HBCU Money

America’s Healthcare Has Failed Black Women: The HBCU Health System Plans to Change That

Posted on November 10, 2026 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

“I think it’s time to kill for our women / Time to heal our women, be real to our women / And if we don’t we’ll have a race of babies / That will hate the ladies, that make the babies” – Tupac Shakur

A Black woman went into labor on a Tuesday night. The hospital ten minutes from her home had stopped delivering babies the year before. A board in another community had reviewed the numbers and decided that women like her did not pay enough to keep that wing open. So her husband drove her ninety minutes down a two-lane road in the dark, hazard lights on, while her blood pressure climbed with no one there to measure it. In the emergency bay of a hospital that had never seen her chart, far from the doctors and nurses who knew her, looked like her, and cared for her, she gave birth to a daughter who may one day suffer her same fate. Her community had never moved to take institutional ownership of that hospital, leaving it always vulnerable to the whims of others. Eleven days later she died at home, of a complication a single follow-up visit would likely have caught, in a county where there was no longer anywhere to go for one. Her death certificate listed the cause. It did not list the decision.

The United States has spent two decades treating the deaths of Black women as a clinical puzzle. It has studied implicit bias, revised hemorrhage protocols, and funded awareness campaigns, and the numbers have barely moved. The reason is that the failure is not primarily clinical. It is institutional. Black women in America receive their care, from adolescence through old age, almost entirely from institutions that Black America does not own, govern, finance, or staff at scale. Their outcomes are decided in boardrooms where they have no seat. Communities rise or fall on the strength of their institutions, not the brilliance of their individuals, and healthcare is where that principle is measured in lives. HBCU Money argues that the HBCU Health System, a proposed national network developed by The Diaspora Projects, is the first serious attempt in two generations to treat Black women’s health as an ownership problem rather than a sensitivity problem.

Childbirth is where the failure is most visible, and the data are stubborn. The National Center for Health Statistics reports that in 2024 the maternal mortality rate for Black women was 44.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. That was significantly higher than the rates for white women (14.2), Hispanic women (12.1), and Asian women (18.1). That figure is the improved one, since the Black rate peaked at 69.9 in 2021. The gap held through both the peak and the decline. But maternal death is a single chapter in a much longer story, and focusing on it alone has allowed the rest of that story to go largely unexamined.

A Black woman’s encounter with the health system does not begin in a delivery room or end there. It runs across decades and across nearly every major disease:

Hypertension. According to the American Heart Association, 59.2 percent of Black women live with high blood pressure, among the highest rates in the world. Only about one in five Black adults with hypertension has it under control.
Stroke. Black women have the highest stroke prevalence of any group, at 5.4 percent, against 2.9 percent for all women.
Fibroids. By age 50, up to 80 percent of Black women develop uterine fibroids. They are two to three times more likely to develop symptomatic fibroids, and fibroids are the leading reason American women undergo hysterectomy.
Lupus. Data from the Georgia Lupus Registry show lupus incidence among Black women aged 30 to 59 nearly three times that of white women.
HIV. In 2023, Black women accounted for half of all HIV diagnoses among women, despite making up 13 percent of the female population.
Cancer. Black women are 38 percent more likely to die of breast cancer despite a 5 percent lower incidence. Their death rate from uterine cancer is roughly double that of white women, and their cervical cancer mortality is 40 to 50 percent higher.

These are not separate crises. They are one institutional failure, repeated across every service line from screening and diagnosis to surgery and long-term management. The connections between them are not incidental. The hypertension that kills a Black woman in pregnancy is the same hypertension that, left uncontrolled, kills her at fifty through stroke or heart failure. The fibroids diagnosed late in a fragmented system become the hysterectomy that a coordinated one might have prevented.

The clearest evidence that this is a problem of ownership rather than access comes from outside the United States. The United Kingdom has what America does not: universal coverage through the National Health Service. If coverage were the binding constraint, British disparities would have closed. They have not. Oxford’s National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, which runs the MBRRACE-UK surveillance programme, found that in 2022–24 Black women faced a risk of maternal death nearly three times that of white women. Over the same period, the UK’s overall maternal mortality rate rose 20 percent. A Black mother in London with full coverage and a Black mother in Mississippi on Medicaid share the same structural position. The institution delivering her care was not built by her community, is not governed by it, and does not depend on its loyalty to survive. Coverage is not control.

The pattern is as old as American medicine’s treatment of Black women’s bodies, and its origins are institutional. Between 1845 and 1849, in Montgomery, Alabama, the white physician James Marion Sims experimented on at least seven enslaved Black women and girls. The work produced a surgical repair for a chronic childbirth complication and earned him the title “Father of Gynecology.” Because the women were enslaved, Sims needed legal permission only from their owners, not from the women themselves. He operated on Anarcha, an enslaved teenager, at least 13 times without anesthesia before he had a technique considered safe enough for white patients. His experiments on another woman, Lucy, failed and brought her close to death from severe blood poisoning. Sims later became president of the American Medical Association, and his statue still stands on the grounds of the Alabama State Capitol, a short distance from Alabama State University.

The lesson for institution builders is precise. Black women held no authority over the institution being built on their bodies, no equity in the knowledge they produced, and no seat in the profession it founded. The specific abuse has ended. The allocation of authority largely has not.

African America answered exclusion by building, and for a time it built at remarkable scale. As HBCU Money documented in 2012, drawing on Nathaniel Wesley Jr.’s Black Hospitals in America, there were roughly 500 African American-owned and controlled hospitals at the apex. Today, only Howard University’s remains. Detroit alone was home to 18 hospitals owned and operated by African Americans between 1917 and 1991. These institutions trained the nurses and physicians that white hospitals refused, gave Black patients a place to be treated with dignity, and kept a meaningful share of the community’s health spending inside the community. Their decline from 500 to one is among the largest institutional losses African America sustained in the twentieth century. It rarely appears in conversations about the wealth gap or the health gap, though it belongs in both.

The HBCU sector owned part of that infrastructure, and the way it was lost is instructive. Flint-Goodridge Hospital in New Orleans was founded by Black women for Black people, through the work of the Phyllis Wheatley Club. At the time, Black New Orleanians could otherwise be treated only in Charity Hospital’s segregated ward. Dillard University took over the hospital in 1929 and built it a new facility in 1932. When Dillard sold the hospital in 1983, its president, Samuel DuBois Cook, laid out the causes of its decline. He cited mismanagement and financial irregularities, the desegregation of hospitals, and a patient base that was 90 percent Medicare or Medicaid, along with “the loss of broad community support.” A group of 47 Black doctors, two dentists, and one pharmacist tried to buy it. It went instead to National Medical Enterprises for $1.8 million and closed in 1985.

Cook’s list should be read as a design specification rather than an epitaph. A hospital with weak governance, a revenue base concentrated in public payers, and no organized community capital behind it will not survive competition, however necessary it may be. Integration did not transfer Black hospitals to Black communities on better terms. It dissolved them, as patients, physicians, and the federal payment streams created in 1965 flowed toward larger white-owned systems. Any serious attempt to rebuild must answer all three failures at once.

The capital-retention consequences are still compounding. Medicaid finances more than 40 percent of U.S. births and 65 percent of births to Black mothers. According to KFF, there were 3,628,934 U.S. births in 2024, 13 percent of them to Black mothers. That implies roughly 470,000 Black births a year, about 300,000 of them paid for by Medicaid. And births are only the most countable stream. Every blood pressure visit, every mammogram, every fibroid surgery, and every lupus infusion is also a revenue event. Across a Black woman’s lifetime, nearly all of that revenue is booked by institutions outside the Black ecosystem. Black women generate the volume. Others hold the asset.

The present position of the HBCU medical enterprise shows how thin its institutional footing has become. Howard University Hospital is the nation’s only teaching hospital located on an HBCU campus, and Howard nearly gave up control of it. Adventist HealthCare took over its management in 2020 under an arrangement that anticipated an eventual purchase, and both management agreements ended in February 2026. Meharry Medical College trains at Nashville General Hospital, which is governed by the Metropolitan Nashville Hospital Authority from the former Meharry-Hubbard Hospital building. Until a 2025 agreement, Meharry chief executive James Hildreth said, the college had been “relegated to the public comment section of the board meetings.” Morehouse School of Medicine conducts most of its clinical training at Grady Memorial Hospital, and Charles R. Drew University depends on Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital and county facilities. None of the four controls its clinical platform outright.

This matters because these four schools are the country’s most effective concentrators of Black medical talent. According to the AAMC, they have educated roughly half of all Black doctors in the United States. Yet only 5.2 percent of American physicians are Black, while African Americans are nearly 14 percent of the population. Concentrating talent without owning institutions amounts to a training subsidy for other systems. The HBCU ecosystem produces the physicians, and mainstream health systems capture the careers, the billing, and the data.

Meanwhile, the delivery infrastructure that Black women in the South rely on is contracting. The March of Dimes classifies 1,104 counties, about 35 percent of the national total, as maternity care deserts. Nearly half of Texas counties fall into that category, and 68 percent of Mississippi’s rural hospitals have no labor and delivery unit. A June 2026 report from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform counts 139 rural hospitals that have stopped delivering babies since the end of 2020, or plan to before the end of this year. Researchers writing in Health Affairs found that obstetric staffing becomes financially unworkable under the low reimbursement that comes with a high share of Medicaid patients. Federal Medicaid reductions enacted in 2025 tighten that vise. Obstetrics is the first service line to go because it is the most expensive to staff, but the economics that close a maternity wing eventually reach the cardiology clinic and the cancer center too. This is Flint-Goodridge’s payer-mix problem, now operating at national scale.

In 2012, HBCU Money argued that not every HBCU needed to build a hospital, but that every HBCU should invest in community clinics connected regionally to an African American-owned hospital. What that argument lacked was an operating architecture. The Diaspora Projects has now proposed one: the HBCU Health System (HBCU-HS). It is a national network built on the intellectual capital, legacy, and community trust of HBCUs, designed to stand alongside the country’s leading academic medical systems. The system would operate four units:

HBCU Academic Medical Centers, with flagship hubs planned at Howard University Hospital, Meharry Medical College, Morehouse School of Medicine, and Charles R. Drew University.
HBCU Regional Clinics, organized as federally qualified health centers on HBCU campuses and in alumni communities.
A Virtual Care Network, a national telehealth platform staffed by HBCU-trained providers.
The HBCU Health Plan, offering coverage to students, faculty, and alumni.

A 15-member National Board of Trustees would govern the system. It would draw on HBCU presidents, medical professionals, public health scholars, and alumni, supported by advisory councils on women’s, men’s, and children’s health.

The flagship designations are a plan, not signed affiliations, and converting them into binding agreements is the system’s first task. The terms matter as much as the signatures. Meharry’s experience at Nashville General shows what a clinical relationship looks like without governance rights. Every HBCU-HS affiliation should therefore carry board seats, data rights, and a defined share of clinical revenue. Anything less reproduces the arrangement Sims’s patients lived under, in which Black women supply the clinical foundation and someone else holds the authority.

The plan’s most important structural choice is to give women’s health its own flagship subsidiary, HBCU Women’s Health, rather than folding it into a general service line. Its mandate spans a woman’s entire life: maternal mortality, fibroids, breast cancer, menopause, and doula and midwifery training. A subsidiary with that mandate can also integrate the cardiovascular, autoimmune, and cancer care that fragmented systems scatter across unconnected specialists. The rationale is institutional.

Compared with white women, a larger share of Black women’s maternal deaths occur between 43 days and a year after delivery, pointing to gaps in follow-up care. That is the stretch of time when no single institution owns the patient. The same gap recurs throughout her life: between the gynecologist who notes the fibroid and the surgeon who removes the uterus, between the blood pressure reading at a pharmacy kiosk and the cardiologist she never sees, between the lupus flare and the rheumatologist three counties away. A system that unites community clinics, telehealth, and a trained workforce under one governance structure can own her care across the decades in a way disconnected providers cannot.

The plan’s ten-year goal of halving Black maternal mortality would bring the rate to about 22 deaths per 100,000. That would still exceed today’s white rate, which is why the target should be understood as a floor rather than a finish line. Comparable targets for hypertension control, earlier fibroid diagnosis, and breast cancer staging should sit alongside it.

The regional clinic phase is where the system meets Black women where they live. Prairie View A&M, Southern, Jackson State, and North Carolina A&T are named as sites for years four through seven. All four sit in states where obstetric access is contracting and hypertension and stroke rates are among the nation’s highest, and all four already train health professionals. The network should reach further. Alcorn State runs a nursing school in Natchez, where the community campus of Merit Health Natchez has stopped delivering babies. Coppin State and Bethune-Cookman run nursing programs embedded in Black urban communities. Xavier University of Louisiana is establishing a new medical school with Ochsner Health.

Most of these campuses are public universities in states with little appetite for race-conscious institution-building, which limits what they can do directly. Their alumni associations and foundations, however, are legally independent entities. They can hold clinic real estate and contract with HBCU-HS where the universities themselves cannot, and the regional phase should be structured through them from the outset.

The system’s ambitions should not stop at the hospitals that already exist. Where a community has lost its maternity wing or its hospital entirely, affiliation with HBCU-HS can make a new one financeable. Affiliation brings a physician and nursing pipeline from HBCU schools, a teaching mission, and a national referral network that no standalone hospital can assemble on its own. There is precedent. Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital opened in 2015 on the campus of the shuttered King/Drew medical center and became a clinical home for Charles R. Drew University. Howard has said its plan to build a new, state-of-the-art hospital will continue regardless of changes in management. The financing tools already exist: HUD’s Section 242 program insures hospital mortgages, and USDA’s Community Facilities program lends to rural hospitals. HBCU-HS should maintain a standing hospital development function to bring these pieces together. The system would supply the clinical and academic anchor, Black banks and credit unions would take participations in the financing, and federal programs would carry the long-term debt.

The HBCU Health Plan answers the second failure on Cook’s list. Flint-Goodridge died with nine in ten of its patients on public payers. Today, across 107 federally designated HBCUs, student premiums, employee benefits, and alumni coverage flow to mainstream insurers. An HBCU-owned plan would keep those premiums inside the ecosystem, reinvest underwriting margins in care, and give every hub and clinic a commercially insured patient base alongside its Medicaid volume. No single HBCU has a risk pool large enough to sustain such a plan, but a pool spanning dozens of institutions and their alumni does. The plan should launch with student coverage, where enrollment is predictable, and expand into employee and alumni products as the pool matures.

The third failure, the absence of organized community capital, is a financing question that the ecosystem has more pieces to answer today than it did in 1983. Philanthropic capital has shown it can move at scale toward HBCU medicine: Bloomberg Philanthropies committed $600 million to the four HBCU medical schools in 2024. But that money builds endowments, not ownership of care platforms. The operating layer is a job for Black-owned financial institutions. HBCU Money’s 2025 directories count 17 African American-owned banks with roughly $6.72 billion in combined assets and 205 African American-owned credit unions with roughly $8.15 billion, together about $15 billion. That cannot finance an academic medical center on its own. It can hold the system’s operating deposits, finance clinic real estate and mobile units, and anchor loan participations in new hospital projects. Federally qualified health center status adds federal grants and enhanced Medicaid payment rates, which makes the choice of the FQHC model as much a financial decision as a clinical one.

The research arm deserves equal weight. The plan routes clinical data into a shared National Black Health Database and would establish an HBCU Life Expectancy Research Center to publish an annual Black Longevity Index. A database, however, needs laboratories behind it. Hormone receptor-negative breast cancers, which are harder to treat, occur 65 percent more often in Black women and kill them at 2.2 times the rate. Fibroids, lupus, and hypertensive disease follow similar patterns of disproportionate burden and, historically, disproportionate neglect in the research agenda. HBCU-HS should fund and co-locate clinical research units and wet laboratories at its flagship hubs and at partner campuses with established research capacity, including the pharmacy colleges at Xavier and Florida A&M. The studies that matter most to Black women should be designed, run, and owned inside the ecosystem. Whoever owns the dataset and the laboratory sets the research agenda, and Black women have been the subjects of American medical research since Montgomery, rarely its owners. The system’s affiliation with the Hamer-Whatley Food Security Trust extends that logic upstream. Through shared board seats and clinical referrals, it ties clinical care to the nutritional conditions that drive hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease long before a woman reaches a hospital bed.

Dr. John Henrik Clarke understood the hierarchy of institutional priorities better than many of the leaders who followed him. “If I ever have any influence over a state,” he wrote, “the first thing I would build is a decent hospital.” He measured a civilization by how it cared for its oldest and its youngest. By that measure, a people that does not own a single network of hospitals serving its women has not finished building its civilization. It is renting one.

The HBCU Health System’s ten-year plan runs from flagship hubs to regional clinics to national virtual care and partnerships across Africa and the Caribbean. Its success will depend less on its scale than on whether the ecosystem treats it as infrastructure rather than as a program. That requires five commitments now:

The flagship affiliations must be negotiated with governance rights rather than as courtesy partnerships.
The alumni associations and foundations of public HBCUs should prepare to serve as the clinics’ legal and real-estate partners.
Black-owned banks and credit unions should position themselves as the system’s depositories and lenders.
The system should establish a standing development channel for new hospitals and research laboratories.
HBCU Women’s Health should lead, with a mandate covering a woman’s whole life rather than a single moment in it, because the women of this community have carried the cost of institutional absence longer than anyone.

The woman in the parable died because no one in her community had standing to decide whether her hospital would keep its doors open to her. Anarcha and Lucy had no standing either, and neither, in the end, did the community that watched Flint-Goodridge sell for $1.8 million. The HBCU Health System is, at bottom, a claim to that standing. African America cannot vote its way into the boardroom of a hospital system it does not own. It can build one.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

The Cultivated Man: Why Men Must Learn to Enter Museums and Theaters on Their Own and With Each Other

Posted on November 3, 2026 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

“The purpose of art is to lay bare the questions that have been hidden by the answers.” – James Baldwin

Every afternoon a sophomore offensive lineman walked through the lobby of a small college library in Alabama, going from the practice field to his three o’clock class. Like every student before him, he stepped around the ship set into the floor, because upperclassmen had told him nobody walks on it. No one had ever taken him to a museum as a boy, and for a year he never looked up. One October afternoon, early for class, he did. Above him, across canvases wider than a classroom, a revolt was unfolding: captives seizing a schooner, a courtroom in Connecticut, a return voyage to Africa. He stood there long enough to be late. The next week he came back to ask who painted it. The week after, he brought two teammates. By spring the three of them had driven to Atlanta to see where the painter had taught. The lineman had started reading history he was never assigned, and he had found words for grief and ambition, his own and his father’s, that he had not had the fall before. He came home that summer and took his younger brother to the city museum. He had found the door at nineteen and decided his brother would not have to wait that long.

Ask a cross-section of Black men when they first chose to walk into a museum, a gallery, or a theater as adults. School field trips don’t count. A striking number will answer some version of the same thing: with a girlfriend, or with a wife. The pattern is common enough among heterosexual men of every background that it has become a cultural cliché: the man trailing his partner through an exhibition, waiting to be released. Going together has real value, and a couple standing in front of a painting is a good thing. The problem is when the partner is the only door. When a man’s access to an entire category of intellectual and emotional development runs through one relationship, that access is borrowed, conditional, and easily lost. And when a man first walks through that door at thirty, it means no one opened it for him at eight. It means more invisible labor that women must bear and that they talk about in the arena of self-development that should have already happened for potential partners. HBCU Money argues that participation in arts and culture is a form of institutional membership, and the strongest memberships begin in boyhood. A community whose men and boys do not hold that membership in their own right leaves much of its human capital undeveloped and many of its cultural institutions without patrons.

The national data shows the gap clearly. In the 2022 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, the National Endowment for the Arts found no arts or cultural activity in which men participated at higher rates than women. Twenty percent of women visited an art museum or gallery, against 16 percent of men. Forty percent of women attended a live performance, against 35 percent of men. The racial data adds a second gap. Eleven percent of Black adults visited an art museum or gallery, compared with 20 percent of white adults, and 7 percent attended a musical stage play, compared with 13 percent. The survey does not break out results by race and sex together, but two shortfalls stacked on each other can only point one way. Black men are likely among the least present people in America’s cultural institutions, including those their own communities built.

The roots of that absence are in childhood. In a study for the NEA, Nick Rabkin and E.C. Hedberg of the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center found that childhood arts education was the most significant predictor of adult arts attendance. Among adults who had any arts education as children, 57 percent attended a benchmark arts event, compared with 24 percent of those who had none. The same study documented a collapse in that early exposure. In 1982, 51 percent of African Americans reported receiving any arts education in childhood. By 2008 the figure had fallen to 26 percent. Taste, identity, and a sense of belonging in a room are largely formed before adulthood. A boy who never enters a gallery or a theater before eighteen does not simply miss an outing. He grows into a man who walks into those spaces as a guest at best, and more often stays out. The adult patterns in the NEA’s 2022 figures are, in large part, childhood patterns that arrived late.

Boys face a particular pressure on top of that loss of access. From an early age, many are taught that sports and a short list of approved masculine pursuits are the only legitimate arenas for male striving. Curiosity about painting, poetry, dance, or theater gets policed with ridicule by peers, and too often by the adult men around them. The result is not tougher men. It is men with a narrower emotional vocabulary and a narrower intellectual range, who reach adulthood waiting for someone else to give them permission to be curious. The costs show up in social life. The Survey Center on American Life found that the share of American men reporting no close friends rose from 3 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2021, and the share reporting six or more close friends fell from 55 percent to 27 percent. The Center pointed to traditional norms of masculinity as one reason men find it harder to be open with one another. A man without independent social and cultural venues ends up routing his emotional and intellectual life through a single partner. One relationship carries the load that a whole network of institutions once shared. That is the problem of institutional density, playing out inside a single life.

The case for art and culture in men’s development is concrete, and it begins with emotional intelligence. Theater is the most direct training ground. Psychologists Thalia Goldstein and Ellen Winner followed young adolescents through a year of instruction. Those taking acting classes gained more in empathy, in theory of mind (the capacity to read what another person is thinking and feeling), and in emotional regulation than peers studying other art forms. An actor, and to a lesser degree an engaged audience member, spends hours inside another person’s reasoning, fears, and motives. Daniel Bowen of Texas A&M and Brian Kisida of the University of Missouri showed the same effect at scale. They ran a randomized trial of Houston’s Arts Access Initiative across more than 10,000 students in 42 schools, mostly serving low-income students of color. Schools receiving more partnerships with museums, theaters, and teaching artists saw disciplinary infractions fall by 3.6 percentage points, along with gains in writing and in students’ compassion for others. The cost was roughly $15 per student. Anyone who has watched boys absorb most of the discipline in American schools should read that finding as an argument about boys.

Imagination is the second benefit, and it is often misread as an indulgence. Woodruff’s murals at Talladega span a hundred years, from a revolt at sea in 1839 to the opening of the library they hang in. To paint them, he had to picture a people’s history whole, at a time when the textbooks would not. That is the same capacity institution-builders need: the ability to see a bank, a hospital, or a research center that does not yet exist and work backward to build it. A boy who learns to hold an unfamiliar image in his mind, or to follow a story to its end, is practicing the discipline of envisioning what isn’t there yet. Communities that want founders need boys who were taught to imagine.

The third benefit is intellectual. The earlier study by Bowen, Kisida, and Jay Greene of school trips to an art museum found gains in critical thinking, historical empathy, and tolerance. A gallery asks a viewer to look closely at something ambiguous, form an interpretation, test it against evidence, and revise it. That is the structure of serious reasoning in any field. It is also the opposite of the scrolling, instant-verdict habits that now fill most boys’ free hours. Museums also make history physical. A boy who stands in front of Tanner’s The Banjo Lesson at Hampton, or the Amistad canvases at Talladega, holds a piece of the past that a textbook paragraph cannot hand him.

These capacities do not stay in the gallery. They become qualities of character: patience, attention, humility before what one does not yet understand, the ability to name a feeling before acting on it, and the willingness to sit with discomfort without lashing out. Those qualities pay off in three places. The first is the self. A man with an inner life of his own handles grief, failure, and long stretches of solitude better than one whose only outlets are competition and distraction. The second is the family. A father who can name his emotions can teach his son to name his. A husband who arrives at the museum as a fellow participant rather than a reluctant escort is a better partner. The date is better when both people chose to be there. The third is the community. Civic life runs on men who can listen to an argument, imagine another neighbor’s circumstances, and keep a meeting together when it turns tense. Those are learned skills, and the arts are among the oldest places to learn them.

The choice between athletics and the arts is also a recent invention. Dr. John Henrik Clarke’s study of Paul Robeson makes the point plainly. Clarke records that Robeson won fifteen varsity letters at Rutgers and was named a first-team All-American twice. He also earned Phi Beta Kappa honors, graduated as valedictorian, and was the debating champion all four years. Robeson then made his professional stage debut in 1920 at the Harlem YMCA, in a play called Simon, the Cyrenian. Clarke argues that Robeson was persecuted not because he was a famous singer or athlete, but because he was an artist who used his art to call for change. The same institution supported both the athlete and the actor. Clarke’s own life shows the same model. He writes that soon after arriving in New York at 18, in 1933, he became active in the Harlem History Club at the Harlem YMCA, a circle of young men building their intellectual lives together. Clarke later described a people’s culture as “the fuel that feeds the fires of their ambition, pride and self-esteem.” The same holds for the development of individual men, and for the institutions those men either sustain or abandon.

The HBCU ecosystem already has the assets. The Hampton University Museum, founded in 1868, is the oldest African American museum in the United States. It holds more than 9,000 works, including The Banjo Lesson, acquired in 1894, and the largest museum holdings of John Biggers, Elizabeth Catlett, Jacob Lawrence, and Samella Lewis. Admission is free, and the museum already runs a children’s Curiosity Room, school partnerships, and summer camps. Talladega College commissioned Hale Woodruff in 1938 to paint the murals in the parable above. In 1963, Tougaloo College became home to Mississippi’s first collection of modern art, assembled with the New York Art Committee for Tougaloo College during the height of the civil rights movement in Jackson. That collection now numbers more than a thousand works and has toured nationally as Art and Activism at Tougaloo College. Fisk University has its Jubilee Singers, whose 1871 tour kept the institution alive. North Carolina A&T has its Richard B. Harrison Players. Across the network, HBCU stages and galleries offer serious work at a fraction of the price of downtown institutions, often within driving distance of the boys who most need them.

The capital-retention stakes are concrete. Talladega College recently entered a partnership under which the Art Bridges Foundation and the Terra Foundation for American Art jointly acquired the three Amistad panels. The Toledo Museum of Art acquired The Underground Railroad, and the college retained the two remaining founding murals on campus. Whatever the financial reasoning in Talladega’s case, the general lesson holds: cultural assets go to the audiences and patrons able to sustain them. A Black public that does not attend, join, or give to HBCU museums leaves those institutions to be valued, funded, and eventually owned by others. Every membership, ticket, and gift keeps capital inside the ecosystem. Talent follows the same logic. Tougaloo has drawn Andrew W. Mellon Foundation support to train students in collections care, exhibition design, and arts administration, but programs like that produce talent only if young men show up to be trained. The pipeline of Black male curators, critics, playwrights, and arts administrators starts with Black boys who walk into these spaces and decide they belong there.

The remedies need to be institutional, and they need to start with boys.

First, alumni chapters and HBCU museums should fund early exposure for boys in nearby school districts. The Houston trial put the cost of a substantial arts experience at about $15 per student, so a single alumni chapter could underwrite a full cohort of elementary and middle-school boys from Hampton Roads, central Mississippi, or east Alabama for less than the cost of one gala table. Hampton’s existing school partnerships and summer camps are the obvious place to start. The goal is repeat visits rather than a single trip, because the Rabkin and Hedberg data shows that sustained early exposure is what builds an adult habit.

Second, HBCU theater departments should open their rehearsal rooms and matinees to boys. Youth matinees for local schools, and summer acting workshops for middle-school boys taught by theater faculty and student actors, would put the empathy and emotional-regulation gains that Goldstein and Winner measured within reach of boys who would never seek them out. Pairing these with a campus athletic program removes the stigma before it can take hold.

Third, HBCU athletic departments should build museum visits and theater attendance into team calendars. Robeson’s career is the precedent. A football program at Talladega, Hampton, or Tougaloo that walks its players through the campus collection once a semester, and attends the theater department’s spring production as a team, shows young men that curiosity is part of competing, not a betrayal of it. When local boys see college athletes in a gallery, the ridicule loses much of its force.

Fourth, fathers, uncles, coaches, and mentors should take boys to museums and plays themselves, without leaving it to mothers and teachers. A boy learns what men do by watching men do it. A father who brings his son to the Hampton museum on a Saturday, or a coach who brings his team to a campus play, teaches that this space belongs to them both. HBCU alumni associations, which are legally independent and free to act, can organize regular father-and-son and mentor outings as part of their calendars.

Fifth, adult men need the same habit. Alumni chapters should make cultural outings standing calendar items. That could mean buying a block of season tickets to an alma mater’s theater productions, organizing men’s trips to HBCU collections, or turning out in force when a traveling exhibition drawn from an HBCU collection reaches their city. HBCU museums should market directly to men, with group memberships priced for alumni chapters, fraternity alumni chapters, and church men’s ministries. Australia offers a useful model from outside the Black institutional world. The Men’s Shed movement, community workshops where men gather around shared projects, grew to more than a thousand sites and was recognized in the country’s 2010 National Male Health Policy. The Australian Men’s Shed Association’s motto is that men talk “shoulder to shoulder.” A gallery bench and a theater seat are shoulder-to-shoulder spaces too.

Sixth, the HBCU collections should coordinate. Hampton, Tougaloo, Talladega, Clark Atlanta, Fisk, and others hold work that tells a connected story. Clark Atlanta’s collection itself grew out of the Atlanta University Art Annuals that Woodruff started. A shared calendar and a coordinated touring schedule would let a school district, a men’s group, or a father plan a year of visits around the HBCU network. Isolated collections would become a circuit that a deliberate public can follow.

Clarke ended his teaching on Black heritage with a definition. Heritage, he wrote, is how people use their talents to create a history that gives them memories they can respect, and its purpose is self-awareness that equips a person to relate well to others. That is as good a description as any of what a cultivated man gains: memories he chose, a sense of himself that no one lent him, and the emotional and intellectual range to show up more fully for himself, his family, and his community. The lineman in the library found the door at nineteen. The institutional task is to make sure his younger brother finds it at nine, through a field trip, a father, a coach, or a matinee, and never thinks of it as anyone else’s door.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Lifestyle

Tagged Black men and the arts, boys arts education, early arts exposure, emotional intelligence men, male personal development, HBCU museums, cultural participation, HBCU alumni associations, capital retention, Black cultural institutions, HBCU Money, HBCU theater, Hampton University Museum, Tougaloo College Art Collections, Talladega College Amistad murals, Hale Woodruff, Paul Robeson, John Henrik Clarke, male friendship recession, fathers and sons, arts and imagination

There Are No Capitalists Here: How America Mistook Protection for Markets

Posted on October 27, 2026 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

“There maybe no country more delusional about being “self-made” than the United States, when no one is. People forget that capitalism while rooted in the movement of capital because trading was so inefficient to meet basic needs of people. It never absolved what truly matters to be successful – help – from family, community, and yes, even the government.” – William A. Foster, IV

A market town proclaimed itself the freest in the province: any merchant could sell, and the best price would win. Two cloth merchants kept shops on its main street. When a weaver from across the river offered them a bolt finer and cheaper than anything sold in the city, the first merchant refused it because of who had woven it, and went on paying more for worse cloth from familiar hands. The second bought it, undersold his neighbor, and within a few seasons was on his way to owning both shops. The first merchant did not change his mind. He changed the rules. He joined the guild, and the guild placed a toll at the town gate that fell heavily on goods from across the river and lightly on everything else. Within a year the weaver stopped coming, the second merchant lost his advantage, and the townspeople paid more for cloth every season and credited it to the market. The guild, prospering, commissioned a statue honoring free trade and set it beside the gate.

Americans speak of capitalism the way other nations speak of their founding faith, and they speak of socialism as a heresy imported from abroad. Both habits rest on the assumption that the United States is a working example of the former. It is not. Capitalism in its true form is an unsentimental mechanism: capital moves to its highest return, labor to its highest wage, and goods to whoever offers the best price. Such a system cannot accommodate racism, sexism, regional spite, or protectionism of any kind, because each is a decision to pay more than necessary for the privilege of keeping someone out, and paying more than necessary is exactly what competition punishes. These practices survive only where someone suspends competition, through statute, licensing, zoning, covenant, board appointment, or simple collusion. And when a committee rather than a price decides who may buy, sell, borrow, hire, build, or live where, the arrangement has adopted the operating method of the command economies Americans claim to oppose. The uncomfortable truth is that Americans are not, in practice, capitalists. They are protectionists who describe themselves as capitalists, and the protection runs along nearly every line the country has: profession, neighborhood, gender, ethnicity, region, and race. Every economy is a blend of market and authority. The question that matters is who controls the authority and whom it shields, and in the United States the answer has usually been whoever got to the guild first.

The case against this habit was made at the birth of market economics. Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations is remembered as a hymn to free enterprise, but much of it is an indictment of merchants and guilds that captured government to protect themselves from rivals. People of the same trade, Smith wrote, seldom meet together “but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Two centuries later the economist Gary Becker formalized the cost of prejudice in The Economics of Discrimination (1957). An employer who refuses qualified workers because of who they are behaves as though he has taxed his own payroll; a competitor without the prejudice hires them, produces the same output more cheaply, and takes his market share. The logic generalizes to any exclusion on grounds other than price and quality. It is expensive, and in an open market the expense compounds until the excluder either reforms or loses. The persistence of an exclusion is therefore a reliable sign that the market has been closed by someone with the power to close it.

Begin with the professions, where the protection is overwhelmingly that of white Americans against other white Americans, and of incumbents against newcomers. Roughly a fifth of American workers now need a government license to do their jobs, and many of those licenses have little to do with public safety. In Louisiana, state law once permitted only licensed funeral directors to sell caskets. When the Benedictine monks of St. Joseph Abbey began building and selling simple wooden caskets to support their monastery, the state funeral board moved to shut them down, and it took a federal appeals court in 2013 to rule that the law served no purpose beyond protecting the funeral industry’s margins. The pattern recurs across the country. State franchise laws in much of the United States forbid automakers from selling cars directly to customers, preserving a mandatory middleman whose only defense is that he was there first. New York City’s taxi medallions, a government-capped license to pick up passengers, traded for more than $1 million each in the early 2010s; their value was not the car or the skill of the driver but the artificial scarcity the city enforced. When ride-hailing companies breached the cap, medallion prices collapsed and revealed how much of the old price had been pure rent.

Medicine shows the same structure at higher stakes. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 capped the number of Medicare-funded residency positions, the training slots every new physician must pass through, near their 1996 levels. Medical schools expanded enrollment in the decades since, but the bottleneck downstream remained, and the result is a physician supply constrained by statute. Real estate brokerage offers a private version. For decades the commission structure for home sales held remarkably steady across a supposedly competitive national market, until antitrust litigation forced the National Association of Realtors into a $418 million settlement in 2024 and changes to how buyer-agent compensation is offered. The labor market has its own quiet version: the Federal Trade Commission estimated in 2023 that roughly 30 million American workers, about one in five, were bound by noncompete agreements that prevent them from taking their skills to a rival employer. A worker forbidden from selling his labor to the highest bidder is not participating in a free labor market, whatever his employer’s politics.

The neighborhood is where Americans practice protection most intimately, and where the resemblance to collectivism is sharpest. Zoning, upheld by the Supreme Court in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty in 1926, allows municipalities to dictate what may be built on private land, and single-family zoning across most American residential land restricts housing supply in precisely the places where demand is highest. Owners of existing homes are the beneficiaries; renters and first-time buyers pay the toll. Homeowners associations carry the principle further. According to the Foundation for Community Association Research, about 78.1 million Americans now live in some 373,000 community associations, which cover more than a third of the nation’s housing. Within them, a committee decides what color a house may be painted, whether it may be rented, what vehicles may be parked in the driveway, and whether a resident may run a business from home. Membership is compulsory with purchase, dues are mandatory, common property is owned collectively, and individual use of private property is subordinated to the judgment of the group. If a city council imposed such terms on a town, Americans would call it socialism. Inside a gated subdivision, they call it protecting property values.

The protection is real, and so is its price. Rental bans and design restrictions shrink the pool of eligible buyers, which reduces a home’s liquidity even as uniformity may raise its sticker price. The first generation of such covenants was explicit about whom it meant to exclude: racially restrictive covenants barred sale to Black, Jewish, Asian, and other buyers until the Supreme Court declared them unenforceable in Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948. The modern association rarely discriminates by race in writing, but its machinery for narrowing who may buy and how they may live descends directly from that design. A neighborhood that limits its own customers is choosing protection over price, which is to say it has chosen not to be a market.

Gender offers perhaps the clearest evidence that American institutions routinely leave money on the table. For much of the twentieth century, school districts and large employers enforced “marriage bars” that dismissed women once they married, a practice the economist Claudia Goldin documented in work that earned her the Nobel Prize in 2023. Until the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, lenders could and commonly did refuse credit to women who lacked a male co-signer, regardless of income. Banks declined interest income from millions of creditworthy borrowers for decades, a choice no profit-maximizing institution would make. The pattern persists at the summit of American business. In 2025, women led 55 companies on the Fortune 500, or 11 percent, the first time that share had exceeded one in ten; only two of those chief executives were Black women. If managerial talent is distributed even roughly evenly between the sexes, a board that draws its chief executives overwhelmingly from half the population is choosing from a deliberately shrunken pool. The cost lands on shareholders, who own the company but rarely choose its leaders. Boards are largely self-perpetuating, nominated by sitting directors from their own professional networks. That is a guild by any functional definition, and the fact that most newly appointed women CEOs in 2025 were promoted from inside their own firms suggests that the barrier lies less in the pipeline than in the gate.

Ethnic and religious protection among white Americans followed the same logic. In the 1920s, as Jewish enrollment at Harvard rose on academic merit, President A. Lawrence Lowell pursued an explicit quota, and when that proved politically awkward the university adopted admissions criteria emphasizing “character,” geography, and personal interviews that achieved much the same result. Legacy preferences, which reserve advantage for the children of prior graduates, are the surviving descendants of that system. They protect incumbent families from the competition of more qualified newcomers, and the institutions that practice them accept weaker classes in exchange for donor loyalty. Whatever one thinks of that trade, it is a political bargain, not a market outcome.

Race remains the most heavily documented case, and the record shows how often businesses resisted discrimination until the state compelled it. When Southern cities required segregated streetcars in the 1890s and early 1900s, many of the private transit companies objected, because separate cars cost money and enforcement drove away Black fare-payers; the economist Jennifer Roback documented this resistance in a 1986 study in the Journal of Economic History. In South Africa, the gold-mining houses of the Witwatersrand wanted to promote Black miners into skilled jobs, and it was white labor unions, many of them avowedly socialist, that demanded a legal color bar, culminating in the 1922 Rand Revolt under a banner that called on the workers of the world to unite for a white South Africa. In the United States, the federal government’s own housing agencies in the 1930s graded neighborhoods for mortgage lending with race as an explicit criterion, and the Federal Housing Administration recommended racially restrictive covenants in its underwriting manual. A 2018 Brookings Institution study by Andre Perry, Jonathan Rothwell, and David Harshbarger found that homes in majority-Black neighborhoods are still valued about $48,000 less than comparable homes elsewhere, a cumulative gap of roughly $156 billion. In a working market, a discount that large and that durable would attract buyers until it closed. Its persistence measures the market’s absence.

The same absence is visible in where Americans keep their money. Black-owned banks such as Citizens Trust Bank in Atlanta, Liberty Bank and Trust in New Orleans, and Carver Federal Savings Bank in Harlem carry the same FDIC insurance as any other bank and compete on rates, fees, and service. Yet white households, corporations, universities, and public treasurers almost never consider them for deposits, loans, or treasury services. The choice is not made on price, because the price is rarely examined. It is made on familiarity, network, and habit, which is another way of saying it is made the way guild members choose suppliers. On the rare occasions when large institutions have tested the alternative, as Netflix did in 2020 when it committed a share of its cash holdings to Black-owned financial institutions, the decision was treated as philanthropy. A deposit with an insured bank at a competitive rate is not charity. It is treasury management that happens to break with custom.

Higher education shows the state version of the same pattern. Public Historically Black Colleges and Universities, many of them land-grant institutions created under the Second Morrill Act of 1890, have been funded for generations as though federal requirements were optional. In 2023 the U.S. Secretaries of Education and Agriculture wrote to sixteen governors documenting that their historically Black land-grant universities had been underfunded relative to their white counterparts by roughly $12.6 billion over three decades, as reported by the Associated Press; Tennessee State University alone accounted for $2.1 billion, and the list included Alcorn State, Fort Valley State, Lincoln University of Missouri, and Florida A&M. Maryland went further, approving programs at traditionally white universities that duplicated the distinctive offerings of Morgan State, Coppin State, Bowie State, and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, stripping them of the competitive advantages that drew students. After roughly fifteen years of litigation, the state committed $577 million in 2021 to settle. Taxpayers in every one of those states own these universities. Starving half of a state’s public research capacity is not a market verdict; it is a decision to run public assets below capacity for reasons that have nothing to do with return.

Geography supplies the final and perhaps most self-defeating category, because here communities protect themselves not from outsiders’ competition but from outsiders’ money. Regional protection is as old as the republic. The Tariff of 1828, which Southern critics called the Tariff of Abominations, shielded Northern manufacturers at the expense of Southern planters who bought manufactured goods and sold cotton abroad, and the resentment it produced nearly broke the Union in the Nullification Crisis. In the modern era, the impulse often runs the other way: states decline federal capital rather than accept a policy associated with political rivals. Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government pays 90 percent of the cost of covering newly eligible adults, yet ten states have declined full Medicaid expansion, seven of them in the South, including Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida. Their officials cite concern over the state’s long-term share of the cost. The economic effect is that those states forgo billions in federal dollars their own residents pay in taxes, uninsured rates run nearly twice as high as in expansion states, and rural hospitals operate with thinner margins. The reflex is not confined to one region or party. In 2010 and 2011, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida all returned federal funds earmarked for high-speed rail. Refusing capital in order to deny a political rival a victory is the precise opposite of the profit motive. It is the guild burning down part of its own market to keep the weaver out.

Arrayed together, these cases dissolve the American mythology. Every modern economy is a blend. The United States runs a federal sugar program that holds domestic prices above world levels, reserves coastal shipping for American-built vessels under the Jones Act, subsidizes agriculture heavily, and empowers the Federal Reserve to set the price of money itself. Singapore, routinely ranked among the world’s freest economies, houses most of its citizens in public housing built by a state agency. China calls itself socialist while running vast private markets. The Nordic countries that Americans describe as socialist combine open trade and globally competitive firms with high taxes and broad social insurance. The distinctions among them lie in which activities are left to competition, which are directed by authority, and whom the authority protects. America’s particular error is to treat capitalism as an identity rather than a tool. Once it becomes an identity, any arrangement that protects insiders can be defended in its name, whether it is a medallion, a covenant, a noncompete, or a board seat, and any measure that lets outsiders compete can be dismissed as socialism.

The cost of that error is borne by nearly everyone, because almost every American is a townsperson in somebody else’s guild. The homeowner pays inflated prices for medical care because of residency caps. The physician pays inflated housing costs because of zoning. The shareholder pays for boards that choose from half the talent pool. The worker pays for noncompetes, the car buyer for mandatory dealers, the renter for single-family zoning, and the taxpayer for public universities run below capacity and federal dollars sent back to Washington. Each toll seems modest to the people collecting it and invisible to those paying it. In aggregate, they amount to a planned economy administered by thousands of small committees, none of which answers to a price.

The remedy is not to choose between markets and government, but to subject every protection to the test Smith would have applied: does this rule protect the public, or does it protect the people who wrote it? Several practical steps follow, and each uses tools that already exist.

State legislatures can adopt sunset reviews requiring every occupational license to justify itself periodically on public-safety grounds, and can recognize licenses issued by other states so that a nurse, electrician, or cosmetologist who moves across a state line does not have to requalify from scratch. They can cap the power of homeowners associations to ban rentals or home businesses, and loosen zoning to permit more housing types on residential land. Congress can lift the cap on Medicare-funded residency slots that has constrained physician supply for nearly three decades.

Shareholders, particularly the public pension funds and university endowments that own large stakes in American companies, can demand that boards disclose how chief executive candidates are identified and require search processes that draw from beyond the directors’ own networks. A board that cannot explain why it considered only half the available talent is failing a fiduciary duty, not a social one.

Corporate treasurers, university endowments, and public finance officers can place deposits with Black-owned and other minority depository institutions on the same terms they apply to every other insured bank. Reciprocal deposit networks already allow large balances to be placed through a single community bank while remaining fully insured. The test is the rate and the service, not the familiarity of the name.

States can fund their land-grant universities as federal law requires and stop duplicating the distinctive programs of public HBCUs at nearby campuses. And they can accept federal capital on its economic merits rather than on its political provenance.

Finally, those who have been on the wrong side of the gate should draw the lesson every incumbent already knows. The guild in the parable prevailed because its members acted together. The weaver and the second merchant acted alone and lost. Women executives, independent professionals, new residents, Black-owned banks, and the public HBCUs of Tennessee or Maryland all improve their position when they coordinate: pooling capital, sharing information, funding litigation, and showing up in legislatures as constituencies rather than petitioners. Protection is not defeated by appeals to fairness; the guild has never been moved by those. It is defeated by competitors with enough organized strength to insist on an open gate.

Americans need not abandon their admiration for markets. They need to start practicing them. A country that truly believed in competition would buy the better cloth wherever it was woven, hire the best executive whoever she is, sell to any buyer who can pay, bank wherever the terms are best, and accept capital without asking which party sent it. Until then, the statue to free trade will keep standing beside the tollbooth, and most of the town will keep paying the toll while admiring the statue.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Editorial

Tagged capitalism, protectionism, free markets, mixed economy, economics of discrimination, Adam Smith, guilds, occupational licensing, taxi medallions, homeowners associations, zoning reform, women CEOs, corporate boards, legacy admissions, noncompete agreements, Medicaid expansion, regional politics, Black-owned banks, HBCU funding, land-grant universities, economic history, sexism, racicsm

No Group Works Less for Itself Than African Americans: Just 8% of Black Workers Are Employed by Black-Owned Firms

Posted on October 20, 2026 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

“When an African American earns $1.00 with our labor, there is an owner that earns $1.20 in operating income from ownership of the vessel and they get to count said vessel as an asset. This means when we do not work for firms from our own community, then the bulk benefit of our talents are still rewarding Others. That reality does not change whether we are earning $80,000 or $8 million. Individual talents are always building up institutional wealth, the question is for our own community or someone else’s.” – William A. Foster, IV

A river does not ask where its water goes. It simply runs, cutting canyons, carrying silt, turning turbines wherever the engineers have built them. For a hundred years, a river ran through a valley and lit every town along its banks, except the town it rose from. That town kept its lanterns. It sent its water downstream and called the arrangement progress, because the workers who built the dam drew a wage, and a wage, everyone insisted, was the same as owning the river. It was not until the town tried to build its own turbine that it discovered the difference: a wage ends when the shift ends. A turbine keeps generating current long after the worker who built it has gone home.

That difference between generating value and owning the mechanism that captures it is the entire story embedded in a figure from Pew Research Center’s analysis of federal business data that ought to stop every Black economist and institution builder in their tracks: Black-owned employer firms in the United States employed roughly 1.6 million workers in 2022, with annual payrolls estimated at $61.2 billion, according to Pew’s review of Census Bureau survey data. Set against the more than 20 million Black Americans in the labor force, that 1.6 million figure is not a success statistic. It is a containment statistic. No group in America works less for itself than African Americans and not because Black workers labor any less than anyone else, but because so little of what that labor builds accrues to institutions Black America actually owns. The river runs. The valley stays dark.

The economist Claud Anderson gave this dynamic its plainest possible name three decades ago in Black Labor, White Wealth: The Search for Power and Economic Justice, arguing that American wealth was built substantially on Black labor under slavery and Jim Crow and has been sustained since through policy and practice that keeps that labor’s output flowing into someone else’s balance sheet rather than its own. Anderson’s proposed remedy, which he later formalized through his organization, the PowerNomics Corporation of America, was not a moral appeal either it was a group-economics strategy aimed squarely at ownership and capital control rather than participation and goodwill. The employment and ownership figures that follow are the modern receipts for exactly the imbalance Anderson named in 1994, updated with three additional decades of federal data that show the imbalance persisting in remarkably precise form.

This is not a moral argument. It is a capacity argument, and the distinction matters, because HBCU Money has never found the moral case persuasive to the people who control capital allocation, and neither should we expect it to be. The self-interest case is the only one that survives contact with a boardroom: an ecosystem that does not own the firms employing its own labor cannot retain the capital that labor generates, cannot direct where that capital gets reinvested, and cannot build the institutional density required to negotiate as a bloc rather than beg as individuals. Ownership is not a symbolic preference. It is the only mechanism by which labor output converts into compounding capital instead of a paycheck that clears and disappears.

Start with the scale problem, because it is worse than the employment figure alone suggests, and it is worse specifically relative to every other ownership group tracked by the federal government. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent release on business owner characteristics, Black or African American-owned firms account for 3.4% of U.S. employer businesses, up from 2.7% just two years earlier per Brookings’ analysis of the Annual Business Survey — real movement, but movement from a base so small it barely changes the fundamental picture. Put the ownership share next to the population share and the comparison sharpens considerably: Brookings researchers Andre Perry, Manann Donoghoe, and Hannah Stephens found that in 2021, white Americans owned 82% of employer businesses while representing 72.5% of the population, its ownership exceeding population share by nearly ten points. Asian Americans owned 10.9% of employer businesses against a 6.3% population share — again, ownership exceeding population. Black Americans owned 2.7% of employer businesses against a 14.4% population share, and Hispanic or Latino Americans owned 6.9% against a 19.1% population share, both groups locked well below proportional representation, with Black America carrying the widest gap of any racial category Brookings measured. That is not a rounding error. It is a four-to-one to five-to-one density gap between population share and ownership share depending on which year you measure, and it is the single most important number in this entire conversation, because density is what everything else depends on.

The size distribution inside that 3.4% makes the containment tighter still, and here the comparison across ownership groups is unusually clean because the federal data measures the same thing the same way for everyone: what share of each group’s businesses employ nobody at all. Per the same Brookings analysis of Census sole-proprietorship data, Black-owned businesses are the most concentrated of any racial group at that zero-employee scale where 96.3% are sole proprietorships with no paid staff, compared with 92.4% for both Hispanic/Latino-owned and Native American-owned firms, and 81.1% for white-owned firms and 80.1% for Asian American-owned firms. Run the comparison from the employer side and, per Pew’s analysis, it holds just as tightly: about seven-in-ten Black-owned employer firms had between one and nine employees in 2022, a concentration at the smallest possible operating scale that leaves the ownership tier structurally unable to absorb meaningful shares of the available Black labor force even if every one of those firms doubled tomorrow.

The dollar-value version of the same gap is, if anything, more damning, because it isn’t about headcount at all, it’s about what each firm is actually worth once it exists. Using the Census Bureau’s most recent figures, white-owned employer firms generated roughly $17.0 trillion in combined receipts across 4.8 million firms, an average of about $3.5 million in receipts per firm. Black-owned employer firms generated $249.0 billion in combined receipts across 201,000 firms, an average of roughly $1.2 million in receipts per firm, meaning the typical white-owned firm generates nearly three times the revenue of the typical Black-owned firm. Asian-owned firms averaged about $1.75 million per firm and Hispanic-owned firms about $1.47 million, both ahead of the Black-owned average as well.

Two further measurements explain why that revenue gap exists rather than merely documenting that it does, and both point to the same conclusion Anderson reached in 1994: the constraint is access, not capacity. The first is sector composition. Per Pew’s sector breakdown, Black-owned employer firms are concentrated in health care and social assistance (26% of all Black-owned firms), professional and scientific services (14%), transportation and warehousing (9%), administrative and waste management services (8%), and retail and food service (7% each) — sectors that require comparatively little startup capital and generate correspondingly modest revenue per firm. Black ownership is nearly absent from the industries that produce the highest revenue per firm precisely because those industries — utilities, wholesale trade, heavy manufacturing — demand the largest upfront capitalization to enter at all; Brookings researchers note that a 2018 federal survey recorded a total of just 18 Black-owned businesses nationally in the entire utilities sector. Economist Robert Fairlie’s research for the National Bureau of Economic Research finds the same pattern from a different angle: roughly 18% of Black workers are employed in innovation-intensive industries compared with 22% of white workers, and even among Black workers already employed inside them, only about 9% go on to own a business in that industry compared with roughly 14% of white workers in the same position. Tellingly, a study by the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City found that where Black-owned manufacturers do exist inside tracked supply chains, they are on average larger than the white-owned manufacturers in those same chains, the clearest available evidence that this is a barrier to entry, not a deficit of competence, ambition, or business acumen.

The second measurement is the investor class itself, and here the gap dwarfs everything discussed so far. Per Crunchbase data, Black-founded startups received roughly 0.4% of all U.S. venture capital in 2024, down from a 2021 peak of 1.3%, and according to HBCUvc’s quarterly funding tracking, only 17% of Black-founded deals that do get funded reach a Series A round, compared with 37.7% of funded deals overall meaning the small number of Black-founded firms that clear the first hurdle are roughly half as likely to clear the second one. The lending side of the ledger shows the identical pattern in a different market: the Federal Reserve’s Small Business Credit Survey finds Black-owned firms denied credit at roughly 39%, more than double the 18% denial rate for white-owned firms, and a 2021 Federal Reserve Bank of New York report found Black-owned firms independently rated low credit risk were approved for full financing at close to the same rate as high-risk white-owned firms.

But the venture and lending statistics both describe capital that a firm is applying for from someone else. The layer underneath both of them is capital a founder never has to apply for at all, because it comes from their own household or their own network before any bank or investor is ever approached and this is where the wealth gap already documented in this piece does its most permanent damage. According to Google for Startups’ own reporting on the pre-seed funding gap, the average U.S. startup launches on a friends-and-family round of $100,000 to $150,000, drawn from founders’ personal savings and the people closest to them; for Black founders, that figure averages closer to $35,000. Measured on a liquid-wealth basis stripping out home equity, since a house cannot be cashed out to fund a check, a 2023 analysis by Fifth Star Funds put the white-to-Black wealth ratio at roughly twenty-two-to-one, meaning a Black founder trying to raise a typical $23,000 friends-and-family round would need to draw on the entire liquid wealth of six Black families to do it. A firm that cannot clear this round never reaches the point of being denied a bank loan or passed over by a fund; it simply launches undercapitalized, if it launches at all, and stays capped near sole-proprietor scale for the rest of its life which is a large part of why it stays there. The historical contrast needs no editorializing: Bloomberg’s reporting on Amazon’s founding, later summarized by Newser, found Amazon’s 1995 seed round included $245,573 personally invested by Jeff Bezos’s own parents, Jackie and Mike Bezos. And per multiple retellings of Google’s founding, including Celebrity Net Worth’s account of its earliest investors, Google’s first outside money, three years later, arrived as $100,000 personal checks from Stanford computer science professor David Cheriton and Sun Microsystems co-founder Andy Bechtolsheim, written before the company was even legally incorporated, followed within weeks by a $250,000 personal investment from Bezos himself. No institution of any kind was involved in either case. The capital that mattered most was already sitting in a family’s bank account.

The handful of Black-led investment vehicles that do exist compound this problem rather than solve it, and the reason is worth stating plainly rather than glossing over: Black households cannot yet supply enough investable wealth to anchor those funds as limited partners, and Black institutions — banks, credit unions, HBCU endowments, pension-adjacent capital pools — are not yet large enough collectively to do it either. A Black general partner running a fund capitalized primarily by Others’ foundations, endowments, and pension systems has changed who makes the investment decisions without changing who ultimately owns the return, which means fund formation at the top of the capital stack and household wealth at the bottom of it are not two separate problems. They are the same institutional density gap, expressed at two different altitudes.

Five separate measurements now point at the same wall: Black-owned firms are underrepresented in raw count relative to population, overrepresented at the smallest employee-size tier, smaller in average dollar value, concentrated in the lowest-capital sectors, and shut out of the personal, venture, and institutional capital that would move a firm generating $1.2 million in revenue toward the $3.5 million white-owned average. Five measurements, one underlying constraint.

The historical context here is not ancient, and it runs on two tracks that arrive at the same conclusion from different directions. Where Anderson traced the mechanism backward through slavery and Jim Crow policy, the sociologist Thomas Shapiro traced it forward through household balance sheets a decade later, arguing in The Hidden Cost of Being African American that income and wealth are not the same variable, and that the persistence of racial inequality runs through the asset side of the ledger rather than the wage side. Employment, even full employment, even rising Black employment, does not close a wealth gap if the employer capturing the surplus value of that labor sits outside the community. This is precisely why the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, as analyzed by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, shows the gap widening in dollar terms even as it narrows in percentage terms: median Black household wealth rose from roughly $28,000 to $44,900 between 2019 and 2022, but median wealth overall rose enough that the absolute gap between Black and white households actually grew by nearly $50,000 over the same period. By 2022, the median white household held $284,310, more than six times the $44,100 held by the median Black household. Labor income is necessary. It has never been sufficient. A wage is a flow; a firm is a stock. You cannot out-earn a four-to-one ownership density gap through salary alone, no matter how many Black workers show up for shifts at other people’s companies.

There is a growth signal worth taking seriously here, and HBCU Money should not undersell it even while insisting the baseline remains inadequate. Per Census Bureau data reported by Governing, the number of Black-owned employer businesses grew nearly 57% between 2017 and 2022, and Black-owned firms accounted for more than half of all new employer businesses started nationally in that period. In the most recent year-over-year comparison available across all racial groups, Brookings found Black-owned employer businesses posted the largest percentage increases in employee count, revenue, and payroll of any group tracked employee growth of 7%, revenue growth of 30%, and payroll growth of 27%, each figure running 5 to 10 percentage points ahead of white, Asian American, and Hispanic firms over the same year. Formation is not the same as capacity, however, and the arithmetic of closing a base this small is unforgiving: Brookings analysts estimate it would take roughly 700,000 additional Black-owned employer firms to bring ownership into line with Black population share, representing an estimated $800 billion in additional revenue and 6 million additional jobs and that at the pace of the single best growth year on record, full parity remains roughly 100 years away.

The strategic implications follow directly from the density problem, and this is where the four throughlines this publication returns to — institutional density, capital retention, talent concentration, and strategic coordination — stop being abstractions and start functioning as a diagnostic. Institutional density is the root constraint: 201,000 Black-owned employer firms against 5.9 million total U.S. employer firms, per the Census Bureau, means the ecosystem simply does not have enough vessels to hold its own labor, and those vessels that do exist are smaller both in headcount and in revenue than their counterparts in every other ownership category and are locked, disproportionately, into the sectors and financing markets least able to change that. Capital retention fails as a direct downstream consequence. Talent concentration is the third casualty: the most capable Black managers, engineers, and operators in the country are overwhelmingly employed inside institutions Black America does not control. And strategic coordination; the ability to move Black labor, Black capital, and Black institutional leadership as a single directed force, precisely the coordination Anderson’s PowerNomics called for cannot exist at scale when the typical Black-owned firm is roughly a third the revenue size of the typical white-owned firm, is concentrated outside the industries capable of scaling, has almost no access to personal, venture, or institutional growth capital, and when 92 of every 100 Black workers punch in somewhere the community has no ownership stake in the firm.

This is where the banking and credit union infrastructure this publication tracks obsessively becomes the actual lever, not a side note though it is now clear that lever needs a second one built alongside it. According to HBCU Money’s own 2025 African American-Owned Bank Directory and African American-Owned Credit Union Directory, there are 17 African American-owned banks in the country holding roughly $6.72 billion in combined assets, and 205 African American-owned credit unions holding roughly $8.15 billion across nearly 727,000 members, a combined $15 billion in institutional balance sheet capacity sitting underneath a labor force generating tens of billions in annual wages that mostly clears through mainstream white-owned lenders instead. Only a small fraction of HBCUs and PBIs themselves bank with African American-owned institutions, per that same directory data, a fact that should embarrass every finance department at every one of the 100 plus federally designated HBCUs and PBIs. But deposit infrastructure alone cannot close the sector-composition gap, the friends-and-family gap, or the institutional-capital gap, those require a growth-equity layer this ecosystem still largely lacks, and building it will require Black institutional balance sheets to grow enough to anchor it themselves, not simply put a Black name on someone else’s money.

Business schools at institutions like Fort Valley State, Chicago State, Grambling, and Norfolk State are training a pipeline of Black finance, accounting, and management talent every year, talent that overwhelmingly gets absorbed into the same non-Black employer base generating the 1.6 million versus 20 million imbalance Pew’s data documents in the first place. The concrete institutional solution is not a slogan about entrepreneurship; it’s coordination between four things that currently operate as strangers to each other: the HBCU business school pipeline producing operators, the $15 billion Black bank and credit union balance sheet capacity that can underwrite working capital, an equity and growth-capital layer purpose-built and Black-capitalized to move firms out of the lowest-capital sectors and into the high-revenue ones currently closed to them, and the roughly 200,000 existing Black-owned employer firms that need all three of those pieces to grow past the headcount ceiling, the revenue ceiling, and the sector ceiling that currently trap the median firm below every comparable ownership group.

The employment share figure — 1.6 million out of a labor force many multiples that size — is not a statistic to mourn. It is a target with a number attached, and the comparative data makes the target legible in five dimensions at once: more firms, larger firms, firms worth more per dollar of revenue, firms operating in higher-capital sectors, and firms with actual access to the capital — personal, venture, and institutional — that funds growth. Anderson named this arrangement in 1994. The federal government has spent every year since generating the receipts that prove him right. No group works less for itself than African Americans; not for lack of labor, and not for lack of the firms willing to try, but for lack of the sectors, the capital, and the institutions built to keep that labor’s output at home.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Economics

Tagged Annual Business Survey, Black business ownership statistics, black credit unions, Black employer firms, Black entrepreneurship growth, Black labor white wealth, Black-owned banks, Black-Owned Businesses, Brookings Path to 15|55, capital retention, Claud Anderson PowerNomics, Federal Reserve wealth data, group economics, HBCU business schools, HBCU Money economics, institutional density, racial business ownership gap, racial wealth gap, receipts per firm by race, small business size by race, Thomas Shapiro hidden cost

The Missed Empire: How Hip-Hop’s Wealthiest Catalogs Could Have Become the Institutional Power African America Still Lacks

Posted on October 13, 2026 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

My stake in Roc Nation should go to you. Leave a piece for your siblings too. — JAY-Z

Hip-hop created one of the largest and most influential waves of cultural production in modern history, a global ecosystem now valued in the tens of billions of dollars, rooted entirely in African American creativity. Yet as this asset class matured into one of the more reliable yield-generating instruments in entertainment finance, African America missed the allocator’s window. Rather than building an institutional buyer capable of acquiring, warehousing, and compounding the value of these catalogs at scale, the assets were sold piecemeal into a marketplace of external capital, and the long-duration cash flows that should have anchored African American balance sheets now sit instead on the books of firms with no obligation to the community that produced them.

This is not a critique of individual artists. Each seller acted rationally given the liquidity available, the risk they were carrying, and the absence of any institutional counterparty built for them. The failure sits one level up, at the level of capital formation. Over the past decade, catalog transactions involving Future, Lil Wayne, Nelly, Metro Boomin, Dr. Dre, and the estates of The Notorious B.I.G. and Juice WRLD confirmed what allocators across the industry already suspected: music IP behaves like an uncorrelated, inflation-resistant annuity, and hip-hop catalogs in particular carry decades of runway as the genre’s first generation of superstars ages into legacy status. Wall Street underwrote that thesis aggressively, and it did so through familiar channels; publishing majors, sovereign wealth-backed royalty funds, and private equity vehicles purpose-built to acquire exactly this kind of asset. African American institutional capital was not at the table to underwrite it at all, not because the thesis was unclear, but because no vehicle existed on our side capable of acting on it.

What was missing was not talent, timing, or demand. It was a dedicated acquisition vehicle, an African American-controlled counterpart to the publishing majors and the private-equity-backed royalty funds that have spent the last five years bidding up catalog multiples. Had that vehicle existed, artists negotiating an exit would have had a buyer that kept the rights, the governance, and the recurring royalty stream inside the community’s own institutional perimeter, rather than a forced choice between liquidity and control. The absence of that buyer meant the negotiation itself was structurally lopsided: artists sold to counterparties who understood the asset’s long-term value precisely because they had modeled it for years, while the community whose creative output generated the value had no equivalent underwriting capacity of its own.

Modeled correctly, the vehicle looks less like a philanthropic gesture and more like a standard alternative-asset fund structure: a seeded acquisition platform, anchored by a small number of large limited partners — HBCU endowments, African American-owned banks and credit unions, pension allocators, and family offices — committing capital in the $150–200 million range at formation, with a mandate to acquire catalogs directly and co-invest alongside artists willing to trade full monetization for partial equity and long-term governance rights. Structured as a permanent-capital vehicle rather than a closed-end fund with a forced exit, it could compound royalty income across cycles the way infrastructure and timberland funds do, instead of racing toward a liquidity event. Every acquisition would function less like a purchase and more like a reinvestment: royalties recycled into scholarships, research fellowships, and follow-on acquisitions, building an internal rate of return measured not only in dollars but in institutional density. A second-tier warehouse facility, syndicated among African American banks and credit unions, could have financed acquisitions between capital calls, the same short-duration lending structure regional banks routinely provide to specialty finance funds elsewhere, just never extended to a Black-owned entity in this asset class.

Had this vehicle been seeded fifteen or twenty years ago, HBCU endowments that anchored the fund would today be collecting recurring royalty income and equity appreciation tied to some of the most consumed music on Earth — music their own institutions helped make possible by training generations of the artists, producers, engineers, and executives who built the genre. That is precisely the kind of long-duration, intergenerational asset endowments are built to hold, and it is exactly the kind of asset African American endowments still do not. It would also have solved a problem HBCU endowment officers raise consistently in private: a shortage of proprietary deal flow uncorrelated to the equities and fixed income already crowding most endowment portfolios.

The math on deployment is not speculative. Catalog multiples across the sector have traded in a range that makes even modest-scale entry accretive within a few years of steady licensing and streaming revenue, before accounting for the additional upside AI-driven licensing markets are expected to unlock. A firm seeded a decade or two ago, compounding acquisitions and reinvested royalties at that pace, would plausibly be a multi-billion-dollar institution today — very likely the largest African American-owned investment company in the country — and one whose asset base would not be office towers or equities correlated with the broader market, but irreplaceable, decades-durable intellectual property. Even a partial version of this thesis, consolidating a fraction of the past decade’s catalog sales under one African American-controlled holding structure, would today represent a multi-billion-dollar balance sheet generating tens of millions in annual cash flow — capital that could seed STEM endowments, venture funds, homeownership programs, land trusts, and fellowship pipelines rather than flow to shareholders with no stake in African America’s socioeconomic future. That is a materially different institutional posture than the one African America occupies today, where capital campaigns are run reactively, dollar by dollar, rather than compounding passively off an owned asset base.

That asset-class discipline matters on its own terms. Music IP is one of the few alternative categories where cash flows are largely insulated from the business cycle — people keep streaming during recessions — while also carrying genuine appreciation potential as catalogs age into classic status and licensing surface area expands across film, television, advertising, gaming, and international streaming markets. For allocators used to real estate cycles and public equity volatility, a hip-hop catalog fund would have offered something rare: uncorrelated, long-duration, culturally proprietary yield. And unlike most alternative asset classes African American institutions are chasing as new entrants — private equity, venture, and commercial real estate, where the community is competing on someone else’s terms and someone else’s decades of accumulated deal experience — this is one where the community is not catching up to someone else’s supply chain. It is the supply chain, and the only asset class where African America’s comparative advantage is not aspirational but already realized in the underlying creative output itself.

The opportunity cost compounds beyond the balance sheet. A consolidated catalog platform would have anchored career pipelines HBCU graduates are largely locked out of today — catalog valuation, music-rights law, licensing and sync placement, royalty accounting, AI-audio and data engineering, and global rights management. Those are high-margin, high-skill roles that now exist almost entirely inside firms African America does not own. Hundreds of positions that could have been anchored within a Black-controlled firm instead sit inside companies with no connection to the community whose creative output built the underlying asset. Ownership, not employment, is the relevant comparison here. A generation of African American executives has been well compensated running divisions of catalogs they hold no equity in; the transformative wealth event was always upstream, in the ownership stake, not the salary. The distinction matters because well-paid labor, however senior the title, does not compound the way ownership does — a lesson the ownership class has always understood and the professional class is still catching up to.

Governance follows capital, and that is where the deeper cost sits. Whoever holds the catalog decides which brand campaigns get licensed, which political messaging gets amplified or denied, and how an artist’s estate is administered after death. A board seated with artists, HBCU representatives, and African American family offices would not need to romanticize the music to protect it; it would simply have the standing to make licensing and estate decisions in the community’s interest, the same way any controlling shareholder does elsewhere. When ownership sits outside the community, that discretion sits outside it too — and African America’s most consumed cultural export continues generating returns for balance sheets with no stake in the institutions that produced it, no obligation to reinvest in the schools that trained its creators, and no reason to weigh cultural stewardship against quarterly licensing revenue.

The central lesson is structural, not moral. Artists cannot build institutions alone, and institutions have to exist before artists need them, not after. Without a buyer built for this purpose, artists sold into the only marketplace available — and did so rationally. The absence of an African American-controlled acquisition vehicle is an institutional-capital failure, not an individual one, and it is the same failure pattern that shows up whenever African America produces enormous cultural or economic value without first building the entity designed to capture and compound it. Other communities have not been shy about doing exactly this in adjacent industries — building dedicated acquisition vehicles ahead of a wave rather than reacting to it after the fact. The absence of a comparable African American vehicle in music is not for lack of a workable template; the template already exists elsewhere.

The window has not fully closed. A second wave of catalog monetization is forming as AI licensing markets mature and as hip-hop’s global consumer base expands across Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. A vehicle built now — structured with a multi-class equity model that lets artists contribute catalog for ownership shares, anchored by HBCU endowments and African American financial institutions, governed by a board that includes artists and HBCU leadership, and staffed with dedicated valuation, estate-protection, and licensing divisions — would not be building something unprecedented. The publishing majors and royalty-focused funds now competing for this paper have already proven the model works. The only open question is whether African American institutional capital enters this cycle as a buyer, or watches a second generation of catalogs leave the community the way the first one did.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Business

Tagged African American economic development, African American family offices, African American institutions, Black banks investment, Black Economic Power, black wealth building, catalog consolidation, cultural asset ownership, generational wealth Black community, hbcu endowments, hbcu financial strategy, hip hop catalog sales, hip hop IP firm, institutional Black capital, intellectual property investment, Lil Wayne, music industry equity, music ownership inequality, music rights acquisitions, rap catalog valuations, rap music licensing, T-Pain

HBCU Money

America’s Healthcare Has Failed Black Women: The HBCU Health System Plans to Change That

The Cultivated Man: Why Men Must Learn to Enter Museums and Theaters on Their Own and With Each Other

There Are No Capitalists Here: How America Mistook Protection for Markets

The Missed Empire: How Hip-Hop’s Wealthiest Catalogs Could Have Become the Institutional Power African America Still Lacks

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Meta