HBCU Money

The Price of a Statue: A’ja Wilson’s Bronze and the Billion-Dollar Theft (from HBCUs) Disguised as Progress

Posted on May 29, 2026 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said ‘Let us pray.’ We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. – Desmond Tutu

The image is powerful: A’ja Wilson, WNBA superstar and Olympic gold medalist, immortalized in bronze on the grounds of the University of South Carolina. Wilson herself captured the poignancy of the moment in a quote that went viral: “When my grandmother was a child, she could not even walk on the grounds of the University of South Carolina… Now the same grounds houses a statue of her granddaughter.”

It’s the kind of story that gets shared across social media, celebrated in sports columns, and held up as evidence of how far we’ve come as a nation. But is it? Is this progress, or is this something else entirely? Is this the culmination of the civil rights movement, or is it the very thing that movement warned us about—the integration of individuals while the institutions built to serve the community crumble?

There’s another story here, one that rarely gets told in the celebratory press releases and ESPN features. It’s a story about institutional theft, strategic underfunding, and the systematic gutting of Black educational institutions that continues to this day. Because while A’ja Wilson’s grandmother couldn’t walk on USC’s campus due to segregation, the institution that would have educated her, South Carolina State University has been financially starved for generations to help build the very programs that now celebrate diversity milestones.

Before we dive deeper into the numbers, we must ask a fundamental question: Who determines what progress looks like for the African American community? This question cuts to the heart of the paradox surrounding A’ja Wilson’s statue and the underfunding of HBCUs. African America has long suffered from a destructive pincer movement between two ideological forces, both claiming to know what’s best for Black communities, neither actually serving those communities’ interests. On one side sits conservative ideology, committed to choking resources from Black institutions through “fiscal responsibility” rhetoric and states’ rights arguments that echo the same justifications used to maintain segregation. This path leads to institutions like South Carolina State University being denied half a billion dollars while legislatures claim budgets are tight and everyone must sacrifice equally ignoring that the sacrifices are never equal.

On the other side sits liberal ideology that views the disappearance of distinctly African American institutions not as a tragedy but as the ultimate goal. In this worldview, true progress means Black students dispersed throughout predominantly white institutions, Black neighborhoods giving way to “diverse” communities, and HBCUs eventually becoming obsolete historical footnotes and relics of a segregated past we’ve happily moved beyond. Both roads lead to the same destination: the destruction of Black institutional power, Black economic infrastructure, and Black self-determination. One just has sugar on top.

The conservative approach is at least honest in its hostility. Budget cuts, funding formulas that disadvantage HBCUs, and legislative indifference make their intentions clear. But the liberal approach is perhaps more insidious because it wraps institutional decimation in the language of progress, integration, and opportunity. It celebrates the statue while ignoring the $500 million debt. It applauds diversity in predominantly white spaces while shrugging at the decline of Black spaces. This false choice between resource starvation and institutional disappearance has been forced upon African American communities for six decades. Meanwhile, no one asked whether the Jewish community should close Yeshiva University to prove they’ve integrated. No one suggests that Catholic universities are relics of discrimination that should fade away. No one celebrates the closing of women’s colleges as a victory for gender equality. Yet HBCUs are expected to gracefully accept their decline as the price of progress. And when they struggle due to systematic underfunding, that struggle is presented as evidence that they’re no longer necessary rather than proof that they’ve been deliberately undermined.

Real progress would mean African American communities having the power to determine their own institutional futures. It would mean robust, well-funded HBCUs and access to all institutions. It would mean integration as addition, not subtraction and expanding opportunities without destroying the institutions that served the community when no one else would.

According to Forbes reporting, South Carolina State University has been underfunded by nearly $500 million over the years. This isn’t an accident or an oversight it’s a pattern repeated across the nation. Much of that funding that should have gone to SC State was instead redirected to predominantly white institutions like USC, enabling them to build state-of-the-art facilities, offer competitive scholarships, and recruit top talent like A’ja Wilson. The results speak for themselves: USC now boasts a $1.1 billion endowment as of 2025, while South Carolina State struggles with just $17.2 million. That’s not a typo—USC’s endowment is more than 60 times larger than the institution that was created specifically to serve Black students when USC wouldn’t admit them. Let that sink in for a moment. The money that could have made SC State a powerhouse institution offering world-class facilities, attracting premier faculty, and providing transformational opportunities for thousands of Black students was instead funneled to USC. And now we’re supposed to celebrate that USC has become diverse enough to recruit and celebrate Black athletes while the institution that was built specifically to serve Black students struggles with inadequate funding, aging infrastructure, and an endowment that wouldn’t cover the cost of a single building on USC’s campus. This is not progress. This is resource extraction disguised as inclusion.

The cruel irony of school integration is rarely discussed in polite company. Yes, it was necessary. Yes, it broke down legal barriers that should never have existed. But it also created an economic hemorrhaging from Black institutions that has never been addressed or remedied. Today, less than 10% of African American tuition revenue flows into Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Read that statistic again. Despite making up over 13% of the U.S. population and a significant portion of college students, the institutions built specifically to serve the Black community receive less than a tenth of the tuition dollars spent by Black families on higher education. Where does the other 90% go? Largely to predominantly white institutions that, for decades or even centuries, excluded Black students entirely. Institutions that built their endowments, their reputations, and their infrastructure without ever having to serve Black communities—until it became politically and economically advantageous to do so.

The financial disparity tells only part of the story. HBCUs have experienced a devastating brain drain over the past six decades, a loss of intellectual capital, leadership talent, and institutional knowledge that would be considered catastrophic in any other context. The nation’s brightest Black students, who once had little choice but to attend HBCUs, now have the option to attend any institution. On its face, this seems like unqualified good news. But when those predominantly white institutions actively recruit Black talent while simultaneously supporting state funding mechanisms that starve HBCUs, the result is predictable: HBCUs lose both the students and the resources, creating a vicious cycle of decline.

This brain drain extends beyond students. Faculty members, seeing better funding and facilities elsewhere, often make the rational choice to leave. Donors, wanting to support institutions perceived as prestigious or on the rise, redirect their giving. Athletes, artists, and future leaders choose schools with newer facilities and bigger budgets. And with each departure, the HBCU left behind grows weaker, making it harder to compete for the next generation of talent. The students who remain at HBCUs often from lower-income backgrounds, first-generation college students, or those specifically committed to the HBCU mission deserve the same quality of education and resources as their peers at heavily-funded state flagships. Instead, they attend institutions forced to do more with less, year after year, generation after generation.

State governments have become expert at justifying HBCU underfunding through seemingly neutral “funding formulas” based on enrollment numbers, research output, and facility utilization. This is where conservative fiscal ideology and liberal integrationist ideology converge into a unified assault on Black institutional sustainability. These formulas ignore the historical context that created the disparities in the first place. How can an HBCU compete on research output when it’s been denied the laboratory facilities, equipment, and graduate programs that enable such research? How can it boost enrollment when prospective students see crumbling buildings next to a predominantly white institution’s gleaming new science complex—built partially with funds diverted from the HBCU’s budget? How can it improve facility utilization when it doesn’t have the capital to build new facilities in the first place?

Conservative legislators champion these “neutral” formulas as fiscally responsible governance, conveniently ignoring that the formulas are designed to perpetuate historical inequity while providing political cover for continued discrimination. Meanwhile, liberal voices remain largely silent about these formulas because they don’t fundamentally object to HBCU decline, they’ve happily accepted the premise that integration means these institutions should eventually fade away. Arguably, many liberals quietly support conservatives as a means to an end of their agenda. The result is the same regardless of which party controls the statehouse: HBCUs lose funding, infrastructure deteriorates, and the institutional capacity of the Black community diminishes. The conservative approach does it through direct budget cuts and “objective” formulas. The liberal approach does it through purposeful neglect and celebrating individual success stories at PWIs as proof that separate institutions are no longer needed. Both roads, sugar-coated or not, lead to the same hell.

South Carolina State University’s $500 million funding gap didn’t happen overnight. It’s the accumulated result of decades of choices—choices to prioritize USC over SC State, to invest in predominantly white institutions while allowing the HBCU to make do with aging infrastructure and limited resources. The numbers tell a devastating story. As of June 2024, the University of South Carolina’s endowment reached $1.044 billion, a figure that crossed the billion-dollar threshold for the first time in the institution’s history. By October 2025, it had grown to $1.1 billion with a 12.8% return that exceeded median returns for similar institutions. This massive war chest funds scholarships, faculty recruitment, research initiatives, and state-of-the-art facilities. Meanwhile, South Carolina State University’s endowment stood at approximately $17.2 million as of 2023. Let that disparity sink in: $1.1 billion versus $17.2 million. USC’s endowment is more than 60 times larger than SC State’s. USC can establish endowed faculty chairs for $1.5 million, name entire departments for $3 million, and fund comprehensive scholarship programs all from investment returns alone. SC State struggles to fund basic operations.

This isn’t coincidence. This is the direct result of systematic resource allocation that has funneled state support, donor dollars, and institutional advantages to USC while SC State has been left to survive on scraps. When the state underfunds SC State by $500 million over the years and redirects those resources to USC, this is the inevitable outcome: one institution accumulates generational wealth while the other fights for survival. USC used this enormous financial advantage to build a basketball program capable of recruiting a generational talent like A’ja Wilson. It constructed state-of-the-art training facilities, hired top-tier coaches with competitive salaries, and created an environment where champions could be developed. The USC Foundations managed portfolio supports permanent, invested funds that ensure long-term financial stability, the kind of stability that allows an institution to compete for the best students, faculty, and athletes. All admirable goals except when achieved partially through funds that should have gone to the state’s HBCU, and when celebrated as “progress” while the disparity grows ever wider.

To SC State’s credit, it is fighting back. The university raised over $6 million in the 2024-25 fiscal year and achieved a 15.2% alumni giving rate as of July 2025, a remarkable achievement given the economic challenges many HBCU alumni face. But even record-breaking fundraising cannot overcome a 60-to-1 endowment disadvantage created by generations of state-sanctioned discrimination. This isn’t ancient history. Forbes reported on this ongoing underfunding in recent years, documenting a pattern of systematic disinvestment that continues today. While we celebrate milestones like statues on integrated campuses and billion-dollar endowments at predominantly white institutions, the institutions that educated Black students when no one else would continue to be starved of resources, their endowments a fraction of what they should be, their futures perpetually uncertain.

True progress would be A’ja Wilson’s statue at USC and South Carolina State University receiving its full $500 million in owed funding (plus interest). Progress would be that less-than-10% of Black tuition dollars flowing to HBCUs becoming 70%, 80%, or 90%. Progress would be state legislatures across the nation acknowledging decades of discriminatory funding and implementing genuine remedies, not just apologies. Progress would look like HBCUs having facilities that rival their state flagship counterparts. It would mean competitive faculty salaries that stop the brain drain. It would mean endowments built through equitable state funding and private investment that reflect the institutions’ importance to American education. Instead, we get symbolic victories while the infrastructure crumbles. We celebrate individual Black excellence at predominantly white institutions while the institutions built to serve Black communities struggle to keep the lights on.

Acknowledging this reality doesn’t require diminishing A’ja Wilson’s achievements. She is an extraordinary athlete and role model who has earned every accolade. The issue isn’t her success or where she chose to attend college, the issue is a system that presents her individual achievement as collective progress while systematically defunding Black institutions and using integration as justification for that defunding. Fixing this requires several concrete steps. State legislatures must conduct honest audits of HBCU funding over the past 60 years and develop remediation plans to address documented underfunding. South Carolina owes SC State $500 million and that debt should be acknowledged and paid. This isn’t charity; it’s restitution for documented, systematic discrimination. Endowment equity must be addressed directly. When USC holds $1.1 billion while SC State holds $17.2 million—a 60-to-1 disparity—that gap didn’t emerge from market forces or donor preferences alone. It resulted from decades of state policy that enriched one institution while impoverishing the other. South Carolina should establish a dedicated endowment equalization fund, potentially matching private donations to SC State dollar-for-dollar until the disparity is meaningfully reduced.

Federal policy (one day) must address the structural disadvantages HBCUs face in funding formulas, perhaps through direct appropriations that account for historical discrimination. The current system perpetuates inequality under the guise of neutrality. Alumni of all institutions, but particularly successful HBCU graduates at predominantly white institutions, must direct resources back to HBCUs to help stop the financial bleeding. Every major gift to a PWI with a billion-dollar endowment is a choice not to support an HBCU fighting to survive. And perhaps most importantly, we must change the narrative. We must stop treating the closure or decline of HBCUs as inevitable or even acceptable. These institutions represent irreplaceable cultural and educational resources that deserve investment, not managed decline. A $17.2 million endowment for an institution serving thousands of students is a scandal that should generate the same outrage as crumbling infrastructure or contaminated water supplies.

A’ja Wilson’s grandmother couldn’t walk on USC’s campus as a child. That was wrong, and it’s right that those barriers no longer exist. But her grandmother could have attended South Carolina State University, an institution that has been systematically underfunded for generations, partially to build up institutions like USC. That underfunding continues today, as true now as it was decades ago. So when we celebrate the statue, what exactly are we celebrating? The opening of doors, or the closing of others? Individual achievement, or institutional destruction?

The question of whose version of progress we accept matters deeply. The conservative approach would deny South Carolina State its $500 million and call it fiscal responsibility. The liberal approach celebrates the statue as proof we’ve moved beyond needing institutions like SC State. Both ideologies, whether through resource starvation or purposeful neglect disguised as integration, arrive at the same endpoint: weakened Black institutions and diminished Black institutional power. But there’s a third path, one that rejects this false choice entirely. It’s a vision of progress defined by and for the African American community—one that says we can have A’ja Wilson’s statue at USC and a fully-funded South Carolina State University with facilities that rival any institution in the nation. One that recognizes robust HBCUs as evidence of progress, not obstacles to it.

We can hold all these truths simultaneously. We can celebrate individual achievements while demanding that the institutions built to serve Black students receive the funding and support they deserve. We can acknowledge barriers broken while refusing to accept that the gutting of Black institutions is an acceptable price for that change whether that gutting comes from conservative budget cuts or liberal narratives that view HBCU decline as inevitable evolution. Until we do, stories like A’ja Wilson’s statue will remain bittersweet moments of individual triumph shadowed by institutional injustice, symbols that raise more questions than they answer about what progress actually means and who gets to define it. And the power to define what progress means will remain in the hands of those who have never had to worry about the survival of their own institutions.

The question isn’t whether A’ja Wilson deserves her statue. She absolutely does. The question is whether South Carolina State University deserves its $500 million. It absolutely does, too. And until that debt is paid, we haven’t truly addressed what integration cost or what real progress requires. More importantly, until African American communities have the power to define progress for themselves to build and sustain their own institutions without being forced to choose between resource starvation and institutional disappearance we’re still living with the consequences of other people’s definitions, other people’s choices, and other people’s versions of what our future should look like. Both roads of conservative resource choking and liberal institutional disappearance lead to the same hell. One just comes with celebration, statues, and sugar on top. Real progress would mean building a new road entirely.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Editorial

Tagged A'ja Wilson statue, Black community self-determination, Black education funding, Black institutional power, college endowment disparity, education equity, HBCU alumni giving, HBCU brain drain, HBCU endowment crisis, HBCU financial crisis, HBCU survival, hbcu underfunding, historically black colleges, institutional racism, integration paradox, PWI vs HBCU funding, South Carolina education inequality, south carolina state university, state funding formulas, systemic racism in education

Before the Return: Why African Americans Must Learn to Partner Before They Go “Back” to Africa

Posted on May 26, 2026 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

“We must understand Africa, not just as a motherland, but as a partner in destiny. Anything less risks repeating the same colonial footprints we so passionately denounce.” – Dr. Ayodele Moore, Diaspora Strategist

There is a story told about a river that, after centuries of being dammed, rerouted, and renamed by those who neither lived along its banks nor drank from its waters, finally broke through and began flowing again toward the sea. The people downstream celebrated. They built rafts and canoes and set out with great feeling, paddling hard toward the sound of the ocean they had always known was there. But feeling is not navigation, and a raft is not a fleet. Many paddled in circles. Some washed ashore on banks they did not recognize, without maps, without provisions, without a plan for what came next. And some — and this is the part of the story most often left out — arrived upstream, where people already lived, already fished, already governed the water according to their own knowledge and custom. The arrivals called out in the language of kinship. We share this river, they said. We come from the same source. And that was true. But kinship is not a governance structure. It is not a trade agreement or a land compact or a system of shared decision-making. The people who already lived there had heard the language of kinship before, spoken by others who also believed their shared geography entitled them to a kind of authority they had never been asked to hold. Kin can be pariah. Blood can arrive as burden. The question the upstream people were asking was not whether the arrivals were family. It was whether they had come to fish together or to tell them how to fish. A few of the arrivals understood the difference. They put down their nets, picked up their ears, and asked what the river needed, not what they needed from it. Those were the ones who stayed. Those were the ones who built something that lasted. The difference between those two groups was not the sincerity of their return. Both had crossed the same distance with equal longing. The difference was institutional humility, the willingness to arrive not as rescuers but as partners, not with a deed but with a blueprint drawn in consultation with the people who had never left.

There is a moment, familiar to anyone who has traveled to Accra or Kigali or Lagos with serious intent, when the romance of return meets the weight of reality. The streets are alive, the culture is rich, the people are brilliant, and the infrastructure like roads, power grids, financial systems, legal frameworks is visibly strained under the pressure of decades of underdevelopment, debt dependency, and strategic neglect by the global order. It is in that moment that a genuine question must be asked: What did you come here to do?

For a growing number of African Americans, the answer to that question has been shaped more by exhaustion than by strategy. The relentless psychological toll of American racial violence, the compounding weight of systemic disenfranchisement, and the spiritual hunger for belonging have conspired to produce a powerful movement of emotional return. Ghana’s “Year of Return” in 2019 drew tens of thousands. Real estate investment seminars fill hotel ballrooms in Nairobi. Digital nomad communities in Kigali have become gathering points for African Americans seeking a life unburdened by the particular cruelties of the American racial experience. The sentiment is understandable. In many ways, it is noble.

But sentiment is not a development strategy, and exhaustion is not a foreign policy. If the African American engagement with Africa is to produce something durable, something that genuinely advances the interests of both communities and begins to reverse five centuries of enforced separation it must be rebuilt on a foundation that the current movement, for all its energy, largely lacks: institutional architecture, geopolitical literacy, and a clear-eyed understanding of what Africa actually needs from its diaspora.

The longing to return is ancient and legitimate. It is rooted in the singular horror of the Middle Passage, in the deliberate erasure of language, lineage, and tribal identity that made the enslaved African in America a person without a past. For generations, Africa has served as both symbol and salve, a place of imagined wholeness in the face of a history designed to fragment. That emotional current is not to be dismissed. But it must be disciplined. The history of diaspora engagement with Africa is not uniformly redemptive. It contains within it a cautionary architecture that deserves serious examination before the next wave of African Americans boards a plane with a one-way ticket and a venture capital pitch deck.

Liberia remains the most instructive example in this tradition. Conceived in the early nineteenth century with the support of the American Colonization Society as a destination for freed African Americans, Liberia was presented as the fulfillment of Pan-African possibility, a sovereign Black republic on African soil. In practice, it became something considerably more complicated. The Americo-Liberian settlers who arrived brought with them not only their ambitions but their cultural frameworks, legal structures, and social hierarchies; frameworks that often positioned indigenous Liberians as lesser participants in their own land. The result was not liberation but stratification. Decades of resentment between settler elites and indigenous communities contributed directly to the political instability that eventually consumed the country in civil conflict. The lesson embedded in that history is not that return is wrong, but that return without humility, without partnership, and without institutional reciprocity carries the seeds of its own failure.

The current generation of returning African Americans is making, in updated form, some of the same structural errors. The dominant architecture of today’s return movement is personal, not institutional. It is driven by influencers, entrepreneurs, lifestyle architects, and individual investors; people moving with personal capital and personal vision, without the enduring infrastructure that serious engagement with sovereign nations requires. Europeans operating on the African continent do not arrive with YouTube channels and branding strategies. They arrive with state-backed development agencies, sovereign wealth instruments, bilateral trade agreements, and long-term infrastructure commitments. China’s engagement with Africa over the past two decades whatever its own contradictions and extractive tendencies has been defined by institutional presence: development banks, construction conglomerates, diplomatic missions, and educational exchange programs operating at scale. African Americans, who possess over $1.8 trillion in annual spending power according to Federal Reserve data, have no comparable institutional platform for continental engagement. That asymmetry is not incidental. It is the central strategic problem.

The geopolitical dimension of this failure is more consequential than most discussions of African American return acknowledge. Africa is, at this moment, one of the most intensely contested arenas in the contemporary great power competition and it is a competition in which no African nation currently holds great power status. The United States, China, Russia, France, Turkey, and the Gulf states are all actively vying for strategic positioning across the continent, deploying capital, military arrangements, media influence, and diplomatic pressure to shape African governance in directions that serve external interests. France maintains a network of military bases and monetary arrangements across francophone West Africa that amount to a continuation of colonial economic control. China’s Belt and Road infrastructure investments, while filling genuine gaps, have generated significant debt obligations and have been structured in ways that prioritize Chinese labor and supply chains over African employment and industrial development. Russia’s Wagner Group, rebranded but operationally continuous under successor arrangements, has traded security for mineral access across the Sahel. The United States, through AFRICOM and shifting aid priorities, conducts its own version of strategic competition under the language of partnership and democracy promotion.

In this environment, Africa is not a blank landscape awaiting diasporic idealism. It is a geopolitical battleground in which African nations are fighting, with varying degrees of success and sovereignty, to chart independent developmental paths. The African Union’s Agenda 2063 represents an ambitious framework for continental self-determination encompassing economic integration, infrastructure development, digital transformation, and political union. But frameworks do not build themselves. They require capital, technical capacity, institutional support, and allies who are genuinely interested in African sovereignty rather than in African resources. African Americans, if they are serious about return, must understand themselves as potential actors in this geopolitical landscape not as refugees from American racism seeking personal sanctuary, but as a diaspora with institutional capacity, democratic literacy, and strategic interests that are genuinely aligned with African self-determination in ways that no other external actor can claim.

That alignment, however, only becomes geopolitically meaningful if it is expressed institutionally. Individual African Americans relocating to Accra or investing in Rwandan real estate do not register as actors in great power competition. A coordinated network of HBCU research partnerships, the seventeen African American-owned banks and approximately two hundred and five African American credit unions that together hold roughly $15 billion in assets forming correspondent banking relationships across the continent, professional associations running formal mentorship and knowledge-transfer pipelines, and diaspora development funds deploying patient capital into African infrastructure is a presence that registers. That is the difference between a cultural moment and a strategic movement. And the strategic geography of that movement must extend beyond Africa alone. The Caribbean represents an underutilized first frontier in the construction of African American institutional power abroad. Nations like Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, Haiti, and the Bahamas are majority African-descended, hold seats in the United Nations, cast votes in multilateral institutions, and exercise sovereign influence over global negotiations on trade, climate, and finance. They share history, culture, and bloodlines with African Americans, and they face structural challenges like undercapitalization, climate vulnerability, debt dependency, and narrow economic bases where HBCU expertise in agriculture, engineering, public health, and law is directly applicable. By establishing enduring institutional partnerships with Caribbean governments, African American institutions can extend their effective reach onto the world stage before attempting the more complex architecture of continental African engagement. Through these connections, African America ceases to operate as an isolated domestic minority and begins to function as part of a larger bloc of African-descended sovereign power. The Jewish community offers a relevant comparative model here: its global institutional influence was built not only through domestic lobbying but through sustained formal ties with Israel and institutional networks across multiple continents, fusing homeland and diaspora into a single field of coordinated action. African America has the population, the spending power, the intellectual infrastructure, and the historical relationships to construct an equivalent architecture, one that runs from Kingston to Accra, from Port of Spain to Lagos, from Bridgetown to Nairobi. What has been absent is the institutional will to formalize these connections into channels of durable power. HBCUs, with their transcontinental alumni networks and demonstrated capacity for international academic partnership, are the logical anchors of that architecture. The question is whether their leadership is prepared to govern accordingly, not merely as presidents of universities, but as stewards of institutions with genuinely global strategic responsibilities.

The financial architecture of that movement begins with an honest accounting of what African America currently controls and what it could deploy. The seventeen African American-owned banks and approximately two hundred and five African American credit unions that together hold roughly $15 billion in assets represent a modest sum measured against the balance sheets of the institutions that currently dominate African lending; the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China ($7.6 trillion), the European Investment Bank ($553 billion), or the constellation of French financial institutions that retain structural influence across francophone Africa. But scale is not the only relevant variable in development finance. African nations, and particularly smaller economies across the Caribbean and Africa Core, are not simply starved of capital in the aggregate. They are starved of capital that arrives without the political conditionalities, debt structures, and supply chain requirements that characterize lending from the IMF, the World Bank, and bilateral creditors with their own strategic agendas. A correspondent banking network anchored by African American financial institutions would not need to outcompete Chinese or European capital in volume to be strategically significant. It would need only to offer an alternative, one structured around developmental priorities rather than extraction, governed through relationships of genuine partnership rather than creditor leverage, and oriented toward building the local financial infrastructure that African economies require to reduce their dependency on external financing altogether. A Pan-African diaspora ETF, co-managed by African American asset managers and African financial institutions, would allow retail investors to participate in African market growth while ensuring that the governance structure reflects African stakeholder interests rather than reproducing the extractive dynamics of Western investment vehicles. These are not futuristic proposals. They are applications of existing financial infrastructure to a strategic purpose that currently lacks coordination.

The economic complementarity between African America and Africa is more substantial than is commonly recognized on either side of the Atlantic. African Americans collectively generate over $259 billion in discretionary spending power. The African continent, for its part, represents one of the most significant growth frontiers of the twenty-first century: the African Development Bank projects the continent’s collective GDP will exceed $29 trillion by 2050, driven by a young and rapidly urbanizing population that will constitute roughly a quarter of humanity within that same timeframe. Africa’s agricultural sector alone constrained by underinvestment in technology, irrigation, and storage infrastructure feeds over a billion people today while operating at a fraction of its productive potential. Its renewable energy resources, from solar across the Sahel to geothermal in the East African Rift Valley, are among the largest underdeveloped clean energy reserves on the planet. Its digital economy, growing at rates that consistently outpace global averages, is producing a generation of fintech innovators, software developers, and technology entrepreneurs who are building financial and commercial infrastructure largely from scratch. African America, with its concentrations of professional expertise in medicine, law, engineering, agriculture, and finance produced in disproportionate measure by HBCUs is positioned to contribute technical capacity across precisely these sectors.

The agricultural connection deserves particular attention because it is where the institutional architecture on both sides of the Atlantic most directly converges. The nineteen 1890 land-grant HBCUs, institutions such as Tuskegee University, Prairie View A&M, North Carolina A&T, and Florida A&M, were established precisely to develop applied expertise in agricultural science, soil management, and food systems. That expertise is directly transferable to Africa’s agricultural challenges. A financing model is already being conceptualized domestically: a proposed “1890 Fund” would pool $1 million commitments from each of the nineteen 1890 institutions into a unified lending vehicle, deployed through African American-owned banks and credit unions to finance Black farmers and agricultural producers. The logic of that model extends naturally across the Atlantic. The same cooperative lending architecture designed to recapitalize African American farmers facing discriminatory credit markets in the American South could be adapted to provide African smallholder farmers and agricultural cooperatives with access to capital that arrives without the conditionalities and structural dependencies that characterize lending from multilateral institutions with competing strategic agendas. A transatlantic agricultural finance corridor linking 1890 HBCU extension programs, African American financial institutions, and African agricultural ministries and cooperatives would position African American institutions as genuine development partners in one of the sectors where Africa’s need and African America’s institutional capacity most precisely align. The global contest for food security is intensifying, and nations that can finance, research, and govern their own food systems will occupy an increasingly strategic position in the twenty-first century order. African America and Africa, coordinating institutionally across this sector, would be building toward exactly that kind of sovereignty together. The relationship between the two communities is therefore not one of donor and recipient. It is one of complementary assets in search of coordinating institutions. What neither community has yet built is the architecture that would allow those complementary assets to find each other systematically, at scale, and on terms that serve both parties rather than the intermediaries who currently profit from their separation.

The institutional vehicles for this kind of engagement already exist in partial form and require scaling rather than invention from scratch. Historically Black Colleges and Universities represent the most important underutilized asset in this architecture. With over one hundred institutions spanning agricultural science, engineering, law, medicine, business, and the humanities, HBCUs possess precisely the intellectual and technical capacity that African development requires. The potential for joint degree programs between HBCUs and African universities is not speculative it is already happening, and the early results deserve serious attention. Claflin University, an HBCU in Orangeburg, South Carolina, and Africa University in Zimbabwe have formalized a collaboration that produced its inaugural cohort of graduates, young scholars awarded Master of Science degrees in Biotechnology and Climate Change through a fully online program bridging both institutions. The significance of that program extends beyond its enrollment numbers. By operating fully online, it sidesteps the prohibitive costs and restrictive visa policies that routinely prevent African students from accessing graduate education in the United States, allowing scholars to remain embedded in the communities they intend to serve rather than being uprooted from them. The field selection is equally deliberate. Biotechnology and climate change are not merely timely academic disciplines they are the strategic terrain on which African food sovereignty, public health infrastructure, and energy independence will be won or lost across the next generation. That Claflin and Africa University chose these fields as the foundation of their partnership reflects an institutional logic that is precisely the right one: knowledge production oriented toward African developmental priorities, governed cooperatively across the Atlantic, and structured to keep talent anchored in the communities that need it most.

What is missing is the coordinating architecture to scale what Claflin and Africa University have demonstrated is achievable. A formal Africa-HBCU higher education consortium, capitalized by endowment contributions and federal partnership funds, could systematize what is currently episodic faculty exchange, joint research agendas, curriculum co-development, and student pipelines that stretch continuously across the Atlantic rather than depending on the initiative of individual administrators and faculty champions. Recommendations emerging from analysis of this partnership include the development of joint endowment vehicles to fund shared programs and scholarships, reciprocal faculty exchange pipelines, and co-branded research institutes focused on climate change, food security, public health, and digital governance. A Pan-African accreditation framework capable of facilitating mutual degree recognition across diaspora institutions would remove one of the most persistent structural barriers to this kind of collaboration. Tuskegee University’s expertise in agricultural science is directly applicable to food sovereignty challenges facing West African nations. Howard University’s law school could anchor a transnational legal center focused on diaspora citizenship frameworks, international business law, and African Union policy development. Spelman and Morehouse, with their respective strengths in science, medicine, and leadership formation, could establish formal research partnerships with African institutions working on public health infrastructure. None of this requires waiting for a presidential administration to prioritize it. It requires institutional will, coordinating leadership, and the recognition that HBCU engagement with Africa is not a philanthropic gesture but a strategic imperative, one that Claflin University and Africa University have already proven is operational, replicable, and consequential.

What is also missing, and what no amount of capital alone can substitute for, is political literacy. Africa’s complexity resists the simplified Pan-African framing that much of the return movement relies upon. The continent encompasses fifty-four sovereign nations with distinct political economies, legal traditions, ethnic configurations, and developmental trajectories. Regional economic blocs; the Economic Community of West African States, the Southern African Development Community, the East African Community, each operate with their own governance structures and strategic priorities. The African Union, for all its aspirational architecture, remains constrained by the sovereignty tensions and resource disparities of its member states. Debt structures imposed through International Monetary Fund and World Bank conditionalities have shaped the fiscal space available to African governments in ways that any serious investor or institutional partner must understand. The mineral dependencies that underwrite the economic strategies of several African nations create both opportunities and vulnerabilities that diaspora capital must engage with carefully, avoiding the extractive logic that has characterized foreign engagement with African resources for two centuries.

There is also the uncomfortable reality of diaspora gentrification, which requires honest confrontation rather than dismissal. In Accra, in Kigali, in Mombasa, the arrival of middle-class and affluent African Americans empowered by Western wages and the mobility that American passports confer has produced dynamics that local residents describe with a vocabulary borrowed directly from the urban displacement literature of American cities. Rents rise. Local businesses are displaced by foreign-owned establishments marketed in Pan-African aesthetic language but managed with limited local inclusion. Communities that were affordable become stratified. The African American in this scenario occupies a structural position that mirrors, regardless of racial identity, the role of the external gentrifier. This is not an argument against African Americans living and investing on the continent. It is an argument for the structural disciplines that prevent individual mobility from producing collective harm: affordable housing investment rather than luxury development; employment and profit-sharing mechanisms that benefit local communities; governance structures for business ventures that include meaningful African stakeholder ownership rather than token consultation.

The media ecosystem that has driven much of the current return movement has not helped in this regard. Social media’s representation of Africa has been systematically curated toward the aspirational and the aesthetic—luxury compounds, Afrobeat concerts, safari experiences, and carefully framed images of cultural belonging. What is largely absent from this representation is Africa’s political complexity, its infrastructure challenges, its ongoing negotiations with the global order, and the voices of African people articulating what they actually want from their diaspora. African American media institutions like HBCU journalism programs, Black-owned digital platforms, and community broadcasters have an obligation and an opportunity to build genuine media partnerships with African counterparts that produce a more complete and more honest picture of continental life. The romanticization of Africa does not serve African Americans or Africans. It produces a generation of returnees unprepared for the actual work of partnership.

The framework that should govern this entire engagement is mutualism rather than rescue. There is a missionary tradition embedded in African American engagement with Africa one that predates the current movement by more than a century in which the diaspora positions itself as the bearer of civilization, modernity, or salvation to a continent imagined as waiting for external redemption. Today’s version arrives not with Bibles but with tech accelerators and wellness retreats, but the underlying logic is frequently unchanged: Africa as destination for the expression of diasporic benevolence rather than as a partner in a relationship of genuine reciprocity. Africa does not require rescue. It requires the kind of partnership that treats African institutions, African expertise, and African governance as co-equal participants in a shared project of development. The African diaspora in America has survived and produced extraordinary institutional achievement under conditions of extreme adversity. That experience carries real lessons about institution-building, legal strategy, and economic development under pressure, lessons that may be genuinely valuable to African partners. But the learning flows in both directions. Africa’s experience of independence movements, Pan-African political theory, community governance, and developmental economics offers knowledge that African Americans navigating their own institutional challenges would benefit from integrating. Partnership requires the humility to be taught as well as the confidence to teach.

The ultimate measure of the African American return movement will not be the number of people who relocate to the continent, or the volume of real estate transactions completed in Accra, or the number of cultural tours sold in Lagos. It will be the institutional infrastructure that this generation builds or fails to build—the universities linked across the Atlantic, the financial systems connected in ways that allow capital to serve development rather than extraction, the media partnerships that produce honest and complex representations, the legal frameworks that protect diaspora rights while respecting African sovereignty, and the political relationships developed at institutional levels that allow African Americans to function as genuine strategic allies in Africa’s navigation of great power competition. No African nation currently sits at the table where the rules of the twenty-first century order are being written. If the African diaspora in America is serious about return, then the most important contribution it can make is not to escape to Africa but to help build the architecture that gives African nations the institutional capacity, the financial sovereignty, and the strategic positioning to eventually claim that seat. That is a generational project. It begins not with a plane ticket, but with a plan.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Lifestyle

Tagged Africa Black American real estate, Africa diaspora partnership, African American humility Africa, African American in Ghana, African American repatriation, African Union diaspora, Black credit unions Africa, Black gentrification in Africa, Diaspora ETF, ethical Africa investments, HBCU Africa strategy, HBCU joint campuses Africa, institutional Pan-Africanism, Pan-African investment, Year of Return critique

One Year, $241 Million: What Three African American Athlete Families Could Do for Black Nonprofit Infrastructure

Posted on May 24, 2026 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

We put too much burden on a few to carry the many, but it does not remove the responsibility of the few to provide the accelerant that the many often cannot. – William A. Foster, IV

There is an old story, told in many forms across many communities, about a village built beside a river. The river flooded every generation, and every generation the village rebuilt — hauling timber, patching roofs, burying the dead, and beginning again. The village produced, across its history, a number of its sons and daughters who left, distinguished themselves in distant cities, and returned at flood time with wagons of supplies and tears in their eyes. The village received them gratefully. It rebuilt again. What the village never did and what no returning son or daughter, however generous, ever proposed was to move the village to higher ground, dig the drainage channels, or build the levee that would make the next flood a manageable inconvenience rather than a recurring devastation. The supplies were real. The grief was genuine. But the wagon that arrives after the flood is not the same thing as the engineering that prevents it. One is charity. The other is infrastructure. African American institutional life has lived, for too long, beside the river.

The question is not hypothetical in the way that thought experiments usually are. The money exists. The institutions that need it exist. The gap between them is not a mystery it is documented in publicly filed IRS Form 990s, in university endowment reports, in the annual financial statements of African American nonprofits that are, in many cases, running on budgets that would embarrass a mid-sized dental practice. What has not existed, at least not yet, is the architecture of intention that would connect the two. It is worth stating plainly that this architecture is not novel, not radical, and not exclusionary, it is what every other community with durable institutional power has built and continues to build without apology, and it is built most reliably through the household. When a Jewish couple endows a chair at Brandeis, establishes a donor-advised fund through the Jewish Communal Fund, or makes a lead gift to their local Jewish federation, no one questions the cultural logic of the decision. It is understood as the natural expression of a family whose identity, community, and institutional loyalty are aligned. When an Indian American couple directs philanthropic capital toward an IIT alumni endowment, an Indian American arts institution, or a diaspora investment vehicle, it is celebrated as community cohesion in action. When an Irish American family in Boston gives generously to Boston College or the local Catholic Charities chapter, the giving is read as heritage and pride. These couples and families are not accused of exclusion. They are not asked to justify why their philanthropy reflects their identity. They are not told that their giving should serve a broader, more universal constituency before it serves their own. The African American community is held to a different standard, one that is not articulated as a standard so much as assumed as a condition.

African Americans are expected to fight for the big tent, to frame every institutional investment in the language of universal benefit, to justify community-directed giving in terms that no other community is required to provide. Jewish families give to Jewish institutions. Indian couples give to Indian institutions. Cuban American networks build Cuban American power. And the African American family that proposes to do the same is asked, implicitly or explicitly, to explain itself. That asymmetry does not originate in principled universalism. It originates in a philanthropic power structure in which African American institutions have historically depended on external goodwill for their survival, and in which the communities whose goodwill has been most consequential (typically well-meaning white liberals) have developed, consciously or not, a proprietary relationship to the terms on which Black institutional investment is deemed acceptable. Communities that hold the center of gravity in their own institutional infrastructure do not need outside permission to give to themselves. They simply give. The African American community has not yet fully reclaimed that center of gravity and it is precisely that gap, between institutional need and internally generated capital, that creates the opening for a different standard to be applied, and accepted. The question being asked here about African American athlete families and the African American nonprofit ecosystem is not a different kind of question. It is the same question every community of consequence has already answered for itself, on its own terms, without waiting for permission. This analysis proceeds from that premise, asking a precise and answerable question: if the highest-paid African American athlete families those with African American partners or spouses, reflecting a household whose cultural loyalty and community identity are aligned in the way that Jewish couples, Indian American couples, and Irish American families align theirs without apology dedicated one year of their combined earnings to establishing endowments for African American nonprofits, what would that look like? What would change? And what would it mean for the institutions that have been waiting, in some cases for generations, for that question to be asked seriously?

The three families at the center of this analysis were identified based on the 2024 earnings data compiled for the highest-paid African American athletes and the requirement that their household include an African American partner or spouse — a condition that matters because endowment-building at this scale is, or should be, a household decision, not a unilateral one, and because the framework here is explicitly about families whose full economic identity is embedded in the African American community. LeBron and Savannah James reported combined household earnings anchored by LeBron’s $128.2 million in 2024, which includes his NBA salary, his Nike lifetime deal, and the returns from business ventures including SpringHill Co. and his stake in Fenway Sports Group. Stephen and Ayesha Curry contributed $102 million, with Stephen’s Curry Brand partnership with Under Armour structured, as his peers at Under Armour have noted publicly, analogously to Michael Jordan’s Nike arrangement, including equity participation. Simone and Jonathan Owens, with Simone’s $11.2 million derived almost entirely from sponsorships with Athleta, Visa, Core Power, and Uber Eats following her historic Paris Games performance and Jonathan’s NFL career with the Chicago Bears, round out the group. Three families. Combined annual earnings of approximately $241.4 million.

To understand what $241.4 million could accomplish for African American nonprofit infrastructure, it is necessary to first understand what that infrastructure currently looks like and how comprehensively undercapitalized it is across nearly every domain of African American civic life. The problem is not concentrated in a handful of high-profile institutions. It is structural and pervasive. A prior analysis in this publication documented the investment income crisis at the core of Black philanthropy with precision: the gap between annual contributions-dependent revenue and the asset-generated investment income that allows institutions to operate with independence and permanence is, for the vast majority of African American nonprofits, not a gap at all. It is an absence. Institutions that have received contributions for decades that have built recognizable names and genuine community trust often hold investment income figures of zero or near-zero. That means every year of operation restarts from scratch. Every program depends on the next grant cycle. Every staffing decision is made against the backdrop of funding that may or may not be renewed. This is not a description of institutional weakness. It is a description of what happens when an entire sector is financed as though permanence were a luxury rather than a prerequisite for effectiveness.

Consider the Black and Missing Foundation, founded in 2008 and dedicated to raising awareness about missing African Americans, a population that receives demonstrably less media coverage, law enforcement attention, and public concern than missing white individuals. The Foundation has built genuine public visibility, including a documentary series that brought its work to a national audience. Its two co-founders, Derrica and Natalie Wilson, have spent years making the case that the crisis of missing Black Americans is not only a law enforcement failure but a media failure, a resource failure, and an institutional failure. According to its publicly filed Form 990, the Foundation reported $602,887 in total revenue in its fiscal year ending December 2024 with 100 percent of that revenue derived from contributions, zero investment income, and a net deficit of $87,568 on the year. Its total net assets stood at $852,506. This is the complete financial picture of an organization that addresses one of the most acute and chronically underreported crises in African American life. When a Black child goes missing and the Foundation cannot respond with the speed and resources the situation demands when staff capacity is constrained, when outreach budgets are thin, when the organization cannot sustain the surge capacity that a crisis by definition requires the cost is not measured in program metrics. It is measured in outcomes. Time lost in the first hours of a missing person’s case is not recovered. An institution too financially fragile to deploy resources at the moment of maximum urgency is, in the most direct sense, an institution that cannot fully do its job. The Black and Missing Foundation is not exceptional in its financial precarity. It is representative of it.

The data that contextualizes this precarity at scale comes from a joint April 2026 research publication by Candid and ABFE (Association of Black Foundation Executives) titled From Transaction to Transformation: Three Ways Foundations Can Invest in Black-Led Nonprofits for Lasting Change. The findings are worth sitting with. Between 2016 and 2023, only 50 percent of Black-led nonprofits received foundation funding in a given year, compared with 70 percent of other nonprofits. For small Black-led nonprofits, those operating below the threshold of visibility that attracts institutional grantmakers, the figure fell to 30 percent. These organizations were not absent from the funding marketplace by choice: the research found they had the lowest grant success rates of any category studied, meaning they were applying and being rejected at rates their counterparts did not face. The racial justice uprisings of 2020 produced what many organizations hoped was a structural shift; foundation giving to Black-led nonprofits increased, and for a brief window it appeared that the sector’s chronic underfunding was finally being addressed. The data tells a different story. Small Black-led nonprofits saw no significant change in the amount of funding they received during the 2020 surge, the increased dollars flowed predominantly to large organizations already established in foundation portfolios. And by 2023, even those larger organizations were seeing funding retreat, with one nonprofit leader describing the reversal plainly: that window closed in 2023, and resources were already drying up. The funding that arrived as a moral response to a moment of crisis did not become structural. It came and went. The organizations that most needed it barely felt it. And the organizations now relying on new funders — 64 percent of small Black nonprofits’ total grant funding comes from first-time funders rather than sustained relationships — face the perpetual overhead of cultivating those relationships from scratch, year after year, at the cost of the mission time and organizational capacity they cannot afford to spend.

This is the terrain into which $241.4 million, strategically deployed, could introduce genuine structural change not by replicating what major foundations already do, but by doing what major foundations have demonstrably failed to do. The first and most immediately actionable use of athlete family capital at this scale would be the establishment of matching endowment programs targeted specifically at small and mid-sized Black-led nonprofits. A $50 million matching fund seeded by these families and structured to match community donations to qualifying organizations dollar for dollar up to a defined threshold would accomplish two things simultaneously: it would inject direct capital into organizations that the existing grant marketplace consistently bypasses, and it would create a mechanism for broader community participation in institutional capitalization that does not currently exist at scale. The matching structure matters because it changes the dynamic of community giving from charity to investment: when a donor knows that their contribution will be doubled before it reaches the institution, the incentive calculus shifts. Matching programs have been used for decades in university fundraising precisely because they work. There is no structural reason they cannot be deployed for African American nonprofit infrastructure, and there is no reason that athlete family capital cannot be the seed that makes them possible. A second use of this capital would be the creation of multi-year, unrestricted operating grants for African American nonprofits that meet basic governance and transparency thresholds — grants that do not require program-specific reporting, that do not expire at the end of a fiscal year, and that allow organizations to build the staffing, reserve funds, and institutional capacity that project grants never cover. The Candid/ABFE research is explicit on this point: grant dollars alone are insufficient for transformative change, and the organizations that need sustained support the most are the ones least likely to receive it from existing funders. Unrestricted, multi-year capital is what converts an organization that restarts every year into one that accumulates. A third function of this capital would be institutional stability grants, one-time capitalization awards to organizations like the Black and Missing Foundation, which have demonstrated mission effectiveness and community trust but carry balance sheets too thin to absorb any operational disruption. A stability grant of $2 to $5 million to an organization with under $1 million in net assets does not make that organization wealthy. It gives it a runway. It buys the time and the breathing room that allow leadership to focus on mission rather than survival. And at a 4.5 percent annual return on even a $2 million endowment base, it generates $90,000 per year in perpetual investment income which is not a transformative sum, but the difference between zero and something, between an organization that exists year to year and one that has a permanent financial floor.

There is a dimension of this argument that goes beyond the mechanics of endowment returns, and it requires a frank accounting of where African American nonprofits currently find themselves in the philanthropic ecosystem. A prior HBCU Money analysis documented what that publication called the double-edged sword of external philanthropy: the reality that large gifts from non-African American donors, however genuinely valuable in addressing immediate capital needs, carry structural leverage that internally generated endowments do not. Over 95 percent of HBCUs have endowments below $100 million. The pattern holds across the nonprofit sector more broadly. MacKenzie Scott, the ex-wife of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, with a net worth estimated at $38.3 billion has now directed more than $1 billion to HBCUs since 2020, part of a $26 billion philanthropic commitment that spans thousands of organizations. Her 2025 gifts alone included $80 million to Howard University, $63 million each to Morgan State and Prairie View A&M, $50 million each to Bowie State, Norfolk State, Virginia State, and Winston-Salem State, and $70 million each to the Thurgood Marshall College Fund and the United Negro College Fund. Michael Bloomberg separately directed $100 million to the nation’s four HBCU medical schools. The scale is staggering and the structural question it raises is equally so. A single donor’s philanthropic decisions now shape the financial trajectory of dozens of African American institutions simultaneously, representing a concentration of external philanthropic influence over what is supposed to be the independent infrastructure of African American intellectual and civic life. The harder question the one that institution after institution has been reluctant to ask publicly is what recognition of that kind costs in terms of institutional autonomy. The institution that cannot survive without the gift is not in a position to refuse the influence that follows it. Money that keeps the doors open commands a different kind of deference than money that provides additional capacity. The capital that athlete families could direct toward Black nonprofit infrastructure would not carry that cost. It would be capitalized by people who came from the communities the institutions serve, whose identities are inseparable from the African American community. That is a different kind of money. It is money that strengthens the institution’s voice rather than qualifying it.

The household dimension of this framework is not incidental. It is, in fact, the mechanism through which this kind of capital commitment becomes plausible. LeBron James’s individual philanthropy is well-documented; his I PROMISE School has become a national model for community-anchored public education. But the I PROMISE School is a program investment, not an endowment. It is an annual commitment that requires continued capital to sustain. The distinction matters because a program can be discontinued when priorities shift or resources contract. An endowment cannot be discontinued, its principal persists and generates income regardless of whether the founding family remains engaged. Savannah James has become a sophisticated philanthropic voice on questions of Black women’s health and family economic stability. A household endowment initiative would represent the institutionalization of both of those philanthropic identities into something permanent. The same logic applies to Ayesha Curry, whose Eat. Learn. Play. Foundation has deployed significant resources in Oakland and beyond but operates as a program-driven organization requiring annual capital commitments rather than as a perpetual institution with asset-driven income. And it applies to Simone Biles’s philanthropic work on behalf of abuse survivors and mental health infrastructure, causes that require the kind of sustained, multi-year institutional commitment that annual giving cannot reliably provide.

This analysis acknowledges the objection that will immediately arise: $241.4 million is the combined annual earnings of three families, and asking families to commit one year of income to endowment capitalization is not a trivial request. It is, however, not an unprecedented one. John D. Rockefeller gave away approximately $350 million during his lifetime, roughly $6 billion in today’s dollars, and the institutions that received those gifts are still operating, still growing, still deploying capital into the world, more than a century after he died. Andrew Carnegie gave away approximately the same amount. Both men demonstrated that the conversion of personal wealth into institutional endowments produces returns measured not in investment income but in institutional permanence and civilizational influence that no other deployment of capital can match. The Rockefeller Foundation today holds $6.23 billion in total assets and disbursed $440 million in charitable grants in 2023 while leaving the principal largely intact. These are the compounding returns on gifts made by men who died in the early 20th century. The three families in this analysis have the opportunity to create the same kind of compounding institutional legacy and unlike Rockefeller and Carnegie, they would be directing that capital toward institutions that serve the communities from which they came.

The structural argument for endowment over annual giving is ultimately an argument about time horizons. Annual giving asks: what is the most effective thing I can do with this capital right now? Endowment building asks: what is the most effective thing I can do with this capital across the next hundred years? The two questions produce different answers. Annual giving at scale sustains real programming and real operations. But it does not accumulate. It does not compound. It does not transform an institution’s relationship to financial risk. An endowment does all three. It changes the Black and Missing Foundation or any of the hundreds of small African American nonprofits running below the foundation funding threshold from an organization that must survive year to year into one that has a permanent financial floor from which it can actually build.

Before concluding, it is necessary to name plainly what this analysis does not argue, because the misreading would be consequential. It is not the job of three African American athlete families to underwrite the entire architecture of Black nonprofit infrastructure. The impulse to look at high-earning African American athletes and assign them collective responsibility for community institutional development is a reflex that deserves scrutiny rather than endorsement. It conflates income with wealth, celebrity with capital, and individual obligation with structural solution. The problems facing African American nonprofits are measured not in hundreds of millions but in the tens and potentially hundreds of billions, a gap that no collection of athlete earnings was ever going to close. The thought experiment offered here is illustrative, not prescriptive. The further assumption that even the highest-paid African American athletes represent a deep and stable philanthropic reservoir collapses under basic scrutiny. Athletic careers are short. The median NFL career lasts approximately three years. The wealth that survives even significant earnings depends entirely on financial decisions made during a compressed window of peak income, and a substantial number of professional athletes face serious financial stress within years of retirement. LeBron James and Stephen Curry are extraordinary outliers, not a generalizable class. It is also worth noting that professional athletes despite their prominence in popular culture and their genuine compensation occupy a position at the bottom of the organizational chart of the industries that employ them. They are well-paid labor. The team owner, the league investor, the media conglomerate executive who controls broadcast rights: those are the economic principals. A 23-year-old making seven figures is still, in the structural sense, the cashier. Understanding the economics of the institution you work for is not a skill that compensation alone confers. The deeper structural point is this: the class that actually generates transformative philanthropic capacity is not the labor class at any pay grade it is the ownership class. The Rockefeller and Carnegie legacies that shadow this entire analysis were not built on salaries. They were built on equity stakes in oil and steel on the compounding returns of assets that appreciated and generated income regardless of whether their owners continued working. The families whose philanthropy has reshaped American institutional life across generations — the Waltons, the Johnsons, the Pritzkers — built their capacity through business ownership, real estate, investment portfolios, and family asset structures that accumulate across decades and pass wealth forward rather than dissipating it at career’s end. That is the class whose analog is largely missing from African American institutional life. It is not missing because African Americans cannot build businesses or accumulate assets. It is missing because systematic exclusion from capital markets, property ownership, business credit, and institutional investment has compressed the timeline and scale at which African American family wealth has been permitted to compound. The consequence for Black nonprofits and HBCUs is direct: the families who write the transformative endowment checks at Harvard and Yale and the University of Chicago are families whose wealth has been compounding, in many cases, since the industrial era. African American families have been building from a much more recent and more disrupted starting point. Athletes earn. Owners accumulate. Until the African American community develops the ownership infrastructure — the family-held businesses, the real estate portfolios, the investment compounders across generations — that generates the asset-based wealth on which transformative institutional philanthropy depends, the question of who funds Black nonprofit endowments will continue to be answered, as it has been answered historically, by people outside the community whose generosity arrives with strings attached. The thought experiment posed here is worth conducting. But the honest conclusion of this analysis is not that three athlete families should give more. It is that the community needs to build the ownership infrastructure that makes the question of athlete philanthropy feel like what it should always have been: a supplement to community wealth, not a substitute for it.

None of this, however, exempts the broader community from its own share of the responsibility. The argument that athlete families cannot and should not bear the full weight of Black nonprofit capitalization is correct. The argument that the ownership class whose asset-based wealth could transform these institutions is largely absent from African American life is also correct. But neither observation releases the 40 million members of the African American community from what they can do right now, at whatever income level they occupy. The data from prior HBCU Money analysis is instructive: nearly a third of Black-led nonprofits operate on annual budgets of just $30,000. Forty-three and a half percent have no full-time paid employees. These are not institutions that require a philanthropist or an endowment to become functional they require the community whose interests they serve to treat consistent, recurring giving as a non-negotiable line item rather than an occasional gesture. Ten dollars per paycheck. Twenty dollars per paycheck. Directed not as a one-time response to a crisis or a viral campaign but as a standing commitment to an organization the giver has vetted and chosen to sustain. Across a community of 40 million people, the aggregate of those modest recurring commitments is not modest at all. The philanthropy club model where small groups of family members, friends, or HBCU alumni pooling monthly contributions, rotating responsibility for identifying and presenting organizations, building institutional knowledge alongside financial commitment is precisely the infrastructure through which that aggregate gets organized. It converts individual giving from an isolated act into a collective practice, and it creates the kind of sustained, recurring revenue that the Candid and ABFE research identifies as the resource most critically absent from small Black nonprofits: not grant windfalls, but continuing funder relationships. An organization that knows it will receive $500 per month from a philanthropy club of fifteen members for the next three years can plan around that. It can hire. It can retain staff. It can make the multi-year programmatic commitments that one-time donations cannot support. The athlete family endowment and the $20 paycheck deduction are not competing strategies. They are the same strategy operating at different scales, and the community needs both.

The $241.4 million scenario described here is a thought experiment. No announcement has been made, no commitment recorded. But the arithmetic is real and the institutional need is real; documented not in the finances of a handful of celebrated civil rights organizations but in the 990s of hundreds of African American nonprofits that address genuine crises with revenues measured in the hundreds of thousands, investment income of zero, and staffing levels that cannot absorb a bad quarter let alone a structural funding retreat. The capital to begin closing that gap exists. What has not yet materialized is the architecture of intention that would direct it. The institutions that three athlete families could help build through matching programs, stability grants, and unrestricted multi-year capital would still be filing 990s long after all of us have gone. But the full distance will only be closed when the African American community stops looking to its athletes to do what only owners can do and what the community as a whole must become responsible in building.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Philanthropy

Tagged African American athlete philanthropy, African American nonprofit infrastructure, African American ownership wealth gap, African American philanthropy club, Ayesha Curry Eat Learn Play, Black and Missing Foundation, black institutional investment, Black nonprofit endowment, Black nonprofit funding gap, Black philanthropy infrastructure, Candid ABFE Black nonprofits, collective giving Black community, donor leverage HBCU autonomy, endowment capitalization, HBCU endowment, investment income Black nonprofits, LeBron James philanthropy, Savannah James, Stephen Curry philanthropy, white philanthropy HBCUs

City & Police Budgets: Are They Prepared For The Era Of The Driverless Car?

Posted on May 22, 2026 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

“The only way you survive is you continuously transform into something else. It’s this idea of continuous transformation that makes you an innovation company.” – Ginni Rometty

By William A. Foster, IV

Anyone who knows me intimately knows I have been pulled over a lot in my lifetime. In my first month after transferring into Virginia State University, I was pulled over five times by the local police. I have probably paid enough in fines and court costs to fund a full-ride scholarship at many HBCUs.

Instead, I—like many African Americans (disproportionately speaking) and Americans in general—was paying into what amounts to a shadow tax system. This system is fueled not by income or property, but by police-issued traffic tickets. It’s a pay-as-you-go model for civic participation, enforced with red-and-blue lights. And while traffic violations serve a nominal safety purpose, they also feed the operational budgets of thousands of city governments and police departments across the United States.

This framework—an unspoken pact between public safety enforcement and municipal finance—is now facing an existential threat. The advent of autonomous vehicles, or AVs, promises to upend not just transportation norms, but the budgetary bedrock of American cities. And yet, amid the techno-optimism of AVs, one question remains startlingly unexamined: if machines no longer speed, run red lights, or roll through stop signs, who—or what—will fund the municipal revenue streams that traffic enforcement has long propped up?

The Traffic Ticket Economy

To understand the fiscal cliff approaching, it’s necessary to acknowledge just how embedded traffic tickets are in city and police budgets. A 2019 report by Governing Magazine found that nearly 600 jurisdictions across the United States relied on fines and fees for at least 10% of their general fund revenues. In 80 of those towns, fines and fees made up more than 50% of revenue. These places, like Calverton Park, Missouri, and Henderson, Louisiana, have built entire municipal ecosystems around traffic enforcement.

For many cities, especially those with shrinking tax bases or limited industry, traffic fines are a predictable stream of cash. The relationship between enforcement and revenue becomes so intertwined that police departments may face pressure explicit or implied to issue a certain number of citations. While quotas are technically illegal in many states, anecdotal and whistleblower reports have revealed otherwise.

For marginalized communities, the burden is not merely financial but psychological and systemic. A 2015 Department of Justice investigation into Ferguson, Missouri, revealed how ticketing became a weaponized form of racial control, with Black residents disproportionately stopped, cited, and incarcerated for minor traffic infractions. Thus, traffic enforcement has become more than a tool for safety it’s become a fiscal engine, a behavioral control mechanism, and a lightning rod for racial and economic justice debates.

Enter the Driverless Car

Autonomous vehicles promise to revolutionize mobility. Tech firms like Waymo, Tesla, Cruise, and Apple are jockeying to commercialize a future where cars operate without human drivers. Proponents point to fewer accidents, faster commutes, and more accessible transportation options for people with disabilities or the elderly. But AVs also promise near-perfect compliance with traffic laws. They don’t speed. They don’t drive drunk. They don’t fail to signal or get distracted by cell phones. That’s great for public safety and a death knell for traffic citation revenue.

A 2018 analysis by the Eno Center for Transportation found that AVs could eventually eliminate up to 90% of traffic-related tickets. Another study by the University of Texas estimated that driverless vehicles could reduce annual ticketing revenue by $4 billion nationally. These projections don’t even include the indirect financial losses from towing, impound fees, court costs, and driver education programs—services that exist largely to correct human error.

The Quiet Fiscal Crisis Ahead

For cities, this shift is not theoretical it’s fiscal. In a 2020 audit of San Francisco’s finances, officials warned that AV adoption could cut traffic fine revenues by 50% by 2040. In Los Angeles, ticketing generates over $150 million annually. If AVs wipe out even half of that, the city will need to either cut services or find new revenue sources. The pressure is particularly acute for small towns and municipalities that have used traffic enforcement as an economic development tool, often targeting out-of-town drivers on underposted speed traps. The loss of such income may mean layoffs for police departments, library closures, deferred maintenance, or higher property taxes. The irony is striking: a technology designed to increase safety could force cities into fiscal austerity or into finding new ways to extract revenue from increasingly law-abiding machine operators.

Policing Without Pullovers

There’s another dimension to consider: the very nature of policing may change. Much of modern American policing revolves around vehicle stops, which serve not just to enforce traffic laws, but to search for drugs, guns, warrants, and more. According to the Stanford Open Policing Project, police make over 50,000 traffic stops per day in the U.S. AVs could eliminate this cornerstone of law enforcement’s engagement with the public.

In some quarters, this is welcome news. Advocates for criminal justice reform argue that fewer stops could mean fewer racially charged confrontations, fewer unnecessary arrests, and fewer deaths. But for departments whose mission and staffing are oriented around vehicle enforcement, this creates an identity crisis.

Moreover, will police departments respond to the fiscal void by doubling down on other kinds of fines and citations—jaywalking, bicycle violations, loitering—or increasing their reliance on civil asset forfeiture, a deeply controversial practice?

The Race and Class Implications

It is critical to understand that traffic enforcement in America does not occur in a vacuum—it is deeply racialized and class-based. Poorer residents and communities of color are more likely to be pulled over, more likely to be unable to pay, and more likely to face compounded legal trouble from unpaid fines.

With AVs, which will initially be expensive and likely concentrated in wealthier areas, there’s a real risk of a dual system emerging. Rich neighborhoods may become AV utopias with safe, citation-free transport, while poorer areas continue to face heavy-handed traffic enforcement until legacy vehicles are phased out. The timeline for AV adoption may therefore exacerbate existing inequalities rather than resolve them.

Moreover, if cities try to recoup lost revenue through flat fees or usage taxes, they must be mindful of regressivity. A flat AV tax would hit lower-income users harder, even as they adopt older or shared AV technology.

The Urban Planning Ripple Effects

The decline of ticketing is only one part of the municipal financial picture AVs threaten to redraw. Consider the broader impact on urban planning and budgets: fewer accidents mean less need for emergency services, fewer parking tickets reduce municipal court dockets, fewer DUIs lessen jail populations.

This could be a moment for reallocation, not just resignation. Cities might seize the transition to AVs as an opportunity to rethink public space, reinvest savings from emergency responses into social programs, or pivot their budgetary dependencies away from punitive revenue altogether.

But it requires planning. Today, very few city budget blueprints forecast for an AV future. The conversation is dominated by curb space management, rideshare integration, and data privacy—but not budget reform. That’s a mistake.

Solutions & Proactive Policy

So, what can cities do to prepare?

Revenue Diversification
Cities must transition away from fine-heavy fiscal models. This may mean more progressive taxation, congestion pricing, or taxing the AV platforms themselves. For instance, Chicago already taxes ride-hailing services and allocates a portion toward public transit.
Equity in AV Deployment
Cities must ensure that AV benefits don’t accrue only to the wealthy. Requiring AV companies to operate in low-income neighborhoods, share data with city planners, and contribute to mobility justice funds could ensure more inclusive outcomes.
Policing Reform
As traffic stops decline, cities can reassign officers to community service roles, behavioral crisis teams, or investigative units. AVs could accelerate the conversation on demilitarizing the police and moving toward public safety models that are less reliant on confrontation.
Participatory Budgeting
Cities should engage residents directly in conversations about how budgets are shaped, especially when long-standing revenue streams (like traffic fines) begin to disappear. Participatory budgeting can align spending with community values rather than institutional inertia.
AV Fee Structures
Some cities may introduce per-mile AV taxes or vehicle occupancy incentives. If structured well, these can offset lost ticket revenue while promoting sustainable transport behavior.
State-Level Oversight
In many states, traffic fine revenue is capped or partially redirected. Legislatures could intervene to mandate revenue neutrality, preventing cities from replacing one predatory revenue model with another.

The Way Forward

As with many shifts in technology, the arrival of AVs has triggered excitement about safety, efficiency, and innovation. But few are sounding the alarm about what is lost—especially for cities and police departments whose fiscal models were quietly built on human error and punishment.

That’s not to say traffic enforcement should be mourned. For many, it has been more punitive than protective, a reminder of how racial and economic disparities are built into the bones of urban governance. AVs could offer a reprieve.

But only if cities prepare. Only if we confront the uncomfortable reality that public budgets were sustained by bad behavior—and begin the work of replacing that scaffolding with something more just, more sustainable, and more transparent.

The driverless car is coming. Whether cities crash into that future or coast into it smoothly depends on what they do now—not when the last human foot presses a gas pedal, but long before.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT

Leave a comment

Posted in Municipalities

Tagged autonomous vehicles, AV Policy and Equity, citylab, Driverless Car Regulation, Driverless Cars and Cities, Future of Transportation, Municipal Finance, Police Budget Reform, Policing and Technology, Public Safety and AVs, Racial Disparities in Policing, Smart City Budgeting, Traffic Fines and Revenue, Urban Mobility Planning, Urban Planning Trends

LESS: Can Minimalism Spur African American Wealth Building?

Posted on May 19, 2026 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

“Too many people spend money they haven’t earned, to buy things they don’t want, to impress people they don’t like.” — Will Rogers

In a consumer culture that equates success with spending, African America remains uniquely vulnerable. The historical denial of access to capital and economic agency has not merely constrained African Americans’ ability to accumulate wealth it has warped the cultural psychology of money itself, bending consumption from a utilitarian act into something closer to an identity claim. Now, a small but growing movement within the community is embracing a deliberate counteroffensive: minimalism. The philosophy is straightforward of less spending, less clutter, fewer financial obligations, and more intentional deployment of resources. But the more consequential question is whether this aesthetic and lifestyle ethos can be converted into a durable institutional strategy for wealth building, and whether the infrastructure exists to capture and redirect the capital it might free.

The structural context for this argument is more specific — and more damning — than the familiar headline figures suggest. African American household assets reached $7.1 trillion in 2024, a half-trillion-dollar increase that might appear encouraging at first glance. But the composition of that wealth exposes the mechanism of the problem: corporate equities and mutual fund shares, the asset class that generated the year’s fastest growth at 22.2%, represent less than 5% of African American holdings and a mere 0.7% of total U.S. household equity assets. The community is, in other words, almost entirely absent from the compounding wealth engine that most reliably converts income into intergenerational capital. On the liability side, consumer credit has surged to $740 billion, now representing nearly half of all African American household debt and approaching parity with home mortgage obligations of $780 billion, a near 1:1 ratio that represents a fundamental inversion of healthy household finance. For white households, the ratio stands at approximately 3:1 in favor of mortgage debt over consumer credit. The African American community stands alone in this precarious position. The debt itself flows almost entirely outward: with African American-owned banks holding just $6.4 billion in combined assets, the vast majority of $1.55 trillion in African American household liabilities flows to institutions outside the community, meaning that interest payments, fees, and the wealth-building potential of lending relationships are systematically siphoned away from Black-owned financial institutions. The historical dimension compounds the structural one. Black farmers owned more than 16 million acres of land in 1910; by 1997 they had lost more than 90% of it through state-sanctioned violence and discriminatory structures, a compounded loss estimated at $326 billion. From 1992 to 2002 alone, 94% of Black farmers lost part or all of their farmland, three times the rate at which white farmers lost land. What minimalism confronts, then, is not merely a spending habit. It is a balance sheet in structural retreat where African American households are asset-poor, debt-heavy, and systematically drained by the institutions that hold the debt.

Minimalism is not simply about having fewer possessions or a tidier apartment. It is a structural challenge to compulsive consumption. But for African Americans, consumption frequently functions as both a status signal and a psychological buffer. The legacy of economic exclusion has produced what some economists describe as compensatory consumption purchasing to claim affirmation in a society that has historically devalued Black presence. Designer goods become cultural armor. The latest consumer technology becomes a credential of arrival. Automobiles are more than vehicles; they are visible declarations of survival and dignity. This dynamic has its own historical coherence. In the early twentieth century, Harlem’s “Sunday Best” was less an act of religious observance than a form of public defiance, a counter-narrative to pervasive images of African American poverty and invisibility. The twenty-first-century iteration of that impulse has been systematically captured by brands whose ownership and supply chains are entirely removed from the community’s economic interests. To embrace minimalism, then, is to confront not only consumer capitalism but also the psychological architecture that colonialism and exclusion built. It demands a community-wide renegotiation of what economic success actually looks like and for whom it is being performed.

The utility of minimalism as a wealth-building mechanism is not merely philosophical it is arithmetically demonstrable. A household reducing monthly discretionary spending by five hundred dollars, through fewer restaurant meals, less fast fashion, and deferred consumer electronics, could redirect six thousand dollars annually into productive instruments: a college savings plan, a real estate investment trust with Black ownership, Treasury bonds for capital preservation, equity crowdfunding platforms supporting Black-led ventures, or a direct contribution to an HBCU endowment fund. Over a decade, with even modest returns, that redirected capital compounds into a six-figure investment position. Scaled across one million African American households practicing this discipline, the aggregate represents a wealth transfer of historic proportions initiated not by policy intervention or philanthropic rescue, but by the community’s own redirected consumption decisions. The distinction between compulsive and intentional spending is not a luxury concern. It is the difference between subsidizing someone else’s institutional power and building your own.

The most direct application of minimalism is also the most legible: the household balance sheet. A family that eliminates one financed vehicle and opts for a used purchase outright removes both a monthly payment and an interest obligation, freeing several hundred dollars a month that compound differently when redirected. Choosing a duplex over a single-family home and renting the second unit transforms the primary residence from a consumption asset into an income-producing one — the kind of structural move that converts homeownership from a wealth symbol into a wealth mechanism. Retirement contributions left at the employer match rather than maximized represent another form of consumption by inertia; households that treat the gap between the match ceiling and the IRS contribution limit as a monthly target are effectively building a tax-advantaged investment position that most never access. The same logic applies to life insurance: the difference between a term policy and a whole-life policy, redirected into an index fund over twenty years, is not a marginal decision. These are not sacrifices. They are reallocations — the substitution of visible, depreciating expenditure for invisible, compounding position-building. At scale, if HBCU alumni associations or community organizations created coordinated vehicles to receive and deploy this redirected capital — endowment contributions, community development financial institutions, Black-owned bank deposits — the household discipline becomes institutional fuel. But the household is where the discipline begins and where it is most immediately actionable.

Historically, African America has deployed its dollars as a political instrument. The Montgomery Bus Boycott extracted direct economic cost from a segregated transit system. The 2020 Blackout Day redirected consumer attention toward Black-owned businesses and away from corporations that profited from Black spending without reciprocal investment in Black communities. Minimalism extends this tradition into daily economic practice. It is a sustained withdrawal from the consumption patterns that extractive industries have engineered to capture Black income. Consumer surveillance capitalism studies African American spending behavior in granular detail, refining the advertising systems designed to push more debt, more aspirational luxury, and more financial dependency. Opting out methodically is not merely frugality — it is a form of information asymmetry disruption, denying data that feeds systems designed to work against Black institutional interests.

The objection that minimalism is a privilege of the already comfortable misreads the proposition. For lower-income households, intentional resource management is not a new concept — it is frequently a survival discipline already in practice. What is missing is not the behavior but the infrastructure to leverage it: institutions capable of receiving redirected capital, community platforms that make collective commitment visible and accountable, and frameworks that connect household choices to institutional outcomes. Minimalism as a communal strategy must also extend its frame of reference. Digital minimalism can reduce the tech dependency being engineered into younger generations at enormous cost to family finances. Food minimalism can recalibrate spending patterns distorted by food desert geography. Spatial minimalism can encourage shared community investment over the overcapitalized private home as the primary wealth vehicle. None of these requires material sacrifice — all of them require institutional infrastructure to translate reduced consumption into coordinated capital formation.

Minimalism will not, by itself, undo redlining, reverse discriminatory lending, or equalize inherited wealth. It is a tool, not a solution — one component of a coordinated institutional strategy that also requires political leverage, legal infrastructure, and sustained endowment growth. But it is a tool African America has yet to fully institutionalize. The community already possesses the spending mass. What it requires is the institutional architecture to redirect that mass with precision. The question is not whether African America can afford to consume less. The question is whether it can afford not to.

Leave a comment

Posted in Lifestyle

Tagged african american financial literacy, African American Spending Habits, african american wealth, Black Economic Power, Black Minimalism, black wealth building, Buy Black Movement, Financial Empowerment African Americans, Frugal Living Black Families, Generational Wealth African Americans, HBCU Endowment Growth, HBCU Wealth Strategies, Minimalism and Investing, Minimalism as Protest, Minimalist Lifestyle Black Community

HBCU Money

The Price of a Statue: A’ja Wilson’s Bronze and the Billion-Dollar Theft (from HBCUs) Disguised as Progress

Before the Return: Why African Americans Must Learn to Partner Before They Go “Back” to Africa

One Year, $241 Million: What Three African American Athlete Families Could Do for Black Nonprofit Infrastructure

City & Police Budgets: Are They Prepared For The Era Of The Driverless Car?

The Traffic Ticket Economy

Enter the Driverless Car

The Quiet Fiscal Crisis Ahead

Policing Without Pullovers

The Race and Class Implications

The Urban Planning Ripple Effects

Solutions & Proactive Policy

The Way Forward

LESS: Can Minimalism Spur African American Wealth Building?

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Meta