Category Archives: Editorial

The Hormuz Gambit: Is the Iran Conflict a Backdoor to make Venezuelan Oil Investable? Is Nigeria Next?

Posted on March 1, 2026 by | Leave a comment

The one thing that many of my fellow economists forget sometimes and my fellow financiers always consider is that supply and demand can absolutely be manipulated. – William A. Foster, IV

Venezuela sits atop the world’s largest proven oil reserves, but there is a reason the world’s largest oil companies have spent decades looking the other way. Venezuelan crude is among the heaviest, most expensive oil to extract and refine on the planet and at prevailing global prices, the economics have never justified the risk. To make Venezuelan oil investable, you would need to do one thing above all else: constrain enough of the world’s more accessible supply to drive prices high enough that the Orinoco Belt finally pencils out. What follows in this article is a hypothesis but it is one grounded in data, in sequence, and in the financial interests of an administration that has already invited 20 oil executives to the White House to discuss $100 billion in Venezuelan investment. When you map the Trump administration’s simultaneous pressure on Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, and Canada — nations and chokepoints representing an extraordinary share of global oil supply — against the economic preconditions required to make Venezuelan oil viable, what emerges may not be a series of unrelated geopolitical events. It may be the roadmap.

When the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran on February 28, 2026, the world’s attention rightly fixed on the geopolitical shockwave radiating outward from the Persian Gulf. Oil markets braced. Analysts warned of prices surging past $100 a barrel. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard announced it was restricting navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and suddenly the global economy was staring at the edge of a cliff.

But here is the question that deserves more scrutiny, particularly from an economics perspective: Who benefits when Hormuz closes?

The easy answer is that no one does and that may be correct in the short term. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, oil flow through the Strait averaged 20 million barrels per day in 2024, roughly 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption and more than one-quarter of all seaborne oil traded worldwide. The EIA is unambiguous on a point that makes the stakes even higher: very few alternative options exist to move oil out of the region if the Strait is closed. Unlike other maritime chokepoints that can be circumvented by longer routes, most volumes transiting Hormuz have no practical alternative means of exiting the Persian Gulf. Beyond oil, approximately one-fifth of all global liquefied natural gas trade also moves through the Strait — primarily from Qatar — meaning a closure would simultaneously shock both oil and gas markets worldwide. China, which receives a substantial share of its crude imports through the Strait, would be hit hard. Asia broadly would scramble. Global recession becomes a credible scenario.

But in the medium to long term, there is another answer and it points south, toward South America, toward a country sitting atop the single largest proven oil reserve on the planet: Venezuela.

Venezuela holds 303.2 billion barrels of proven reserves. Iran, the nation now at war with the United States and Israel, holds 208.6 billion — the world’s third largest. Together, countries one and three on that global leaderboard account for more than a third of all documented reserves on Earth. When Iran’s oil already sanctioned and constrained for years becomes even more inaccessible due to active military conflict and Strait disruption, the scramble for alternative supply sources intensifies immediately. And Venezuela, which the Trump administration directly intervened in militarily in January 2026, resulting in the removal of President Nicolás Maduro, suddenly becomes the most geopolitically convenient alternative on the map.

Coincidence? Perhaps. But as an economics exercise, the question is worth pressing — because the financial architecture around Venezuela was already being assembled before the first bomb fell on Iran.

Before that architecture can be understood, a fundamental point about Venezuelan oil must be established, because all oil is not equal and that inequality is the key to understanding everything that follows. The global crude market distinguishes sharply between light and heavy crude based on API gravity, a scale developed by the American Petroleum Institute that measures how dense crude oil is relative to water. As Mansfield Energy explains, light crude, with its lower density and lower sulfur content, breaks down easily through relatively simple distillation into high-value products like gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel. It commands a market premium precisely because refiners can process it cheaply and quickly with standard equipment, generating fewer byproducts and higher profit margins. Heavy crude is a fundamentally different proposition. It is denser, thicker, and higher in sulfur, requiring advanced and expensive processing methods — upgrading, de-asphalting, hydrotreating, and coking — that demand major capital investment in specialized equipment, generate more residual byproducts, and carry greater environmental costs. Critically, refineries are designed around specific crude grades; a refinery built for light crude cannot simply switch to processing heavy oil. Venezuela’s reserves sit overwhelmingly in the Orinoco Belt, where the crude is not merely heavy but extra-heavy coming out of the ground, as UC Berkeley economist David Levine described it in January 2026, with the consistency of cold peanut butter. Before it can even move through a pipeline, it must be mixed with costly imported diluents such as naphtha, adding roughly $15 per barrel to costs before it reaches a port. Once it arrives at the rare refinery equipped to handle it, Venezuelan crude still trades at a $12 to $20 discount compared to Brent, the global benchmark. At $60 a barrel, Levine concluded, it simply is not economical to ramp up Venezuelan production quickly, despite the staggering reserve figures on paper.

To understand why that price environment matters so much, consider the global cost of production context. According to Hagen Energy Consulting, Saudi Arabia with its vast, easily accessible conventional reserves and established infrastructure produces a barrel of oil for as little as $10 to $15. North American producers, relying on more technically demanding methods like fracking and oil sands extraction, spend $30 to $70 per barrel depending on the operation. These are the benchmarks against which Venezuela must compete for capital. Venezuela cannot. Before a single barrel of Orinoco extra-heavy crude reaches a tanker, the operator has already spent roughly $15 per barrel on diluents just to make it flow through a pipe. Add to that the operational costs of extracting oil from a deteriorated production infrastructure that has not seen serious investment in decades, the cost of the specialized coker refinery processing required at the other end, and the $12 to $20 per barrel discount applied at market because of the crude’s inferior quality — and a conservative estimate of the all-in cost to produce and deliver a marketable barrel of Venezuelan oil runs well above $50, and by many industry assessments significantly higher once capital recovery on new infrastructure is factored in. For comparison, at $60 per barrel global crude pricing, Saudi Arabia earns $45 to $50 of profit per barrel. Venezuela may be breaking even — or losing money — on the same barrel. This is not a marginal disadvantage. It is a structural one, and it explains why the reserves number that appears so staggering on paper has translated into so little investment in practice.

This is the economic trap — and it reveals the hidden logic of the Hormuz crisis. The only variable that changes the investment calculus is the global price of crude, and the only thing that moves that price high enough, fast enough, is removing a significant portion of the world’s most accessible supply from the market. At $100 a barrel — the price level analysts warned a Hormuz closure could trigger — the Venezuelan math begins to shift. And the Strait, as the EIA makes clear, is not a disruption that can be routed around. Iran, which was producing over three million barrels per day before the escalation, is now effectively removed from accessible global markets. The Strait disruption threatens to pull millions more barrels per day offline across the entire Gulf. Canada, subjected to tariff warfare and annexation pressure, faces economic distress that clouds its own production investment climate. Each of these actions, viewed separately, looks like geopolitics. Viewed together through an economics lens, they look like a price floor being constructed — one that would make the Orinoco Belt profitable for the first time in a generation. Trump himself, in an earlier iteration of his public comments, called Venezuelan oil “garbage oil” and “the worst oil probably anywhere in the world.” That the same administration would then order a military intervention and immediately convene 20 oil executives to discuss $100 billion in Venezuelan investment is not a contradiction if the plan all along was to engineer the price environment in which garbage oil becomes gold.

On January 9, 2026 — just days after U.S. military intervention effectively ended the Maduro government — a group of executives from approximately 20 oil companies met at the White House at President Trump’s invitation. Trump urged them to commit at least $100 billion of their own capital to rebuild Venezuela’s aging infrastructure and restore production. ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods offered a blunt assessment: Venezuela’s current frameworks make it “uninvestable,” requiring “durable investment protections” and wholesale changes to the country’s hydrocarbon laws. This was not a discouragement. It was a to-do list. For decades, Venezuela’s oil sector had been precisely what a February 2026 GIS Reports analysis called it — uninvestable — due to erratic nationalist policy, the nationalization of the industry under PDVSA in 1976, repeated asset seizures, and deep institutional erosion. The country that was uninvestable last year was suddenly, in the span of a military operation, being re-imagined as indispensable. But indispensable only works as an investment thesis if the price is right. And the price only gets right if the supply everywhere else gets tight.

The arc of the strategy becomes clearer when you add the third data point: Canada. Canada holds the world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserves at approximately 163 billion barrels — the single largest reserve holder in the Western Hemisphere outside of Venezuela. Since the earliest days of his second term, Trump has relentlessly pushed the idea of making Canada the 51st state of the United States. What many initially dismissed as rhetorical provocation has proven to be a sustained, multi-front campaign. Trump told the World Economic Forum that Canada could avoid his sweeping 25 percent tariffs simply by becoming a U.S. state. Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly stated plainly that Trump’s goal was to weaken Canada economically “in order eventually to annex us.” Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau warned that the administration sought a total collapse of the Canadian economy to make annexation easier. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs connected this directly to Trump’s 19th-century view of American power — a period when the nation’s wealth was built on high tariffs and territorial acquisition, when “growing” literally meant expanding the map.

Now hold all three data points at once: Venezuela, the world’s largest reserve nation, subjected to military intervention. Iran, the world’s third-largest, subjected to military strikes and Strait disruption. Canada, the world’s fourth-largest, subjected to economic warfare and annexation pressure. Three of the top four reserve nations on Earth, targeted through three different methods of coercion, all trending toward the same directional outcome: greater American control over, or direct access to, the world’s most valuable underground assets.

This analysis cannot be separated from the broader financial context of this administration, and to ignore that context would be an economics failure. A landmark investigation published in The New Yorker documented that by early 2026, Trump and his family had made nearly $4 billion off the presidency through crypto ventures, Gulf real estate and licensing deals, private clubs, and lucrative transactions with foreign governments. As government ethics reform advocate Fred Wertheimer of the Campaign Legal Center observed, the sheer volume of financial arrangements flowing to the Trump family creates a clear mechanism for purchasing presidential favor. The family’s major financial dealings in the Persian Gulf region — the same region now destabilized by U.S.-backed military action — raise questions that economics-minded observers are obligated to ask openly.

The map that emerges from all of this is not random. Look at the full top ten proven reserve rankings. Saudi Arabia holds 267.2 billion barrels at number two. Canada is fourth at 163 billion. Iraq holds 145 billion at fifth. The UAE holds 113 billion at sixth. Kuwait 101.5 billion at seventh. Russia 80 billion at eighth. Libya 48 billion at ninth. And at number ten sits Nigeria, with 37.3 billion barrels. With the exception of Venezuela, Iran, and Canada — all currently under forms of American pressure — the remaining nations on that list are aligned with or accommodating of American strategic interests to varying degrees. Saudi Arabia is a decades-long security partner. Iraq is a country whose government was reconstructed under U.S. military occupation. The UAE and Kuwait host American military installations. Libya, despite its chronic instability, has been a site of Western-backed political intervention since 2011.

The pattern is this: nations outside the architecture of American strategic alignment get targeted. Nations inside it get protected, or at minimum, left alone to convert their reserves into durable sovereign wealth.

Nigeria sits at number ten, the only majority-Black nation in the top ten, and it is conspicuously absent from the strategic conversation happening in Washington boardrooms and war rooms. For now. Nigeria is the most populous Black nation on Earth and the economic anchor of sub-Saharan Africa. Despite holding 37.3 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and 210 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — the largest gas reserves on the African continent — Nigeria’s production share remains far below what its reserve ranking would suggest, hampered by underinvestment and infrastructure deficits. Its oil wealth has historically flowed outward toward Western and Asian energy majors, with relatively little strategic agency exercised by African institutions over the terms, the pricing, or the downstream development. That profile of vast reserves, underperforming production, weak institutional leverage, and no formal alignment with American strategic infrastructure is not a description of a nation safely outside this administration’s field of vision. It is a description of a nation that fits the pattern precisely. Venezuela was uninvestable until Washington decided it wasn’t. Iran was sanctioned until sanctions gave way to strikes. Canada was a trusted ally until its oil reserves made it a target for annexation rhetoric. The question is not whether Nigeria is on anyone’s chessboard. The question is whether Nigeria and the institutions that speak for the African world will have any hand in determining what move comes next.

And here is where the analysis must be unflinching about a structural gap: there is no established framework, no durable institutional channel, through which African American institutions in particular but not limited to African American policy organizations exercise real influence over Nigerian energy strategy, African Union economic policy, or the terms under which African reserves get developed and monetized. The intellectual talent exists. The cultural and ancestral connection exists. What does not exist at least not in any operationally significant form is the institutional architecture to translate that into geostrategic relevance. Jewish American institutions spent a century building the financial, political, and diplomatic infrastructure to influence U.S. foreign policy toward Israel. Indian American networks developed sophisticated pathways into technology policy and trade diplomacy. Arab American organizations have grown their Washington footprint substantially. African American institutions, by contrast, have historically been oriented inward toward civil rights, domestic policy, and economic inclusion within the United States for reasons that are entirely understandable given the weight of that struggle. But the world being drawn in front of us now is one in which the reserves map is being rewritten by force and economic coercion, and the strategic conversation about what Nigeria’s number ten ranking means is happening almost entirely without Black American institutional input, and arguably without sufficient African institutional agency either.

The scenario this article poses is, to be clear, a hypothesis — a geopolitical and economic reading of events that fit a pattern but have not been confirmed as deliberate strategy. The chaos of military conflict has its own logic, and actors in Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran are all operating with competing interests. But the circumstantial case is compelling: an administration with documented financial entanglements across the Gulf region solicited $100 billion in Venezuelan investment from oil executives — weeks before strikes that made alternative oil supply a global emergency. Whether this is coordinated design or opportunistic exploitation of circumstances, the pattern points toward the same beneficiaries.

The question it forces upon Black institutions on both sides of the Atlantic is whether the moment will finally compel the building of what has never been built: a serious, long-range framework for Diaspora engagement with African resource sovereignty before Washington, Beijing, or Riyadh decides what that sovereignty is worth.

In economics, we follow the money. Right now, the money trail leads from the Strait of Hormuz to the Orinoco Belt, through the Oval Office, and toward a continent whose largest reserve nation has no seat at the table where its future is being decided.

HBCU Money covers economics, finance, and wealth-building from a perspective that centers Black communities and institutions. The views expressed in Economics section analysis pieces represent the author’s independent economic assessment.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Editorial

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Rivalries Do Nothing: What 50 Cent and T.I. Could Learn from Rockefeller and Carnegie

Posted on February 23, 2026 by | 1 comment

As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do. – Andrew Carnegie

In the late 19th century, two men stood at the pinnacle of American industry and despised each other. John D. Rockefeller, the oil baron who had quietly and methodically assembled Standard Oil into a monopoly, and Andrew Carnegie, the steel magnate who built his empire on the sweat and ingenuity of immigrant labor, were the defining rivals of the Gilded Age. They competed for wealth, for prestige, for the title of richest man in America — and then, crucially, they competed for something else entirely: legacy.

What that competition produced is almost too vast to comprehend.

Andrew Carnegie funded 2,509 libraries between 1883 and 1929, with 1,681 built in the United States alone. Over 26 primary organizations — including Carnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Hall, the Carnegie Institution for Science, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — were established directly by him. Over 2,500 institutions and buildings worldwide bear his name. Pittsburgh, where his steel empire was born, holds the highest concentration, but the Carnegie name stretches across every state and dozens of countries. The Carnegie Corporation of New York, still active today, continues to fund education and democracy initiatives well into the 21st century.

The Rockefeller legacy is no less staggering. Dozens of major institutions bear his family’s name: Rockefeller University, The Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Center in the heart of Manhattan. His name is on halls at Cornell and Vassar, on a chapel at the University of Chicago, on an archive center that preserves the history of American philanthropy itself. And then there is the commercial legacy — when the Supreme Court broke up Standard Oil in 1911 into 34 companies, those companies eventually consolidated into what we now call ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Marathon Petroleum, and ConocoPhillips. That group of Standard Oil descendants today carries a combined market capitalization of approximately $1.3 trillion. The wealth Rockefeller created never stopped compounding. It simply changed form.

But here is what makes the Rockefeller legacy particularly resonant for this publication and this community: Morehouse College bears the name of Rockefeller’s former pastor, John Morehouse. Spelman College — the oldest historically Black college for women in the United States — bears the maiden name of Rockefeller’s wife, Laura Spelman. John D. Rockefeller was among Spelman’s earliest and most significant funders, contributing to the institution that would go on to educate generations of Black women who shaped American life. The man whose name is synonymous with monopoly capitalism was also, in a meaningful way, a patron of Black higher education at a moment when almost no one else was willing to be.

And the Rockefeller Foundation’s Form 990, publicly available through ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer, tells the ongoing story in hard numbers: total assets of $6.23 billion, net assets of $5.39 billion, and $440 million in charitable disbursements in 2023 alone — while the endowment principal remained largely intact. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, similarly available for public examination, reports total assets of $602 million and net assets of $559 million as of its most recent filing, up from $238 million in net assets just a decade ago. These institutions are still growing. They are still filing 990s. They are still deploying capital into the world more than a century after the men who created them drew their last breath.

A prior HBCU Money analysis of African American philanthropic institutions laid bare exactly why this distinction between revenue and investment income is the difference between activity and power. The King Center in Atlanta — one of the strongest African American legacy nonprofits in the country — earned $788,000 in investment income in 2022. The Ford Foundation generated $1.2 billion in investment income that same year. The Rockefeller Foundation generated $120 million. The Ford Foundation ran a $520 million deficit that year while the King Center ran a $1.28 million surplus — and Ford is the stronger institution by an almost incomprehensible margin. Ford can choose to run half a billion dollars in the red because its endowment is so vast that the deficit barely registers against the principal. The King Center’s surplus is a sign of precarity, not strength: it means the institution spent the year clinging to solvency rather than deploying capital into the world.

And then there is the Steward Family Foundation, anchored by David Steward — the wealthiest African American man in the country. In 2023 it reported $12.5 million in revenue. It held $22,000 in assets. It generated $29,000 in investment income. The wealthiest Black man in America has structured his primary philanthropic vehicle to distribute money annually and accumulate nothing — a pass-through, not a perpetual institution. His foundation will not be filing a 990 in a hundred years. It is not designed to. That is not a critique of David Steward’s generosity. It is a description of the architecture of Black philanthropy at its current upper limit: generous in the moment, invisible across generations.

That is what it looks like when a rivalry is pointed at something beyond ego.

Now enter Clifford Joseph Harris Jr. and Curtis James Jackson III, better known to the world as T.I. and 50 Cent.

The beef between these two hip-hop heavyweights has been simmering for years, recently reignited and escalating into a public spectacle that has captured the attention of the culture. T.I.’s son, King Harris, has leaped into the fray on his father’s behalf. Social media has lit up. Shots have been fired — verbal ones, though given the histories of both men, the word carries particular weight. The culture watches, chooses sides, and amplifies the conflict.

And what does it produce? Absolutely nothing of value to the African American community.

That is not an overstatement. It is the most precise accounting available.

This beef will not lead to a competition over who can build the largest endowment at an HBCU. It will not culminate in 50 Cent funding a new research center at Howard University while T.I. answers by endowing a chair at Morehouse — the school that, let us not forget, already carries the indirect legacy of a man who built an oil monopoly. It will not inspire either man to deposit millions into African American-owned banks, institutions that are chronically undercapitalized and desperately in need of the kind of support that Black wealth could provide if it were directed with intention. It will not produce a dollar for African American early childhood education programs. It will not fund K-12 institutions in the underserved communities both men came from. It will not build a single research facility dedicated to attacking the health disparities — hypertension, diabetes, maternal mortality, cancer survival rates — that continue to devastate Black America at disproportionate rates.

It will do nothing. It will generate content. It will generate clout. It will generate revenue for platforms that profit from conflict. It will generate nothing else.

The Medgar and Myrlie Evers Institute — honoring the NAACP field secretary who was assassinated in his own driveway in 1963 and the woman who spent thirty years pursuing his killer to justice — reported just $107,000 in total revenue in 2023 and earned nothing in investment income. Nothing. The institution charged with preserving the legacy of one of the most consequential civil rights martyrs in American history is running on the institutional equivalent of fumes. The Martin and Coretta King Center in Atlanta, the steward of Dr. King’s legacy and one of the most visited civil rights landmarks in the country, earned $788,000 in investment income in 2022 against an endowment that remains a fraction of what the institution’s mission demands. The Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial and Educational Center in New York — preserving the legacy of a man who came from the same streets, the same circumstances, the same defiance of a system designed to destroy him that both T.I. and 50 Cent have built careers channeling — generated $1,500 in investment income on $1.4 million in total revenue. Fifteen hundred dollars. Two men who have each earned more than that in the time it takes to read this sentence have not made these institutions whole.

This is the specific, named, documented cost of Black celebrity beef. Not an abstraction. Not a metaphor. Three institutions. Three legacies. Three sets of numbers that should make every wealthy Black American in this country uncomfortable.

This is not an indictment of either man as human beings. Both T.I. and 50 Cent have done genuine good in their communities at various points in their careers. Both are extraordinarily successful businessmen who built empires from circumstances that did not favor them. The fact that they arrived at wealth and influence from the bottom of American society makes their success stories genuinely remarkable. That is precisely why the waste of it is so tragic.

Consider the arithmetic of Carnegie’s library program alone. Two thousand five hundred libraries. Built over 46 years. In communities across the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and beyond. Free public libraries, at a time when access to books was a privilege of the wealthy. Carnegie gave away approximately $350 million during his lifetime — roughly $6 billion in today’s dollars — and the institutions he funded are still operating, still serving the public, still bearing his name. The competition between Carnegie and Rockefeller over who could give more, who could build more, who could leave the more lasting mark did not diminish either man’s wealth in any meaningful sense. It simply ensured that their names — and more importantly, the institutions those names represent — would outlast them by centuries.

There is a version of the T.I. and 50 Cent rivalry that could be genuinely historic. Imagine if these two men, instead of trading barbs online, announced a ten-year competition — tracked publicly, adjudicated by the community — over who could deploy their wealth most effectively for Black institutional development. Imagine 50 Cent challenging T.I. to match him dollar for dollar in deposits to Black-owned banks. Imagine T.I. responding by pledging to fund early childhood education centers in Atlanta and daring 50 to do the same in New York. Imagine the cultural energy that currently flows into this beef redirected into a genuine rivalry over who could build more, endow more, fund more, create more for a community that gave both of them everything they needed to become who they are.

The HBCU endowment gap is the starkest measure of the opportunity being squandered — and the universities that Rockefeller and Carnegie personally founded make the disparity almost impossible to look at directly.

Rockefeller founded the University of Chicago. As of June 30, 2025, its endowment stood at $10.9 billion, having returned 10.2% on investments in a single fiscal year. Carnegie founded Carnegie Mellon University. Its endowment reached $3.48 billion as of that same date, with a 10.9% net investment return for the year. Together, those two universities — founded by two men who were rivals — hold endowments exceeding $14 billion.

The combined endowments of all 100 HBCUs do not reach $6 billion. Two universities, founded by two rivals more than a century ago, hold nearly three times the endowment wealth of every HBCU in America combined.

Read that again. Two schools. Three times the endowment of one hundred.

That is not a funding gap. That is a structural chasm, built over generations, that determines whose scholars get paid, whose research gets funded, whose students graduate without debt, and whose institutions survive economic downturns without crisis. The University of Chicago and Carnegie Mellon will never face an existential budget crisis. They will never have to choose between keeping the lights on and retaining faculty. Their endowments generate enough annual return to fund operations, scholarships, and research without ever touching the principal. Meanwhile, HBCUs operate on margins that would make most community colleges uncomfortable, sustained by the dedication of their communities and the faith that the work matters — because the money has never matched the mission.

That is not a condemnation of HBCUs. It is a condemnation of the conditions under which they have been forced to operate, and an indictment of the Black wealth that has not yet organized itself to close that gap. The model for what organized private wealth can do exists and is documented in publicly filed 990s and university endowment reports. The only missing ingredient is the will to compete for something that matters.

The research funding gap is, if anything, even more consequential than the endowment gap — because research is where the future is written.

According to the National Science Foundation’s Higher Education Research and Development survey, the top 20 predominantly white institutions combined spend $36.5 billion annually on research and development. The top 20 HBCUs combined spend $712 million. That is not a gap. That is a ratio of more than 51 to 1. And to make the disparity even more concrete: 52 individual PWIs each spend more on R&D by themselves than all 20 of the top HBCU research institutions combined. Fifty-two schools. Each one, alone, outspending the entire upper tier of Black higher education research.

This is where the consequences of underfunding stop being abstract. Research funding determines who gets to ask the questions that shape medicine, technology, public policy, and economic development. It determines whose communities get studied, whose health outcomes get investigated, whose diseases get treated, whose neighborhoods get the infrastructure investments that flow from university-anchored economic development. When HBCUs are systematically excluded from this resource base, the African American community is not simply being denied prestige. It is being denied the scientific and institutional capacity to solve its own problems on its own terms.

The $35.8 billion annual research gap between the top 20 PWIs and the top 20 HBCUs is the price the African American community pays, every single year, for the failure to build research endowments at Black institutions. It is a recurring tax on Black intellectual capacity, levied not by law but by the absence of the kind of sustained private philanthropic investment that Rockefeller directed toward the University of Chicago and Carnegie directed toward Carnegie Mellon. Those institutions now have the endowments to fund research independence for generations. HBCUs are still waiting for someone to care enough to start.

The health dimension of this research gap is where the stakes become most personal. Black Americans die younger, suffer more chronically, and receive worse care at nearly every point of contact with the American medical system. Maternal mortality, hypertension, diabetes, cancer survival rates — the disparities are not mysteries. They are the predictable output of a research infrastructure that has never been adequately funded to study, understand, and treat Black patients on their own terms, in their own communities, with their own trust. The research capacity to change that exists at HBCUs and affiliated medical schools — institutions with the community relationships and patient access that predominantly white research universities have spent decades failing to build. But research capacity without research funding is just potential. Private endowments directed at HBCU medical research would save lives in ways that are measurable, documentable, and permanent. That is not a metaphor. It is a clinical fact.

African American-owned banks need the same intentional capital. Black-owned financial institutions are among the most important and most neglected infrastructure in the African American community. They survive on thin margins in the communities that need them most, while billions of dollars of Black wealth sit in institutions that have never demonstrated meaningful commitment to Black economic development. A public competition between two of the most influential men in Black popular culture over who could move more capital into Black banks would do more for Black economic infrastructure than a decade of policy advocacy.

None of this will happen because of the current beef between T.I. and 50 Cent. The cultural energy, the attention, the platform — all of it is being spent on a conflict that produces nothing, files no 990, builds no endowment, funds no scholar, saves no life.

Carnegie built 2,509 libraries. Rockefeller’s philanthropic descendants are still disbursing hundreds of millions of dollars annually, more than a century after his death, at institutions that carry his family’s name — including two HBCUs that bear the names of his pastor and his wife. The companies that descended from his oil trust are worth $1.3 trillion today. The two universities those rivals founded — the University of Chicago and Carnegie Mellon — together hold $14 billion in endowments and anchor research enterprises that collectively dwarf the entire HBCU research sector. Fifty-two individual predominantly white institutions each spend more on research annually than every top HBCU combined. The legacy of that Gilded Age rivalry is written in stone and endowment and laboratory and policy across the American landscape, in ways that will persist for another century at minimum.

What will the legacy of this beef be? Nothing. A few viral moments. A news cycle. A cultural footnote.

The competition that actually matters — the one that could put Black institutions on financial footing that no future political administration could threaten, that could fund the scholars and researchers and early childhood programs and community banks that the African American community has been building toward for generations — that competition has not yet begun.

It could begin tomorrow. The Medgar and Myrlie Evers Institute needs an endowment. The Martin and Coretta King Center needs an endowment. The Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial and Educational Center needs an endowment. Dozens of HBCUs need endowments. Scores of African American nonprofits are running on annual donations and faith while the institutions that honor the people who bled and died for the freedom that made Black celebrity possible in the first place operate on budgets that would embarrass a mid-size law firm. A rivalry over who could change that — who could move first, who could give more, who could build something that files a 990 a hundred years from now — would be worth watching. It would be worth celebrating. It would be worth the cultural energy that is currently being fed into nothing.

It is waiting for two men, or any two men, to decide that legacy is more interesting than drama.

The 990 filings are ready to be written. The institutions are ready to be named. Morehouse and Spelman proved more than a century ago that an industrialist’s rivalry could, when channeled correctly, leave Black institutions standing long after the industrialist was gone.

The only question now is who in this generation is willing to compete for something that will still matter when they are gone.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

1 Comment

Posted in Editorial

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Decline Of African American Administrators, Faculty, and Staff Endangers The Cultural IQ of HBCUs

Posted on January 27, 2026 by | Leave a comment

The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character — that is the goal of true education. — Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., civil rights leader.

In the heart of Black America, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have long stood as bastions of culture, scholarship, and legacy. For over a century, they have been the educators of Black doctors, lawyers, artists, and entrepreneurs producing alumni who carry the spirit of service, resilience, and community into the wider world. But as the demographics of their faculty, administrators, and staff begin to shift away from their original mission, a cultural crisis looms. HBCUs are in danger of just becoming a diet version of PWIs. They are in danger of becoming Others’ institutions and no longer higher education institutions that represent the interests of African America and the larger Diaspora.

Today, fewer African American professors walk HBCU halls. Fewer Black deans shape curriculum rooted in our lived experience. And fewer culturally attuned staff members guide students with the kind of ancestral understanding that once made HBCUs more than just institutions they were safe havens.

We are witnessing a troubling erosion of what might best be described as the Cultural IQ of HBCUs. And at the center of this storm is a vanishing pipeline of HBCU alumni becoming the very educators and institutional leaders these colleges desperately need.

The data tell a sobering story. While overall enrollment at many HBCUs is stable or growing, the number of African American faculty and administrators is not keeping pace. According to a 2023 report by the National Center for Education Statistics, less than 55% of full-time faculty at HBCUs are African American, a decline from decades prior. The leadership picture is even more stark: several prominent HBCUs have seen key leadership roles—presidents, provosts, department chairs—filled by individuals with little to no HBCU or African American cultural background.

This is not a conversation about exclusion. It’s a conversation about preservation. Cultural IQ, the lived experience, emotional intelligence, and intergenerational memory that African American faculty bring to campus is vital to the mission of HBCUs.

“Our institutions are continuing their academic strength but becoming culturally unrecognizable,” says William A. Foster, IV, an economist, financier, and HBCU alumnus. “What happens when the very people who carry the oral and spiritual history of our schools are no longer the ones teaching and leading?”

From Alumni to Architects: Building a Faculty Pipeline

One of the most promising ways to reverse this trend is to create a clear, intentional pipeline for HBCU alumni to return as faculty, staff, and administrators. Many graduates of HBCUs would jump at the opportunity to come back but financial, professional, and institutional roadblocks often get in the way.

This is where the HBCU Faculty Development Network (HBCU-FDN) comes in. Founded to support faculty at HBCUs through professional development, mentoring, and pedagogical innovation, the Network is uniquely positioned to become the heartbeat of a renewed talent pipeline. But it needs more support and visibility.

Imagine a structured, inter-HBCU program, one backed by governmental and philanthropic dollars that identifies promising undergraduates, supports them through HBCU graduate programs, places them in teaching assistantships, connects them to mentors through HBCU-FDN, and then guarantees interviews at HBCU campuses upon graduation. It’s time to rethink what faculty development means. We’re not just developing skills we’re preserving cultural continuity. HBCU graduate schools are uniquely situated to be the breeding ground for the next generation of African American faculty. From Howard’s School of Divinity to Florida A&M’s College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, graduate students often come with a mix of cultural knowledge and scholarly ambition. But they need a system that encourages them to stay within the ecosystem.

Too often, HBCU graduate students are trained at their alma maters and then “exported” to majority-white institutions, both due to higher pay and limited on-campus faculty opportunities. A shift in strategy backed by deliberate investment could change this. Graduate assistantships that offer teaching experience, tuition remission, and research mentorships tied to HBCU-FDN could create a self-sustaining culture of scholarship. And importantly, HBCUs need to offer competitive packages to attract their own graduates back. There’s a deep emotional pull when you think about teaching where you were taught. But they have student loans to consider and cannot afford to come back just for nostalgia. This is where material incentives must meet mission.

Faculty retention is not just about recruitment it’s about creating lives worth living. For many HBCU alumni, particularly those returning to rural or economically challenged towns, the prospect of moving back to teach is made harder by financial instability. Housing support could be a game-changer.

Down payment assistance, low-interest home loans, and first-time buyer programs tied to faculty appointments would not only attract alumni but anchor them in the communities they serve. This model, successfully piloted in other sectors such as medicine and public education, could be expanded through HUD-HBCU partnerships, regional banks, or even campus-based community development funds.

“If you can give a medical school grad incentives to work in underserved areas, why not do the same for faculty at Black colleges?” argues Mr. Foster, who researches institutional economics and ecosystems. “The social return on investment is enormous.” Indeed, an HBCU that retains a culturally informed faculty member for 20 years gains more than a teacher, it gains a historian, a mentor, a surrogate parent, and a living curriculum.

Rebuilding the HBCU pipeline cannot be confined to American borders. HBCUs have a powerful opportunity to collaborate with African and Caribbean colleges and universities to build transnational faculty exchange programs, joint doctoral degrees, and even faculty credentialing pathways.

Imagine a Nigerian Ph.D. student at the University of Lagos who teaches for a semester at Tuskegee University as part of a diaspora exchange program. Or a Caribbean education scholar completing a visiting professorship at Southern University while collaborating on curriculum development. These aren’t flights of fancy they are strategic partnerships waiting to be forged.

The Pan-African intellectual tradition is our superpower. By partnering with African and Caribbean institutions, we infuse our campuses with a broader Black experience and build networks that empower all of us. Such partnerships could be coordinated through consortia like the Association of Caribbean Higher Education Administrators or the African Research Universities Alliance.

Cultural IQ is not just about familiarity with Black history. It’s about understanding how trauma, family structures, faith, language, resistance, and joy show up in the classroom. It’s about knowing why a student may resist authority or thrive under communal support. It’s about understanding the subtext behind silence or the significance of the Black church in a student’s worldview.

When HBCUs lose this kind of faculty wisdom, they risk becoming hollowed-out shells. Institutions may remain, but their souls quietly disappear. African American faculty are more likely to mentor Black students, use culturally relevant pedagogy, and engage in community-based scholarship. When that faculty is missing, students often feel less seen, less supported, and less likely to persist. In other words: retention of culturally attuned faculty improves student retention. To build this pipeline, bold philanthropy and supportive policy must go hand in hand.

Foundations like Mellon, Lumina, and the United Negro College Fund have already shown interest in faculty development. What’s needed now is alignment tying funding to long-term pipeline outcomes, incentivizing inter-HBCU faculty mobility, and supporting research programs that keep Black scholars engaged.

On the policy side, state legislatures and the federal government can expand Title III funding specifically for faculty recruitment and retention. The Department of Education could support teaching fellowships for HBCU alumni. And Congress could pilot a Faculty Forgiveness Program, where a portion of student loans is forgiven for each year of service at an HBCU. It is important to design anything in a politically strategic way that can survive political variances. This is about reparative investment. HBCUs gave so much with so little. The least we can do is fund the future of their faculties.

This isn’t just an institutional problem it’s a community imperative. If you’re an HBCU alum, consider returning to teach. If you’re a philanthropist, invest in the cultural stewards of our classrooms. If you’re a student, imagine yourself not just graduating but returning to guide the next class.

Reclaiming the Cultural IQ of HBCUs is not a luxury—it’s a necessity. Because no one can teach us like us.

Sidebar: What Is Cultural IQ?

Cultural IQ refers to the depth of understanding, sensitivity, and emotional intelligence that individuals bring to cultural experiences. At HBCUs, it’s the instinct to uplift, contextualize, and nurture Black students with care, rigor, and rooted knowledge. Faculty with high Cultural IQ don’t just teach Black students—they teach to them, for them, and with them.

Sidebar: The HBCU Faculty Development Network

HBCU-FDN is a nonprofit consortium of HBCUs dedicated to enhancing teaching effectiveness and professional development. The Network holds annual conferences, offers mentorship programs, and supports curriculum innovation across more than 100 institutions.

Learn more: https://hbcufdn.org

Callout Box: 5 Ways to Build the Faculty Pipeline Now

  1. Graduate Fellowships for HBCU alumni to pursue advanced degrees at HBCUs.
  2. Teaching Assistantships tied to faculty mentorship and career placement.
  3. Homeownership Incentives for faculty moving into HBCU communities.
  4. Faculty Exchange Programs with African and Caribbean institutions.
  5. Student Loan Forgiveness for multi-year faculty service at HBCUs.
  6. Sabbatical Programs for faculty to spend a year doing research.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT

Leave a comment

Posted in Editorial

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Family Matters: Since A Different World, Fictional African American Families All Go PWI

Posted on November 11, 2025 by | Leave a comment

“If you can control a man’s thinking you do not have to worry about his action. When you determine what a man shall think you do not have to concern yourself about what he will do. If you make a man feel that he is inferior, you do not have to compel him to accept an inferior status, for he will seek it himself. If you make a man think that he is justly an outcast, you do not have to order him to the back door. He will go without being told; and if there is no back door, his very nature will demand one.” – Carter Godwin Woodson, The Mis-Education of the Negro

When Whitley Gilbert left Hillman College to marry Dwayne Wayne, a generation of Black America cried, laughed, and dreamed in unison. For six seasons, A Different World gave us a vision of what it meant to grow intellectually, emotionally, and culturally at a Historically Black College or University (HBCU). Hillman wasn’t just a fictional school — it was a cultural landmark, a stand-in for the pride, politics, and promise of Black higher education.

But somewhere along the way, the narrative shifted. Fast-forward thirty years, and the children of Cliff and Clair Huxtable, Uncle Phil and Aunt Viv, or Dre and Rainbow Johnson are not headed to Hillman or Howard — they’re off to Ivy League PWIs or West Coast elite universities that barely acknowledge the HBCU ecosystem. On screen, Black excellence has become synonymous with integration, not institution-building.

What happened?

The Fade of Hillman: Why Representation Matters

To understand the cultural loss, we must understand what was gained when A Different World aired. Created as a spin-off from The Cosby Show, the series debuted in 1987 and eventually found its voice under the direction of Debbie Allen, a real-life HBCU graduate from Howard University. Allen infused the series with storylines rooted in the authentic experiences of Black students at Black schools — tackling topics like apartheid, colorism, student activism, Black love, and the sacredness of community.

The result? A nationwide spike in interest and applications to HBCUs. According to a 1992 report from the National Center for Education Statistics, Black college enrollment rose dramatically in the years A Different World aired — and many credit the show directly. The series normalized Black educational excellence, not through assimilation, but through self-determination.

In contrast, today’s TV shows treat HBCUs like cultural relics or, worse, invisible.

Fictional Families, Real Cultural Drift

In the post-Different World era, shows featuring Black families are more likely to send their children to predominantly white institutions (PWIs). On Black-ish, Dre and Rainbow’s son, Junior, eventually enrolls at a PWI despite an entire episode wrestling with the idea of going to Howard. In Grown-ish, Zoey Johnson attends the fictional California University, an obvious PWI stand-in, where the HBCU experience is nearly absent except when stereotypically contrasted for “wokeness” or culture clashes.

Even the reboot of Bel-Air, which offered a chance to lean into the richness of Black institutions, leans hard into elite whiteness. The Banks children navigate high schools and social spaces that echo white privilege, and the specter of HBCUs exists only in passing remarks — not as anchors of identity or aspiration.

On-screen, Blackness now often arrives pre-approved, curated for corporate palatability. Gone is the unapologetic emphasis on Black space and self-definition. The message is subtle but clear: assimilation is the prize; institution-building is passé.

Where Are the HBCU Families?

It is not just that fictional African American families aren’t choosing HBCUs — it’s that HBCUs don’t seem to exist in their world at all. Despite the fact that over 100 HBCUs operate in the United States — from Morehouse and Spelman in Atlanta, to Prairie View in Texas, to North Carolina A&T and Virginia State — they rarely show up in the stories told to us about our own families.

This erasure is not accidental. It reflects the broader cultural currents in which HBCUs have been strategically underfunded, disrespected by mainstream rankings, and underrepresented in media. And when art imitates life — or vice versa — the omission becomes part of a feedback loop: if HBCUs aren’t shown on TV, they seem less relevant; if they seem less relevant, fewer students apply; fewer students mean less alumni giving, and the cycle of marginalization continues.

Consider this: how many Black TV writers, producers, and showrunners today are HBCU alumni? How many even mention their HBCU pride in interviews, bios, or creative work?

The cultural pipeline has cracked — and the representation on screen reflects that fracture.

Assimilation as a Storyline — And a Trap

There’s a reason The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air worked so well. Will’s Philadelphia-born charisma collided with Carlton’s prep-school privilege, creating a comedy of contrasts rooted in class, code-switching, and internalized white gaze. But even then, Will and Carlton both eventually attended the fictional ULA — another HBCU stand-in — and the show made space to honor Black institutions. In today’s remakes and reboots, the goalpost has moved. The tension no longer lies in navigating Blackness within Black spaces — it’s about achieving acceptance in white ones.

That’s dangerous.

When every fictional Black success story leads to a PWI, the message isn’t just one of educational preference — it’s a silent endorsement of the idea that Black excellence only matters when validated by white institutions. It undermines the legacy of HBCUs and implicitly suggests that the spaces Black people built for themselves are less worthy of screen time or societal investment.

The Stakes Are Real

This is more than a cultural critique. It’s an economic, social, and political issue. HBCUs graduate 80% of Black judges, 50% of Black lawyers, 40% of Black engineers, and 40% of Black Members of Congress. They are engines of Black leadership — and media has the power to either support or suppress that momentum.

Shows like A Different World didn’t just entertain — they built pipelines. They encouraged enrollment, boosted donations, and sparked policy conversations. At their best, they acted as visual endowments, depositing cultural capital into communities that needed it most.

When those narratives disappear, so does the incentive for viewers to value or invest in HBCUs. Worse, it renders the very idea of building Black institutions obsolete in the cultural imagination.

Why The Writers’ Room Needs HBCUs

The disappearance of HBCUs from fictional family life is also a commentary on who’s writing the stories. As Hollywood grapples with diversity, equity, and inclusion, it continues to rely heavily on Ivy League or top PWI talent pipelines. While some HBCU alumni are breaking through — such as Lena Waithe (Columbia College Chicago, but often a supporter of HBCUs) and Taraji P. Henson (Howard University) — there is still no wide-scale industry embrace of HBCU-trained writers, producers, or creatives.

This matters.

Representation isn’t just about who’s on screen — it’s about who decides what stories are told, who centers the cultural context, and who gets to be the architect of Black futures.

The Cultural Cost of Being “The Only One”

There’s a deep psychological tax in being “the only one” — a familiar theme in shows that send Black characters to elite PWIs. Whether it’s Zoey Johnson navigating white professors or Carlton Banks handling racial profiling by the police, these storylines, while real, often celebrate survival rather than thriving. They portray success as proximity to whiteness rather than mastery of one’s own.

Contrast this with Hillman, where students struggled, triumphed, fell in love, challenged politics, and made mistakes — all within a culturally affirming environment. The campus was Black. The professors were Black. The rules, norms, and traditions were Black.

That distinction is powerful.

In a world increasingly shaped by algorithms, streaming wars, and performative diversity, where we imagine Black life unfolding — especially for fictional families — is just as important as what happens.

Black-Owned Media: The New Front Line of Cultural Restoration

If the absence of HBCUs from our screens reflects a loss of cultural focus, then the solution lies not just in pleading for more representation — but in owning the means of production, distribution, and storytelling. For generations, Black-owned media has served as a counterbalance to the marginalization found in mainstream outlets. But today, especially in an era defined by digital platforms, there’s a new frontier of opportunity — and HBCUs are uniquely positioned to lead.

To change the narrative, we must also change the narrators.

HBCUs as Incubators for Black Media Ownership

HBCUs are not just educational institutions — they are cultural laboratories. Schools like Howard University, Florida A&M, and North Carolina A&T have produced a long lineage of journalists, filmmakers, producers, broadcasters, and business leaders in media. Cathy Hughes, the founder of Urban One (formerly Radio One), the largest African American-owned broadcasting company in the U.S., began her media career at Howard. Her success is not the exception — it’s the proof of concept.

What if more HBCUs developed cross-disciplinary media programs that fused journalism, film production, and business with a distinctly Afrocentric and institution-building ethos? Imagine an HBCU student graduating not just with a film degree, but with the rights to a series developed in a campus-run studio, ready to be licensed to a Black-owned distribution network. Imagine HBCUs running their own content incubators — writing rooms, studios, streaming apps — where the next A Different World is created by us, for us.

Building Our Own Pipelines: From Classroom to Platform

For too long, Black creatives have had to depend on mainstream networks or streaming services to greenlight their work. This gatekeeping often results in sanitized or stereotyped representations, with HBCUs either ignored or distorted. But what if HBCUs created their own media pipelines — complete with production houses, content libraries, and distribution partnerships?

Howard University already owns WHUR 96.3, a powerhouse urban radio station in Washington, D.C. Florida A&M operates WANM, its campus radio station. Spelman and Morehouse have nurtured partnerships with media production companies. These are the seeds of a broader media ecosystem.

Now imagine:

  • HBCU Streaming Networks: Think “HBCUflix,” operated by a consortium of HBCUs with a content catalog drawn from student filmmakers, professors, and alumni creatives.
  • Campus-Controlled Local TV Stations: Using FCC-designated low-power TV station licenses to broadcast HBCU sports, lectures, news, and entertainment to local communities.
  • Black-Owned Newsrooms: Reviving the tradition of the Chicago Defender or Pittsburgh Courier in digital form, anchored by HBCU journalism schools.

This isn’t hypothetical. It’s blueprint-ready. What’s required is a collective investment of time, capital, and institutional will — plus alumni and philanthropic backing — to scale these models.

In the evolving landscape of Black-owned media, DeShuna Spencer stands out as a visionary force. As the founder and CEO of kweliTV, Spencer has created a platform that not only amplifies Black voices but also serves as a blueprint for how Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) can reclaim and reshape cultural narratives through media ownership and innovation.

DeShuna Spencer and the Birth of kweliTV

DeShuna Spencer, a Memphis native and Jackson State University alumna, launched kweliTV out of a desire to see authentic Black stories represented in media. Frustrated by the lack of diverse and accurate portrayals of Black life on mainstream platforms, she envisioned a space where the global Black experience could be celebrated in its entirety. “Kweli” means “truth” in Swahili, reflecting the platform’s mission to present honest and multifaceted narratives of the African diaspora.

kweliTV curates a vast library of over 800 indie films, documentaries, web series, children’s programming, and more, sourced from North America, Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, and Australia. The platform emphasizes content that has been recognized at film festivals, with 98% of its films having premiered at such events and 65% earning prestigious awards.

A Platform for Empowerment and Education

Beyond entertainment, kweliTV serves as an educational tool and a catalyst for social change. The platform’s mission is rooted in the belief that storytelling can drive activism, connect communities, and spark meaningful conversations . By showcasing content that delves into topics like racial equality, Black history, political activism, and wellness, kweliTV provides viewers with narratives that challenge stereotypes and promote understanding.

Recognizing the importance of education, Spencer has expanded kweliTV’s reach into academic institutions. The platform’s EDU component offers campus-wide subscriptions, delivering culturally rich content to schools and libraries. This initiative aims to shift the Black narrative, dismantle implicit bias, and address the erasure of Black history in education.

Supporting Black Creators

kweliTV is committed to economic inclusion and the empowerment of Black creatives. The platform collaborates with over 450 filmmakers worldwide, with 91% of them being of African descent and 50% women. Notably, 60% of subscription revenue is allocated to these creators, ensuring that they are compensated for their work and can continue producing impactful content.

In a move to further support its community, kweliTV launched kweliFUND, a crowdfunding platform designed exclusively for its creators. This initiative allows filmmakers to raise funds for their projects directly from the platform’s audience, fostering a sense of community and collaboration between creators and viewers.

A Model for HBCUs and Black-Owned Media

Spencer’s work with kweliTV offers a compelling model for how HBCUs can engage in media ownership and content creation. By establishing their own media platforms, HBCUs can provide students with hands-on experience in storytelling, production, and distribution, while also ensuring that Black narratives are told authentically and with nuance.

Furthermore, partnerships between HBCUs and platforms like kweliTV can facilitate the sharing of resources, expertise, and content, amplifying the reach and impact of Black stories. Such collaborations can also lead to the development of new media ventures, including streaming services, radio stations, and digital publications, all rooted in the rich cultural heritage of HBCUs.

Looking Ahead

DeShuna Spencer’s journey with kweliTV underscores the transformative power of media ownership in shaping cultural narratives. By prioritizing authenticity, education, and empowerment, Spencer has created a platform that not only entertains but also enlightens and inspires.

As HBCUs and Black-owned media entities look to the future, the example set by Spencer and kweliTV serves as a beacon, illustrating the profound impact that intentional storytelling and media ownership can have on communities and the broader cultural landscape.

For more information about kweliTV and its mission, visit kweli.tv.

Creating a Cultural Distribution Infrastructure

Ownership is not just about creating content; it’s about controlling how, when, and where that content reaches audiences. This is where distribution — the final, and often most powerful leg of the media supply chain — comes into play.

We’ve seen what happens when Black creators rely on platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Hulu: their content is subject to algorithmic bias, buried under trending categories that don’t serve Black audiences, or removed altogether without explanation.

The answer? HBCUs and Black-owned media must move to own the pipes — the literal and digital infrastructure of cultural delivery:

  • OTT Streaming Platforms: Develop Roku, Fire TV, and mobile app channels focused on HBCU-produced content, from sitcoms to documentaries to sports coverage.
  • Podcasting Networks: Establish campus-based podcast studios and national syndication pipelines, building on the success of Black podcasting voices in culture, politics, and mental health.
  • Media Training & Ownership Programs: Create degree and certificate programs focused specifically on media ownership, policy, and digital rights — the business side of the content coin.

These systems not only decentralize media control, but they also re-center HBCUs as hubs of cultural production and protection.

Reinforcing a Narrative of Sovereignty

This shift is not just about representation; it’s about sovereignty. Black-owned media — especially when powered by HBCUs — doesn’t just offer us better stories. It offers us control over how Black futures are imagined. It allows for stories where our children attend HBCUs not as exceptions but as norms, where our families are not defined by white validation but by Black institutions and Black love.

It also allows us to engage intergenerationally. Grandparents who once watched A Different World could stream its spiritual successor with their grandkids — not waiting on NBC, but logging into a platform built by us. The message? Black stories, Black education, and Black institutions still matter — and we’ll tell that truth ourselves.

A Call to Action: HBCUs, It’s Time

The time has come for HBCUs to formally declare themselves cultural content producers — not just pipelines to jobs in someone else’s newsroom, but architects of our own. This means:

  • Partnering with Black venture capitalists and philanthropists to fund media tech.
  • Creating cross-campus media alliances to pool talent and resources.
  • Reaching out to Black celebrities and alumni for licensing deals, co-productions, and endorsements.

We already have the minds. We have the stories. We have the history. Now we need to build the systems.

Because until we do, our children on screen will keep walking through Ivy-covered gates that never reflect the richness of the Black experience — and the cultural erasure will quietly continue.

But when we own the studio, the mic, and the means of distribution — Hillman will return, and this time, it won’t just be a different world.

Bringing Hillman Back: What’s Next?

It’s time for another renaissance.

There’s an opportunity here for Black creators, networks, and communities to reclaim HBCUs as vital to the cultural conversation. Imagine:

  • A new series that follows a multi-generational HBCU family through decades of change.
  • A young adult drama centered on students at Spelman, Morehouse, or Hampton navigating climate change, cancel culture, and campus love.
  • A sci-fi thriller set at a fictional HBCU where Black inventors and scientists are the last hope for humanity.

These aren’t pipe dreams. They are possible — and necessary.

Because culture moves policy. Culture shapes perception. And culture, at its best, reminds us of who we are and what we’re worth.

Final Word: Hillman Wasn’t Just a Show

Hillman was a blueprint. It showed us that we don’t need to ask permission to be excellent. That we can build institutions where our children are seen, heard, and nurtured. That we don’t have to shrink to fit someone else’s standard.

Today, as fictional African American families continue to send their children to PWIs — with barely a nod to the institutions that made their very existence possible — we must ask ourselves what kind of future we’re imagining.

Because if we don’t see HBCUs on our screens, in our scripts, and in our stories, we risk losing them in real life.

And that’s a different world we cannot afford.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT.

Leave a comment

Posted in Editorial

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Lost Generation: How Gen X Inherited the Collapse of Black Institutions

Posted on November 7, 2025 by | Leave a comment

“We were sold the idea that the institutions that our great-grandparents built after enslavement, the institutitons that their blood, sweat, tears, and far too often their lives were sacrificed for no longer mattered. The institutions that protected our grandparents and parents no longer mattered. That we had no obligation, no duty to uphold them, strengthen them, defend them – and it may ultimately be our downfall.” – William A. Foster, IV

African America’s Generation X came of age in the shadow of promises made but never fulfilled. Born after the civil-rights movement and the legislative victories of the 1960s, they were told they were heirs to a new world of possibility. Yet for most, the landscape they entered was not one of expanding opportunity but of institutional decline. Gen X did not inherit the wealth of their White peers, nor did they inherit the institutional foundations that could have shielded them from the widening chasm of inequality. Instead, they became the “lost generation” of African America—not because they lacked talent or will, but because they were asked to build lives in the absence of functioning institutions.

The story is one of numbers as much as narratives. At mid-century, African Americans could point to over 134 banks, more than 500 hospitals, and a dense ecosystem of schools, businesses, and mutual-aid societies that created scaffolding for resilience. By the time Gen X came of age in the 1980s and 1990s, the majority of those institutions had collapsed. Today, fewer than 20 African American banks remain. The hospitals, once numbering in the hundreds, have shrunk to just one. The erasure of these structures left Gen X to navigate adulthood without the community-owned institutions that had once provided both opportunity and insulation.

This institutional decline coincided with the hardening of social and economic divides. African American median household wealth remains below $20,000, compared to more than $180,000 for White households. Home-ownership rates hover around 44 percent, far below the 73 percent enjoyed by Whites. Poverty, unemployment, and health disparities disproportionately fell on African American Gen X families, erasing many of the gains their parents’ generation had fought for. In health, the loss of African American hospitals meant fewer spaces for culturally competent care and fewer pathways for African American doctors, nurses, and administrators to train and serve their communities. In finance, the disappearance of banks meant fewer loans for businesses and homes, ensuring that the dollar cycled out of the community faster than it could ever build generational stability.

By the 1980s, when many Gen Xers were entering high school, even the educational system that had once cultivated excellence for African American children was being dismantled. A century earlier, African American boarding schools—descendants of Reconstruction-era self-help institutions—had trained teachers, scientists, craftsmen, and entrepreneurs. Schools such as Piney Woods, Laurinburg, and Pine Forge stood as examples of self-contained learning environments that instilled discipline and race pride. By 2014, only four remained. Their decline, chronicled in The Final Four: African American Boarding Schools on the Verge of Extinction, symbolized the erosion of intellectual infrastructure that once undergirded the Black middle class. These schools had produced generations of college-ready youth who often went on to HBCUs and then into the professions. When they withered, so did a crucial pipeline.

Their demise reflected not a lack of academic excellence but the disintegration of a supportive ecosystem. As integration policies shifted resources away from Black-controlled schools, and as affluent African American families pursued suburban acceptance, the boarding schools were left with dwindling endowments and shrinking enrollments. Their survival required a collective sense of purpose that the Gen X era—steeped in the illusion of individual advancement—could no longer muster. The extinction of these schools mirrored the broader trajectory of African American institutions: erasure through neglect, assimilation, and the seductive myth that success could be purely personal.

The same cultural dissonance emerged in the world of entertainment and higher education. On television, Gen X watched A Different World, a fictional HBCU experience that inspired a generation but also unintentionally reflected a pivot. The series’ most memorable duo, Dwayne Wayne and Ron Johnson, captured the promise and pitfalls of the Gen X mindset. As HBCU Money’s essay Dwayne Wayne & Ron Johnson Dropped the Ball: HBCUpreneurship observed, the show chronicled two brilliant young men who graduated not to build companies or institutions, but to take jobs inside someone else’s. Their story became emblematic of a generation encouraged to chase credentials rather than ownership.

Gen X was the first to be told that integration was complete, that they could “make it” anywhere. But what they were rarely told was that making it individually often meant abandoning the collective scaffolding their grandparents had built. The very concept of the HBCU as a launch pad for entrepreneurship faded into nostalgia. Dwayne and Ron’s missed opportunity was not fictional; it mirrored the real-world drift of African American college graduates into corporate dependency, even as those corporations benefited from their creativity without reinvesting in African American communities.

The consequences were measurable. While White entrepreneurial ecosystems flourished in the 1990s with the rise of venture capital and tech startups, African American business formation lagged far behind. Few HBCUs established business incubators, angel networks, or venture funds that could capture their graduates’ ingenuity. Gen X, trained to seek jobs rather than ownership, lacked both the financing structures and the cultural reinforcement to build enduring enterprises. The very generation that watched the digital revolution unfold found itself on the consumer end rather than the ownership end of that transformation.

In this sense, the decline of African American institutions was not merely physical but philosophical. The idea that collective power could yield freedom gave way to the belief that individual success was freedom itself. This ideological shift—fed by television, politics, and the allure of assimilation—eroded the cooperative ethos that once sustained Black Wall Streets and mutual-aid societies. Where earlier generations might have pooled resources to open a bank, Gen X was taught to seek a mortgage from Wells Fargo. Where their ancestors founded hospitals like Provident and Homer G. Phillips, Gen X looked to be admitted to the best White medical schools rather than to revive their own.

The paradox of Gen X is that they were told they had arrived at a moment of inclusion—seen in the growth of African American representation in politics, sports, entertainment, and corporate America—while the ground beneath them was collapsing. Symbolic milestones such as the first African American CEOs of Fortune 500 companies or the growing ranks of African American elected officials did not offset the fact that the ecosystem of African American hospitals, banks, and businesses was being erased. Gen X bore the brunt of this contradiction: celebrated for individual achievement while collectively stripped of institutional power.

The American economy of the 1980s and 1990s was primed for wealth building. Deregulation, real-estate booms, and the rise of the stock market created enormous opportunities for asset accumulation. Yet African American Gen Xers, lacking access to capital and institutional mentorship, were largely excluded. The few who broke through—whether in entertainment or professional fields—were exceptional precisely because the system offered so little support. They became proof of possibility for a generation starved of infrastructure, even as their fame obscured the underlying erosion.

By the early 2000s, as Gen X entered its peak earning years, the effects of institutional loss were unmistakable. The community’s wealth gap widened even as educational attainment rose. African American college-graduation rates climbed, but the payoff was smaller salaries, heavier debt, and less wealth accumulation. Without community-controlled banks or credit unions, they faced higher borrowing costs. Without business investment networks, they relied on personal savings to launch ventures, limiting scale and sustainability. Without hospitals and schools owned by the community, the circulation of dollars—once measured in weeks—shrank to hours.

The collapse of the boarding schools and the failure of HBCUpreneurship are not side stories; they are the connective tissue of this larger decline. Each represented a node of self-determination that could have anchored Gen X’s ascent. When those nodes vanished, Gen X’s trajectory became fragmented—brilliant individuals floating in isolation, disconnected from the institutional gravity that sustains a people. The lesson from the Final Four and from Dwayne Wayne and Ron Johnson is that without institutional continuity, culture becomes performance, not power.

The irony is that Gen X still carried the memory of what once was. Many were raised by grandparents who remembered owning land, operating local businesses, or attending all-Black schools where teachers lived in their neighborhoods. They inherited stories of collective pride, but not the structures that produced it. And because their own formative years coincided with mass media’s rise, those stories were often drowned out by consumer culture’s narrative of individual aspiration. Success became synonymous with escaping one’s community rather than empowering it.

That shift in imagination may be Gen X’s greatest tragedy. A people’s future is determined as much by what they believe is possible as by what they own. When the imagination of ownership fades, dependency becomes normalized. African America’s Gen X did not choose dependency; they adapted to a system that rewarded proximity to White institutions while punishing independent Black ones. Government contracts, corporate partnerships, and philanthropic grants replaced the cooperative economics of earlier eras. The result was a generation of professionals with unprecedented credentials but limited leverage.

Still, within this loss lies instruction. Gen X’s struggle clarifies that talent alone does not equal power. Communities achieve permanence only when they own the institutions that convert talent into infrastructure. The hospitals, banks, and boarding schools were not merely service providers—they were instruments of sovereignty. Their disappearance left African America reliant on external validation and vulnerable to the volatility of goodwill.

Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, and Barack Obama stand as icons of Gen X achievement, but their presence cannot replace the 500 hospitals or 100 banks that once supported African American communities. Institutions are what allow success to scale beyond the individual. Without them, every victory is fleeting, every gain precarious. The Gen X dream of being “the first” often became a cycle of isolation: the first in the boardroom, the first on the cover, the first to arrive—but rarely the architect of a system that ensured there would be a second.

As Millennials and Gen Z inherit the debris of that collapse, they confront the same choice: to celebrate representation or to rebuild capacity. The wealth and power gaps remain staggering. African Americans are still nearly twice as likely to live in poverty and hold only about four percent of America’s small-business assets despite comprising thirteen percent of its population. The absence of institutions guarantees these outcomes; their reconstruction could begin to reverse them.

Rebuilding will require the mindset Gen X was never taught—to treat institutions as the truest form of freedom. That means HBCUs creating venture capital funds that invest in their graduates. It means restoring the legacy of African American boarding schools as incubators of discipline and intellect. It means reviving credit unions and community banks that finance local ownership. It means rediscovering that the measure of progress is not how many individuals cross the threshold of another people’s institutions, but how many institutions one’s own people can build and sustain.

Gen X stands, then, as both victim and warning: the generation that inherited the death of African American institutions and the collapse of mobility. Their story illustrates that the survival of a people rests not on individual ascent but on collective infrastructure. Without it, the next generation risks becoming lost as well. The lost generation’s greatest gift may be its clarity—the understanding that brilliance without ownership is bondage, and that no degree, celebrity, or salary can substitute for a hospital, a bank, a school, or a business owned in the name of one’s community.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT.

Leave a comment

Posted in Editorial

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,