDA county offices
during a period in which USDA’s Office of Civil Rights failed to process discrimination
complaints. Such patterns of discrimination were connected to significant losses of
black-owned farmland throughout the 20th century. While Pigford has been cited as
the largest and most successful civil rights case in recent decades, many experienced
the settlements as a disappointment. In 2010, a second historic agreement known as
Pigford II provided another avenue for farmers excluded from the initial class to
bring complaints. Alongside Pigford II, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack ushered in “a new
era of civil rights,” refining loan and benefit programs intended to serve minority
and disadvantaged farmers and reforming USDA leadership at many levels.
However, almost a decade after Pigford II, African American farmers continue to lose
land and experience discrimination in agriculture. Drawing from policy and historical
research and nine semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders including advocates,
farmers, community organizers, legal experts and academics, this project investigates
the effectiveness and lasting impacts of the Pigford settlements. I find that remedies
to correct USDA’s discriminatory history failed to extricate structural racism within
the department, which continues to uphold policies and practices favoring large, predominately
white farmers. Such policies have shaped American landscapes and reproduce inequality
in agriculture.
Analyzing major themes from original interviews, I find analysis of the Pigford settlements
and civil rights reform within USDA is mixed. I discuss failures internal to the settlement
process and forms of structural discrimination which continue to disadvantage farmers
of color. Though USDA’s attempted reforms and reparations have led to positive changes,
I argue that United States agricultural policy retains biases which frustrate institutional
reform. USDA must reconsider its own history, biases and mission in light of the experience
of African American and minority farmers in order to approach equity, justice and
cultural transformation.
|
|
