Two Pillars Fall: The Loss of Columbia Savings and Adelphi Bank and What It Means for African American Communities

We are watching the absolute collapse of African American institutions and our absolute dependency on Others’ institutions. It once felt like a slow train wreck, now it feels like a supersonic missile. – William A. Foster, IV

The 2025 African American Owned Bank Directory carries an absence that numbers alone cannot fully convey. Two institutions that appeared in last year’s listing — Columbia Savings and Loan Association of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Adelphi Bank of Columbus, Ohio — are no longer among the ranks of African American-owned financial institutions. Together, they represented nearly $130 million in assets: Columbia Savings at approximately $22 million and Adelphi Bank at approximately $106 million. Their departure is not merely a bookkeeping change. It is a geographic and community wound, one that leaves both Ohio and Wisconsin without a single African American-owned bank.

Founded on January 1, 1924, Columbia Savings and Loan Association was one of the oldest African American-owned financial institutions in the United States. A savings and loan chartered over a century ago in Milwaukee, it survived the Great Depression, the urban upheavals of the mid-20th century, the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, and the 2008 financial collapse. It did not survive 2025. In our 2024 directory, Columbia carried $24,097,000 in assets, already down 12.0 percent from the prior year. By the time 2025 data was compiled, its assets had further declined to approximately $21,998,000 — a figure that, alongside declining capital levels, signaled an institution under extraordinary strain. For a savings and loan of its size, operating in a competitive market without the capital buffers available to larger institutions, the math had become unforgiving.

Milwaukee’s African American community is substantial, Black residents make up roughly 39 percent of the city’s population and yet they now have no African American-owned bank to call their own. This is not a small thing. African American-owned banks and savings institutions have historically served as anchors for communities that mainstream financial institutions have underserved or outright ignored. They have written mortgages in redlined neighborhoods, provided small business loans to entrepreneurs who couldn’t get a second meeting at a downtown bank, and offered a financial home to people who needed more than a transaction they needed trust.

If the loss of Columbia Savings is a story of a century-old institution exhausted by time and capital constraints, the loss of Adelphi Bank carries a different kind of grief. Founded on January 18, 2023, in Columbus, Ohio, Adelphi was the newest African American-owned bank in the country at the time of our 2024 directory. Prior to its founding, no new African American-owned bank had been chartered in 23 years. Adelphi’s launch was celebrated for exactly that reason: it represented a renewal, a sign that the community had not given up on building the financial infrastructure it needs.

In 2024, Adelphi reported $68,154,000 in assets, up 55.1 percent from the year prior, a remarkable growth trajectory for a de novo bank. By 2025, that figure had risen further to $106,369,000. And yet, despite that asset growth, the bank was no longer majority African American-owned by the time 2025 statistics were compiled. A growing balance sheet does not automatically translate into ownership stability. New banks are capital-intensive, and the pressures to bring in outside investors can, over time, dilute or displace founding ownership structures.

The result is that Ohio, the state that just two years ago was celebrating the founding of its first new African American-owned bank in over two decades, now has none. Columbus, the state capital and one of the fastest-growing cities in the Midwest, has no African American-owned bank. And critically, neither does the surrounding region that includes two of Ohio’s most important Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Central State University and Wilberforce University.

The relationship between African American-owned banks and HBCUs has long been identified by HBCU Money as one of the most underdeveloped partnerships in the Black economic ecosystem. HBCUs are intellectual and economic anchors for their communities. African American-owned banks are the financial connective tissue that can translate education, entrepreneurship, and homeownership aspirations into capital. When both are present in a region, the possibilities compound. When one disappears, the other is diminished.

Central State University and Wilberforce University sit in Greene and Xenia, Ohio, both within the orbit of Columbus and Dayton. Their students, faculty, staff, and alumni represent tens of thousands of people who need mortgages, small business loans, car notes, savings accounts, and lines of credit. Without an African American-owned bank anywhere in Ohio, those needs will be met if they are met at all by institutions with no particular relationship to their communities, no cultural competency born of shared experience, and no structural incentive to reinvest in the neighborhoods and towns these HBCUs serve. And if they are met, the profits and institutional ownership and influence will be to the benefit of Others and not the African American ecosystem. Once again, we will be subsidizing everyone else.

This is not a hypothetical harm. Research has consistently shown that African American-owned banks direct a greater share of their lending to African American borrowers and African American-owned businesses than Others’ institutions. They are not perfect, and they are not substitutes for broader policy change. But they are irreplaceable in the role they play, and their absence is felt in the very specific, very practical ways that matter most: a loan denied, a mortgage not written, a business that never got started.

The 2025 directory does carry one encouraging entry: Redemption Bank of Salt Lake City, Utah, founded February 20, 1974, and now appearing in the African American-owned bank listing with approximately $72,205,000 in assets under the FDIC’s San Francisco region. Its inclusion partially offsets the $128 million in assets lost with Columbia and Adelphi. Redemption Bank’s presence in Utah is notable given the state’s relatively small African American population and its distance from the major African American economic corridors. Its listing is a reminder that African American financial institution-building can and does happen in unexpected places.

But Redemption Bank’s $72 million in assets does not replace what was lost in Ohio and Wisconsin. It does not fill the geographic gap. It does not serve the students at Central State or Wilberforce, or the African American residents of Milwaukee’s north side. The net loss to African American institutional financial capacity in the Midwest is real, and no amount of welcome news from the Mountain West changes the map that communities in Columbus and Milwaukee are now looking at.

As noted in our 2024 directory, African American-owned banks hold approximately $6.4 billion of America’s $23.6 trillion in bank assets — roughly 0.027 percent. The apex of African American-owned bank assets, as a share of total U.S. banking, was 1926, when the sector held 0.2 percent — ten times today’s proportion. Nearly a century later, the sector has not recovered.

The structural disadvantages are well-documented: chronic undercapitalization, concentration in communities with lower median wealth, limited access to the interbank credit markets that larger institutions tap freely, and a customer base that has been systematically excluded from wealth-building for generations. These are not problems that individual bank managers can solve through hustle and grit alone. They require deliberate policy support, sustained community deposits, and coordinated investment from the HBCU ecosystem, African American businesses, and public-sector partners.

The post-2020 wave of corporate pledges to African American financial institutions provided some relief. Many of the banks in our directory saw asset growth between 2023 and 2024 partly as a result of those deposits. But corporate commitments are not permanent, and the institutions that did not receive them or that received too little too late remained exposed. Columbia Savings, with $24 million in assets and a 12 percent annual decline already in evidence by 2024, was unlikely to attract the kind of large-scale corporate or philanthropic deposit that might have stabilized it.

The loss of Columbia Savings and Adelphi Bank should be understood as a call to action, not an occasion for eulogy alone. Several things must happen.

First, the HBCU community in Ohio must begin conversations now about what it would take to support a new African American-owned financial institution in the state. Central State and Wilberforce cannot simply wait for the private sector to solve this. HBCU endowments, alumni associations, and institutional deposits are tools of economic development. Directing even a fraction of those resources toward a future Ohio-based African American-owned bank would be a meaningful first step.

Second, community organizations, African American business associations, and civic leaders in Milwaukee must assess whether a new chartered institution, a credit union, or a community development financial institution (CDFI) can fill some of the void left by Columbia Savings’ departure. Milwaukee’s African American community is large enough and its economic needs acute enough that the absence of a community-controlled financial institution is not sustainable.

Third, the national conversation about African American-owned banks must move from celebration to infrastructure. Every time a new institution is chartered, and Adelphi’s founding in 2023 was genuinely exciting, it must be supported with the capitalization, deposit commitments, and technical assistance that give it a fighting chance past its first few years. A bank that grows in assets but loses its founding ownership structure has not fulfilled its promise. The community has to be in the room, and at the table, not just at the ribbon-cutting.

Finally, we should note what these two losses mean for the map of African American financial geography. States absent from our 2025 directory now include Ohio, Wisconsin, Maryland, Missouri, New York, and Virginia — a list that encompasses some of the largest African American urban populations in the country. That map is a challenge and an indictment in equal measure. African Americans live and work and build in every corner of this country. Their financial institutions should too.

Columbia Savings and Loan Association (Milwaukee, WI) — Founded January 1, 1924 | 2024 Assets: $24,097,000 | 2025 Assets: $21,998,000

Adelphi Bank (Columbus, OH) — Founded January 18, 2023 | 2024 Assets: $68,154,000 | 2025 Assets: $106,369,000

Redemption Bank (Salt Lake City, UT) — Founded February 20, 1974 | 2025 Assets: $72,205,000 [New to directory]

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by Claude (Anthropic).

HBCU Money’s 2025 African American Owned Bank Directory

All banks are listed by state. In order to be listed in our directory the bank must have at least 51 percent African American ownership. You can click on the bank name to go directly to their website.

KEY FINDINGS:

  • 12 of the 16 African American Owned Banks saw increases in assets from 2024.
  • African American Owned Banks (AAOBs) are in 14 states and territories. Key states absent are Maryland, Ohio, Wisconsin, Missouri, New York, and Virginia.
  • With the loss of Adelphi Bank (OH) from majority African American ownership, no African American owned bank has been started in 26 years.
  • Alabama and Georgia each have two AAOBs.
  • African American Owned Banks have approximately $6.7 billion of America’s $24.9 trillion bank assets (see below) or 0.027 percent. The apex of African American owned bank assets was in 1926 when AAOBs held 0.2 percent of America’s bank assets or 10 times the percentage they hold today.
  • African American Owned Banks comprise 11 percent of Minority-Owned Banks (154), but only control 1.73 percent of FDIC designated Minority-Owned Bank Assets.
  • 2025 Median AAOBs Assets: $255,112,000 ($191,590,000)
  • 2025 Average AAOBs Assets: $395,554,000 ($355,448,000)
  • TOTAL AFRICAN AMERICAN OWNED BANK ASSETS 2025: $6,724,410,000 ($6,398,070,000)

ALABAMA

BHM BANK

Location: Birmingham, Alabama

Founded: January 28, 2000

FDIC Region: Atlanta

Assets: $17,741,000

Asset Change (2023): UP 2.7%

COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK

Location: Mobile, Alabama

Founded: February 19, 1976

FDIC Region: Atlanta

Assets: $66,375,000

Asset Change (2023): DOWN 0.8%

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INDUSTRIAL BANK

Location: Washington, DC

Founded: August 18, 1934

FDIC Region: New York

Assets: $755,175,000

Asset Change (2023): UP 2.2%

GEORGIA

CARVER STATE BANK

Location: Savannah, Georgia

Founded: January 1, 1927

FDIC Region: Atlanta

Assets: $106,700,000

Asset Change (2023): UP 30.3%

CITIZENS TRUST BANK

Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Founded: June 18, 1921

FDIC Region: Atlanta

Assets: $793,469,000

Asset Change (2023): UP 7.0%

ILLINOIS

GN BANK

Location: Chicago, Illinois

Founded: January 01, 1934

FDIC Region: Chicago

Assets: $64,685,000

Asset Change (2023): UP 1.2%

LOUISIANA

LIBERTY BANK & TRUST COMPANY

Location: New Orleans, Louisiana

Founded: November 16, 1972

FDIC Region: Dallas

Assets: $1,076,349,000

Asset Change (2023): UP 2.6%

MASSACHUSETTS

ONEUNITED BANK

Location: Boston, Massachusetts

Founded: August 02, 1982

FDIC Region: New York

Assets: $756,367,000

Asset Change (2023): UP 0.1%

MICHIGAN

FIRST INDEPENDENCE BANK

Location: Detroit, Michigan

Founded: May 14, 1970

FDIC Region: Chicago

Assets: $644,122,000

Asset Change (2023): UP 6.1%

MISSISSIPPI

GRAND BANK FOR SAVINGS, FSB

Location: Hattiesburg, Mississippi

Founded: January 1, 1968

FDIC Region: Dallas

Assets: $252,934,000

Asset Change (2023): UP 57.0%

NORTH CAROLINA

MECHANICS & FARMERS BANK

Location: Durham, North Carolina

Founded: March 01, 1908

FDIC Region: Atlanta

Assets: $498,118,000

Asset Change (2023): UP 15.9% 

OKLAHOMA

FIRST SECURITY BANK & TRUST

Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Founded: April 06, 1951

FDIC Region: Dallas

Assets: $174,740,000

Asset Change (2023): UP 46.4%

PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED BANK OF PHILADELPHIA

Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Founded: March 23, 1992

FDIC Region: New York

Assets: $53,275,000

Asset Change (2023): DOWN 4.4%

SOUTH CAROLINA

OPTUS BANK

Location: Columbia, South Carolina

Founded: March 26, 1999

FDIC Region: Atlanta

Assets: $662,589,000

Asset Change (2023): UP 26.2%

TENNESSEE

CITIZENS SAVINGS B&T COMPANY

Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Founded: January 4, 1904

FDIC Region: Dallas

Assets: $181,740,000

Asset Change (2023): UP 3.1%

TEXAS

UNITY NB OF HOUSTON

Location: Houston, Texas

Founded: August 01, 1985

FDIC Region: Dallas

Assets: $201,440,000

Asset Change (2023): DOWN 3.6%

SOURCE: FDIC

Mapping the Gap: The Geography of African American Banks and Credit Unions in 2025

African Americans navigating their financial lives are operating inside two fundamentally different types of institutions, and understanding that difference is not academic it is strategic. JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the United States with over $3.9 trillion in assets, is a publicly traded corporation owned by shareholders. Its mandate is profit. It can accept corporate deposits, underwrite municipal bonds, finance international trade, issue letters of credit that move goods across oceans, syndicate billion-dollar loans, and operate in 100 countries. When a city government needs to finance a new highway, when a developer needs to close on a $200 million mixed-use project, when a corporation needs to hedge currency risk across three continents — JPMorgan is in that room. Navy Federal Credit Union, the largest credit union in the United States with approximately $180 billion in assets, is a member-owned cooperative. Its mandate is service to its members, who must meet eligibility requirements tied to military affiliation. It offers mortgages, car loans, checking accounts, and credit cards often at better rates and lower fees than JPMorgan but it cannot write a commercial real estate construction loan for a developer, cannot underwrite a municipal bond for a city, cannot finance an export contract for a manufacturer shipping goods to West Africa, and has no presence in international capital markets. Navy Federal is a powerful institution for what it does. It simply does not do what JPMorgan does, and JPMorgan does not do what Navy Federal does at the community level. For African Americans, this distinction carries enormous consequence. A community with only credit unions has access to consumer financial products; mortgages, auto loans, personal savings but lacks the commercial banking infrastructure needed to finance business growth, real estate development, institutional deposits, and economic expansion. A community with only banks, and specifically only large national banks with no cultural accountability, has access to products but not necessarily to equitable underwriting, community reinvestment, or the trust that comes from shared ownership. The absence of an African American-owned bank in Ohio or Wisconsin is not just symbolic. It means no institution with a community mandate is positioned to finance the next African American developer, fund the next HBCU-adjacent business corridor, or serve as a depository for the growing institutional wealth of Black organizations in those states.

When the geography of African American banks and credit unions is examined together, a more complete — though still incomplete — picture of Black financial infrastructure emerges across the United States. The 2025 African American Owned Bank Directory covers 17 institutions across 15 states and territories. The 2025 NCUA data on African American credit unions adds 205 institutions across 29 states and territories, carrying $8.15 billion in assets and serving approximately 727,000 members. Combined, the two sectors represent over 220 institutions and more than $14.8 billion in assets operating across 31 states and territories. But geography, not just totals, is where the real story lives.

Thirteen states have both an African American-owned bank and at least one African American credit union: Alabama, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. These are the states with the fullest financial ecosystem — where a community member can choose between a bank product and a credit union product from an institution with cultural roots in their community. Louisiana stands out, with one bank and 25 credit unions, the most of any state in the credit union count. Illinois follows with one bank and 23 credit unions.

Two states have African American banks but no African American credit unions in the NCUA data: Massachusetts, home to OneUnited Bank, and Utah, newly represented by Redemption Bank. These institutions serve their communities without the complementary infrastructure of a credit union network. Conversely, 16 states and territories have African American credit unions but no African American-owned bank: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Virginia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The cases of Ohio and Wisconsin, discussed at length in the bank directory analysis, illustrate the limits of credit union coverage as a substitute for bank presence. Ohio has four African American credit unions with combined assets of approximately $18.3 million: Mahoning Valley in Youngstown, Mt. Zion Woodlawn in Cincinnati, Cleveland Church of Christ in Cleveland, and Toledo Urban in Toledo. Of these, Toledo Urban is the only institution of meaningful scale at $17.2 million in assets with 4,324 members. The other three are micro-institutions, each under $600,000 in assets and under 400 members. Wisconsin’s single credit union, Holy Redeemer Community of SE Wisconsin based in Milwaukee, holds just $764,689 in assets and serves 239 members. For a city where African Americans comprise roughly 39 percent of the population, that represents an institutional void that one small credit union cannot fill. Neither Ohio nor Wisconsin has an African American financial institution capable of writing a commercial real estate loan, funding a startup, or underwriting a mortgage for a first-generation homebuyer at any meaningful scale.

African American Financial Institutions by State, 2025

StateAfrican American BanksAfrican American Credit UnionsCombined Institutions
Alabama21214
Arkansas033
California011
Connecticut033
Delaware011
District of Columbia11011
Florida033
Georgia2911
Illinois12324
Indiana055
Louisiana12526
Maryland077
Massachusetts101
Michigan145
Minnesota022
Mississippi11112
Missouri044
New Jersey099
New York01515
North Carolina123
Ohio044
Oklahoma112
Pennsylvania189
South Carolina156
Tennessee156
Texas11415
Utah101
U.S. Virgin Islands044
Virginia01313
West Virginia011
Wisconsin011

Maryland presents a striking and instructive contrast. It has no African American-owned bank, a gap noted in the 2025 directory, yet it is the single largest state for African American credit union assets, hosting seven institutions with a combined $4.47 billion in assets. That figure is driven primarily by two institutions: Andrews Federal Credit Union in Suitland with $2.47 billion in assets and 142,076 members, and Municipal Employees Credit Union of Baltimore with $1.26 billion in assets and 98,358 members. Maryland’s credit union sector is, in asset terms, larger than the entire African American bank sector nationally. This is remarkable. It is also a reminder that credit unions and banks occupy different structural roles. Andrews Federal and MECU of Baltimore are large, sophisticated institutions with product offerings that approach commercial banking but they are member cooperatives, not banks, and their ownership structure, regulatory environment, and community lending mandates differ accordingly. Maryland’s absence from the bank directory is still a gap worth addressing, even with $4.47 billion in credit union assets in the state.

Virginia and Missouri follow a similar pattern to Maryland, albeit at smaller scale. Virginia has 13 African American credit unions with $471 million in assets but no African American-owned bank. Missouri has four credit unions with $481 million in assets, anchored by St. Louis Community Credit Union at $431.5 million, and also no bank. New York has 15 credit unions with $76 million in assets and no African American bank, a particularly stark figure given the size of New York’s African American population and its status as the financial capital of the country.

The states that are entirely absent from both the bank and credit union directories deserve attention. While the combined coverage of 31 states and territories is broader than either sector alone, large portions of the country remain without any African American-owned financial institution. States like Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and much of the Mountain West and Pacific Northwest have no representation in either directory. As African Americans continue to migrate to new metros — Las Vegas, Phoenix, Denver, Seattle — the absence of community-controlled financial institutions in those corridors becomes a growing concern.

The combined picture is this: African American banks and credit unions together hold approximately $14.8 billion in assets, serve over 700,000 credit union members and the deposit base of 17 banks, and operate across 31 states and territories. The credit union sector, at $8.15 billion in assets across 205 institutions, is actually slightly larger than the bank sector’s $6.72 billion across 17 institutions, a reflection of the credit union model’s greater accessibility and the longer runway some of these institutions have had to grow. But the two sectors are not interchangeable. Banks can hold commercial deposits, write business loans, issue letters of credit, and serve as the financial backbone of an entrepreneurial ecosystem in ways that most credit unions cannot. Credit unions, in turn, offer member ownership, lower fees, and community accountability that publicly or privately held banks may not. The African American community needs both, in every state where its population is substantial. Right now, it has neither in too many places that matter.

Sources: HBCU Money 2025 African American Owned Bank Directory; 2025 NCUA African American Credit Union Institutions data. Asset figures in U.S. dollars.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by Claude (Anthropic).

The Fairy Tale That Wasn’t Meant for Everyone: Pretty Woman and the Racialized Grace Denied to Black Women

“Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman?” – Sojourner Truth

An Analysis of How White Womanhood Receives Redemption While Black Women Face Permanent Condemnation

When Julia Roberts climbed into Richard Gere’s Lotus Esprit on Hollywood Boulevard in 1990’s Pretty Woman, she embarked on a journey that would transform her from streetwalker to America’s sweetheart. The film grossed $463 million worldwide, launched Roberts into superstardom, and cemented itself as one of the most beloved romantic comedies in cinematic history. But beneath its glossy veneer of designer shopping bags and opera dates lies a troubling reality: this fairy tale was only ever written for white women.

The premise is deceptively simple. Vivian Ward, a Hollywood prostitute, is hired by wealthy businessman Edward Lewis for a week of companionship. What begins as a transactional arrangement blossoms into love, culminating in Edward rescuing Vivian from her fire escape—the knight in shining armor arriving in a white limousine. The audience cheers. America swoons. And a sex worker becomes a princess.

Now, imagine if Vivian Ward had been Black.

Pretty Woman operates on a fundamental assumption: that its protagonist deserves redemption, transformation, and ultimately, love. Vivian is presented as a victim of circumstance, a woman who “ended up” in sex work, whose intelligence and charm were simply waiting to be discovered by the right man. The film invites us to see past her profession, to recognize her inherent worth, and to celebrate her elevation into respectability. This grace, the permission to be flawed, to make mistakes, to be seen as complex and worthy despite one’s past is a privilege historically reserved for white women in American culture. It is the same grace that allows a reality television star to build a billion-dollar empire after a sex tape, while a Black woman who tells her own story about the entertainment industry becomes permanently marked.

The comparison between Kim Kardashian and Karrine Steffans (also known as Elisabeth Ovesen) illuminates this disparity with devastating clarity. Both women became famous through their connections to the entertainment industry and their sexuality. Yet their trajectories could not be more different. In 2007, a sex tape featuring Kim Kardashian and singer Ray J was leaked to the public. Rather than becoming a scarlet letter, this moment became the launchpad for one of the most successful media empires in modern history. Kardashian settled her lawsuit against the distributor for a reported $5 million, and months later, Keeping Up with the Kardashians premiered on E!.

Today, Kardashian is a billionaire businesswoman worth an estimated $1.7 billion. She has founded multiple successful companies including Skims, valued at over $4 billion. She has graced the covers of Vogue, been named to Time’s 100 Most Influential People, and received the Innovation Award at the prestigious CFDA Awards. She is pursuing a law degree and advocates for criminal justice reform, meeting with presidents and earning praise for her activism. The media narrative around Kardashian has evolved from scandal to legitimacy, from reality star to mogul. While critics occasionally invoke her sex tape, it exists largely as historical context rather than permanent condemnation. She has been granted the space to grow, to rebrand, to become something more than her past. Like Vivian Ward, Kim Kardashian has been rescued not by a wealthy man, but by a culture willing to let her write her own redemption arc.

In 2005, Karrine Steffans published Confessions of a Video Vixen, a memoir detailing her experiences in the hip-hop industry, including her work as a video vixen and her relationships with various entertainers. The book became a New York Times bestseller and sparked important conversations about the exploitation of women in the music industry, power dynamics, and female agency. But unlike Kardashian’s ascent, Steffans faced immediate and sustained backlash. She was vilified, ostracized, and permanently labeled. In a recent interview with Essence magazine commemorating the 20th anniversary edition of her book, Steffans who now using her birth name, Elisabeth Ovesen—reflected on the devastating impact: “Make no mistake about it, the way the public has treated me, the way the press has treated me, and the way that everyone has talked about me, made up lies about me, vicious lies that are still circulating in the press today, have ruined a lot of my relationships.”

Ovesen describes two decades of being “physically and emotionally beaten by the people in my life” and fighting “to stay alive.” She notes that “there’s been this cloud over me for 20 years,” affecting her ability to work, to form relationships, to simply exist without the weight of public condemnation. The contrast is stark. Kardashian parlayed a sex tape into a multi-billion dollar empire. Steffans wrote about her own experiences and became a pariah. One woman was granted grace and opportunity; the other faced professional exile and personal destruction. The difference in their treatment cannot be separated from race. American culture has long operated on a racialized system of respectability politics in which white womanhood is protected, salvageable, and worthy of redemption, while Black womanhood is disposable, permanently marked, and beyond repair.

This dynamic is rooted in historical systems of oppression. During slavery, white women were placed on pedestals as symbols of purity that needed protection, while Black women were systematically raped and denied any claim to virtue or protection. These ideologies didn’t disappear with emancipation they evolved, shaping everything from Jim Crow laws to contemporary media representations. Pretty Woman is a cinematic embodiment of these racial hierarchies. The film’s entire premise depends on the audience believing that Vivian deserves to be saved, that her circumstances don’t define her worth, that she is capable of transformation. This narrative of redemption is inherently tied to her whiteness.

A Black Vivian Ward would never have made it past the hotel lobby. The same Rodeo Drive saleswomen who snubbed Vivian for her appearance would have called security. The opera patrons who glanced at her with mild curiosity would have stared with open hostility. And Edward Lewis—wealthy, powerful, white—would never have seen her as a potential partner worthy of rescue. More likely, she would have remained a transaction, an object, a stereotype. But here’s the deeper, more painful truth: even if Edward Lewis had been Black, the fairy tale likely still wouldn’t have worked. A wealthy Black businessman might have hired a Black Vivian for the week, might have enjoyed her company, might have been attracted to her but the progression from transaction to transformation, from escort to equal partner, from sex worker to wife would have been profoundly unlikely.

This isn’t speculation it’s a pattern borne out in real-world dynamics. Successful Black men, particularly those who have achieved wealth and status in predominantly white spaces, often internalize the same white supremacist beauty standards and respectability politics that devalue Black women. They pursue white partners as status symbols, as evidence of their arrival, as markers of their distance from the “ghetto” or the “struggle.” A Black woman with a complicated past, with a history of survival sex work, with anything less than a perfect respectability résumé, is often deemed unworthy of the ring even, and sometimes especially, by Black men.

The real-life example of Kim Kardashian demonstrates this dynamic perfectly. Kanye West, a Black man from Chicago’s South Side who achieved massive success in music and fashion, married a white woman with a publicly distributed sex tape, elevated her, celebrated her, called her his muse, and gave her his children and his name. He saw past her history to her potential as a partner. Meanwhile, Karrine Steffans, a Black woman who survived childhood rape, domestic violence, and exploitation in the same entertainment industry, has been systematically rejected, abused, and deemed unworthy of commitment by the Black men in her life.

This reveals something devastating about internalized racism and misogynoir (the specific hatred of Black women). Black men who would marry white women “despite” their pasts often cannot extend that same grace to Black women. The white woman’s transgressions are forgivable, even invisible as evidence of her complexity, her journey, her humanity. The Black woman’s identical or lesser transgressions are permanent stains as evidence of her unworthiness, her damage, her fundamental unfitness for respectability.

So even in an imagined version of Pretty Woman with a Black Edward Lewis, the barriers facing a Black Vivian would remain nearly insurmountable. He might desire her, might enjoy the fantasy, might even genuinely care for her but marry her? Introduce her to his business associates? Make her the mother of his children? The social, psychological, and cultural obstacles would be formidable. She would still be fighting against centuries of messaging that Black women are sexually available but emotionally disposable, useful for pleasure but unworthy of partnership, good enough for right now but never for forever.

Perhaps nowhere is this racialized double standard more painful than in the realm of romantic relationships with Black men. Kim Kardashian has been married to and in long-term relationships with multiple Black men, most notably music producer Damon Thomas (her first husband), NFL player Reggie Bush, and the aforementioned rapper Kanye West (with whom she had four children) and none of whom held her past against her. Her sex tape, her reality television persona, her public relationships none of these factors prevented her from being pursued, married, and elevated by Black men in the entertainment industry. Kanye West collaborated with her professionally, and defended her publicly. Their 2014 wedding in Florence was described by The New York Times as “a historic blizzard of celebrity.” Despite their eventual divorce, West treated Kardashian as worthy of commitment, partnership, and the prestige of his name. Her past was irrelevant to her worthiness as a wife and mother in his eyes.

In stark contrast, Karrine Steffans has faced systematic rejection and abuse from Black men, both publicly and privately. Ovesen describes in the Essence interview spending “a lot of the last 20 years being physically and emotionally beaten by the people in my life; by the men in my life, by my former husbands, by my fiancés, by people just really treating me like garbage everywhere I go.” The message is clear: a white woman with a publicly documented sexual past can marry multiple Black men and be treated as a prize. A Black woman who speaks honestly about her experiences in the same entertainment industry becomes unmarriageable, unworthy of basic respect, deserving of violence and abandonment.

This dynamic reveals a disturbing truth about how Black men despite their own experiences with racism often participate in the devaluation of Black women while extending grace to white women that they deny their own. The same men who might celebrate Kardashian’s beauty, entrepreneurship, and motherhood have labeled Steffans as damaged goods, a cautionary tale, someone who violated the code by speaking truth to power. This individual disparity reflects broader statistical realities about marriage and relationship opportunities for white versus Black women. According to sociological research, white women are significantly more likely to be married than Black women across all education and income levels. In fact, white women who enter into relationships with Black men have higher marriage rates than Black women generally, a devastating indicator of how racial hierarchies shape intimate partnerships.

Even when controlling for comparable backgrounds and circumstances, a white woman is more likely to secure marriage and long-term commitment than a Black woman. This reality holds true whether that white woman is partnering with a white man or a Black man. The common denominator is not the race of the male partner, but the racial privilege of white womanhood itself. Kardashian’s romantic history exemplifies this phenomenon. Despite a sex tape, despite a 72-day marriage that many suspected was a publicity stunt, despite the constant media scrutiny of her relationships and body, she has never struggled to find partners willing to commit to her. She has been engaged multiple times, married three times, and has consistently attracted high-profile men who treat her past as irrelevant to her present worthiness. Meanwhile, Ovesen notes that the cloud over her reputation “has stopped me from doing certain things and caused certain people to not want to work with me, be around me, or get to know me.” The permanent scarlet letter she carries has affected every aspect of her life, including her ability to form healthy romantic relationships.

This disparity speaks to how Black women are uniquely devalued in American society. They face discrimination from white men who may fetishize them but rarely see them as worthy of commitment. They face rejection from Black men who have internalized white supremacist standards of beauty and respectability. And they face judgment from society at large that denies them the grace, forgiveness, and second chances routinely extended to white women. The differential treatment of Kardashian and Steffans reveals the impossible bind facing Black women. When Kardashian capitalized on her sexuality and media attention, she was entrepreneurial, savvy, taking control of her narrative. When Steffans wrote honestly about her experiences in an industry that commodified her body, she was a “tell-all” author, a betrayer, someone who violated unspoken codes by speaking her truth.

This reflects a broader pattern in which Black women are held to standards that are simultaneously more rigid and more dismissive than those applied to white women. Black women must be twice as good to get half as far, yet even perfection offers no protection from racism and misogyny. And when women transgress respectability politics as both Steffans and Kardashian did, albeit in different ways only one is granted the opportunity for redemption. The Eurocentric beauty standards that pervade American culture compound this injustice. Pretty Woman‘s transformation scenes emphasize Vivian’s adherence to conventional (read: white) standards of beauty—her hair, her clothes, her manner of speaking. These scenes suggest that respectability and worthiness are achieved through proximity to whiteness. Black women navigating these same spaces face additional barriers. Natural Black hair is deemed “unprofessional.” Black bodies are simultaneously hypersexualized and demonized. Black women’s anger is characterized as threatening rather than justified. The path to respectability that Vivian walks is not available to women who cannot or will not conform to white cultural norms.

Pretty Woman ultimately sells a meritocratic fantasy: that Vivian’s intelligence, charm, and inherent goodness allow her to transcend her circumstances. It suggests that worth is innate and will be recognized by those with the power to elevate it. This is the American Dream in romantic comedy form. But this dream is not equally accessible. Ovesen’s experience demonstrates that Black women can possess all the talent, intelligence, and determination in the world and still face insurmountable obstacles not because they lack merit, but because the system is designed to exclude them.

Ovesen is a bestselling author who has written multiple books, including The Vixen Manual and The Vixen Diaries. She is a literary coach helping other writers. She has been in therapy since 2006, working on her healing and growth. Yet she remains defined by decisions made decades ago, unable to escape the narrative that was written about her rather than by her. Meanwhile, Kardashian who has faced her share of criticism has been allowed to evolve. She is a businesswoman, a mother, an advocate, a law student. Her past is acknowledged but doesn’t define her present. She embodies the Pretty Woman promise: that transformation is possible, that redemption is available, that one’s history doesn’t have to determine one’s future.

The 20th anniversary edition of Confessions of a Video Vixen arrives at a moment when conversations about women’s autonomy, exploitation in entertainment, and the power of storytelling are more urgent than ever. Ovesen’s reflections on her journey offer profound insights into the costs of truth-telling for Black women. “I believe in speaking up loudly and often, I believe in saying what’s true and what is right, no matter what the consequences are,” Ovesen told Essence. This courage to speak despite knowing the price, to refuse silence even when silence might have been safer deserves recognition and respect. Ovesen’s story also challenges us to reconsider whose narratives we celebrate and whose we condemn. Pretty Woman asks us to sympathize with a white sex worker, to root for her happy ending, to believe in her worthiness of love and transformation. Yet when a Black woman shares her own experiences navigating exploitation and commodification, she faces derision rather than empathy.

This double standard extends beyond individual women to shape cultural narratives about who deserves grace, who can be redeemed, and whose humanity is recognized. It reflects deeper structural inequalities in which Blackness and particularly Black womanhood is constructed as incompatible with innocence, worthiness, or complexity. Pretty Woman ends with Edward climbing Vivian’s fire escape, conquering his fear of heights to rescue the woman he loves. “She rescues him right back,” Vivian tells him, suggesting a partnership of equals. It’s a romantic conclusion that has captivated audiences for more than three decades. But this ending was never written for Black women. There is no knight coming to rescue Black women from systemic oppression, from racialized misogyny, from the impossible standards that demand perfection while denying opportunity. There is no fairy godmother to transform them, no shopping montage to signal their worthiness, no opera scene to demonstrate their hidden sophistication.

Instead, Black women like Ovesen must rescue themselves. They must heal in a world that continues to wound them. They must build lives and careers despite clouds that follow them for decades. They must center themselves, as Ovesen describes doing during the pandemic, because no one else will. “I spent a lot of the last 20 years being physically and emotionally beaten by the people in my life,” Ovesen shared. “I’ve just been fighting to stay alive, and it wasn’t until the pandemic that I was able to hyperfocus on my healing.” Her survival is its own form of triumph, even if it looks nothing like Hollywood’s version.

Thirty-five years after Pretty Woman premiered, we must reckon with the stories we tell and whose experiences they center. We must examine the grace we extend to some women while withholding it from others. We must acknowledge that race fundamentally shapes whose humanity is recognized, whose past can be overcome, and whose future holds possibility. Kim Kardashian’s success is not illegitimate (but even that is worthy of discussion) she has demonstrated business acumen, resilience, and strategic thinking. But her trajectory has been facilitated by structural advantages unavailable to Black women in similar circumstances. Her story is a Pretty Woman narrative because she had access to the grace economy, the benefit of the doubt, the cultural permission to evolve beyond her past.

Karrine Steffans deserves that same grace. So do countless other Black women who have been denied the opportunity to grow, to change, to be seen as more than their worst moments or their most difficult circumstances. Their stories matter. Their humanity matters. And the systems that determine whose redemption is possible and whose is permanently out of reach must be challenged and dismantled. The fairy tale ending of Pretty Woman was never meant for everyone. But perhaps it’s time to stop accepting that inequality as inevitable and start demanding that grace, opportunity, and redemption become truly universal. Because every woman regardless of race deserves the chance to rescue herself and be rescued in return.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Public Transportation & Infrastructure: Apple Should Help Kill The Car Not Invest In It

In 2024, Apple quietly killed its electric vehicle project. After nearly a decade of speculation, leaked prototypes, and engineering talent poached from Detroit and Stuttgart, the announcement arrived with a shrug. Markets barely moved. What looked like a retreat was, on closer inspection, something more interesting — a door left open to a far more consequential ambition.

Apple was never going to win by building another car. The automotive market is brutally competitive, capital-intensive, and increasingly commoditised at the electric end. Tesla, BYD, and Rivian are fighting that war. The smarter bet — and the one Apple is uniquely positioned to make — is building the platform that makes car ownership less necessary in the first place.

This is not a utopian argument. It is a business one.

The global infrastructure gap is estimated at $94 trillion by 2040, according to the World Bank. American water systems lose roughly 6 billion gallons of treated water daily through deteriorating pipes. The U.S. electrical grid, designed for a centralised fossil fuel economy, is structurally ill-suited for the distributed renewable future that both climate policy and energy economics now demand. Passenger rail — a basic connective tissue across Europe and Asia — remains an afterthought across vast stretches of the United States. Traffic congestion drains an estimated $179 billion from the American economy annually in lost time and fuel. Vehicle emissions contribute to more than 60,000 premature deaths each year in the U.S. alone.

These are not niche concerns. They are the failing arteries of modern life. And very few companies on earth are better positioned than Apple to redesign them.

Apple already integrates hardware, software, and services with a precision that no competitor has matched at scale. Its chip design produces some of the most energy-efficient processors ever built. Its cloud infrastructure, sensor technology, and payment systems span billions of devices across every continent. Its supply chain discipline and design sensibility are, by any measure, world-class. The question is not whether Apple has the capability to enter the infrastructure space. The question is whether it has the strategic imagination to try.

Consider transit. Apple would not need to lay track, operate buses, or run a single vehicle. What it could build is the operating layer — AI-optimised routing drawing on Apple Maps data, seamless ticketing through Apple Wallet, personalised journey planning through Siri, real-time crowd flow management at interchange hubs, and demand-responsive electric shuttles for lower-density districts. The iPhone would become, in effect, a passport to a life less dependent on car ownership — and all the financial and environmental costs that car ownership imposes.

The economics of this argument are well established, even if they remain politically underappreciated. Every dollar invested in public transit generates roughly five dollars in broader economic returns, according to the American Public Transportation Association. Transit-oriented development raises property values, expands tax bases, and improves labour market access for workers priced out of car ownership. Cities that invest in dense, multimodal systems reduce emissions, reclaim public space, and generate measurable public health gains. The infrastructure of movement is not a social expenditure. It is a productive one.

The opportunity extends beyond transit. Apple’s energy-efficient chip architecture translates naturally to smart grid management, where modular, predictive systems are precisely what is needed to integrate distributed solar, battery storage, and dynamic demand response. Apple sensors and cloud infrastructure already exist at the scale required to monitor water systems in real time — detecting pipe failures, tracking quality, and optimising pressure through smart valves. Apple Pay processes billions of transactions. The components for an Apple Water platform or an Apple Grid service layer are, in many respects, already assembled. What is missing is the strategic decision to point them at a larger problem.

The water case is particularly stark. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that $472 billion in maintenance investment is required over the next twenty years simply to sustain existing water infrastructure — before a single mile of new pipe is laid. Globally, nearly one in three people lacks reliable access to safe drinking water. The market for intelligent water management — leak detection, quality monitoring, pressure optimisation — is enormous and structurally underserved. Apple’s skill in miniaturising technology, combining sensors with privacy-grade cloud processing, and delivering consumer-grade interfaces for complex data makes it an unusually credible entrant.

For Apple, the strategic logic is also a defensive one. iPhone sales have plateaued. Its Services division faces antitrust scrutiny across multiple jurisdictions. Its cash reserves — exceeding $160 billion — are an asset in search of a return that consumer electronics can no longer reliably provide. Infrastructure, by contrast, offers recurring revenue through service agreements and municipal contracts, structural diversification away from device cycles, and long-term relevance at a civilisational rather than product level. The infrastructure market is not glamorous. But it is enormous, it is durable, and it is ripe for the kind of systemic redesign that Apple has historically done better than anyone.

The risks are genuine and should not be minimised. Apple is famously secretive, consumer-oriented, and averse to the slow-moving regulatory complexity that infrastructure demands. City contracts are messier than product launches. Margins are narrower. Failures are public and politically costly. But Apple has navigated hostile regulatory environments before — in financial services, in healthcare, in China. Its high public trust and strong ESG record are genuine assets in a domain where government partnerships require demonstrated credibility over time. And crucially, Apple would not need to own pipes, track, or transmission lines. It would build the intelligent systems layered atop them — and license those systems to governments, utilities, and citizens at scale.

The model already exists in adjacent industries. Schneider Electric and Siemens have built large, profitable businesses selling digital operating layers to physical infrastructure owners. Veolia manages water and energy systems for municipalities across the developed and developing world. These are not Apple-scale companies in terms of design capability or brand trust. Apple entering this space would not be a departure from what it does. It would be an extension of it — at a higher level of ambition.

What would this look like in practice? In dense cities, an Apple Transit platform could reduce car usage, lower emissions, and return public space to pedestrians and parks. In smaller cities and rural regions — places too dispersed for high-frequency bus networks but underserved by the on-demand platforms that have flourished in major metros — demand-responsive electric shuttles dynamically routed through Apple Maps could reconnect communities that car dependence has quietly strangled. In energy markets, an Apple Grid service could allow households to manage solar and storage through iOS, enable peer-to-peer energy trading between neighbours, and give grid operators the real-time visibility they need to prevent blackouts in a renewables-heavy system. In water, an Apple Water platform could give cities the predictive maintenance tools they currently lack, and give households transparent, real-time visibility into their consumption and the health of their local system.

None of this requires Apple to become a utility or a transport operator. It requires Apple to become what it has always been at its best: the company that builds the operating system everyone else runs on.

Steve Jobs once described the computer as a bicycle for the mind — a tool that amplifies human capability far beyond what either could achieve alone. The infrastructure of the coming century needs exactly that kind of amplification. Roads that manage themselves. Grids that think. Water systems that speak before they fail. Transit that fits around people’s lives rather than demanding they organise their lives around it.

The real disruption in mobility is not a better electric vehicle. It is a better alternative to vehicles altogether — and the broader infrastructure intelligence that makes modern life function without the waste, the inequity, and the environmental cost that the 20th century model baked in.

Apple has the cash, the capability, and the moment. The question is whether it has the ambition to match.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.