The following column is an opinion piece and reflects the views of only the author and not those of TheGeorgiaVirtue.com.
You’ve probably heard by now that a federal judge issued an injunction halting the “socially disadvantaged” debt relief program for farmers of color over constitutional concerns, primarily because the requirements for eligibility exclude white farmers based solely on race. While there had been a handful of rulings around the country, this one halts the program nationwide.
The USDA was set to issue nearly $4 billion in direct payments to some 15,000 farmers and their banks beginning in June, paying up to 120% of the outstanding balances owed on various public and private loans.
Headlines of the decision out of Jacksonville, FL varied from “Judge Blocks Aid to Minority Farmers, Sides with White North Florida Farmer” and “Judge Blocks $4 Billion U.S. Debt Relief Program for Minority Farmers” to “On behalf of white farmers, Trump allies wage legal war against equity” and “Black farmers might not receive their own debt-relief funding.” It shouldn’t surprise you that these inflammatory headlines are incorrect. The injunction issued by Judge Marcia Morales Howard simply pauses the roll out of the program until it can be more thoroughly evaluated.
Supporters of the program have criticized the injunction, saying they are disappointed with yet another delay in federal aid because black farmers have lost 12 million acres of farmland over the last century — all caused by “systemic racism, biased government policy, and social and business practices that have denied Black Americans equitable access to markets.”
Specifically, advocates say that during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, $9.7 billion was made available for farmers, but socially disadvantaged farmers received less than 1% of that money.
It would be disingenuous to doubt the accuracy of those numbers given that from 1992 to 2012, a total of 31 million acres of farmland were lost across the country, a statistic calculated irrespective of race. (That’s 175 acres per hour or three acres per minute, by the way.) And in February 2021, a New York Times article reported that just 2% of American farmers are black. The percentage of farms run by Hispanics and Pacific Islands is even smaller.
But given those numbers, advocates are clearly ignoring a few relevant points as they try to land the plane on their terminal’s tarmac.
For starters, not all farmers seek federal assistance when it is offered. In their argument before the court, the USDA said previous financial aid programs failed to “reach” black farmers, as if there is some moral obligation of the federal government to seek out individuals in need of help. Aside from the blanket stimulus checks issued amid COVID, federal programs have always required an individual to seek out the program, meet certain requirements, and complete an application process. The answer isn’t ‘more money for a specific group’ simply because that group didn’t ask for the money the first time.
It is also reckless and inflammatory to suggest that 1% of the COVID-19 pandemic funds for farmers going to those who are black is some atrocity when, relative to the population, the ratio is nearly the same. The question posed should not be to a federal agency asking ‘Why did black farmers only receive 1%?’ The questions should be to the black community in asking why only 2% of America’s farms are run by black individuals. Do they even want to farm? Generational farms of all demographics have ceased to operate over the last few decades because farming has continued to evolve and not for the better.
That brings us to the second point: some farmers leave agriculture voluntarily. The depletion of farmland can be attributed to nearly everything… but race. Of particular influence, development of land, urban sprawl, and government intervention have tremendously impacted who farms and where. Our government manipulates the agriculture industry to a degree only truly understood through experience. Federal agencies regulate controls for every input farmers need while controlling prices ‘for the best interest of the consumer’ when it comes to outputs. The federal government has all but ensured that farmers are dependent on subsidies year after year for survival and only if they farm thousands of acres, boxing out the small family-run farm.
Third, this isn’t even about race reparations when you take a deep dive into what is being argued. It’s about “what’s best for me right now” or perhaps even ‘payback.’ In fact, one could argue that race is shamelessly being used as a shield for the real motive: special treatment at any cost. The very group that cites a desperate need for equality because it has been generationally disadvantaged by a discriminatory government based on race wants the same government to institute a near-mirror image of the very program they claim was the root of the disadvantage.
The only difference is that it was done behind the scenes in the old days and this program calls for it to be on full display on center stage for all to see and understand.
What does it say about the heart of an individual who was wronged by the government when they wish for that same oppressive government to deliberately and publicly disadvantage another class of individuals? That they wish for others to be disadvantaged, specifically if ‘others’ is determined by race? That self-interest is priority number one?
If it is not about oppressing others, those set to receive funding from the federal government because of their race should agree with what Judge Howard penned in her injunction:
“[I]n doing so, Congress must also heed its obligation to do away with governmentally imposed discrimination based on race…On the record before the court, it appears that in adopting (the section’s) strict race-based debt relief remedy, Congress moved with great speed to address the history of discrimination, but did not move with great care. Indeed, the remedy chosen and provided…appears to fall well short of the delicate balance accomplished when a legislative enactment employs race in a narrowly tailored manner to address a specifically compelling governmental interest.
Regardless of farm size, an SDFR (socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher) receives up to 120% debt relief. And regardless of whether an SDFR is having the most profitable year ever and not remotely in danger of foreclosure, that SDFR receives up to 120% debt relief. Yet a small white farmer who is on the brink of foreclosure can do nothing to qualify for debt relief. Race or ethnicity is the sole, inflexible factor that determines the availability of relief provided by the government.”
And if that isn’t the root of the argument, it’s hard not to conclude that the dynamic resembles that of what you find in a relationship overrun by domestic violence. A perpetual state of dependency in which you seek help and consolation from the very person (entity) that abuses you.
So which is it?
