Category Archives: Lifestyle

Leave The Bands At Home: HBCU Football Should Leave Their Bands Behind For Road Games

Posted on October 28, 2025 by | Leave a comment

“Pragmatism is good prevention for problems.” – Amit Kalantri

The unspeakable may be the fiscally responsible

It seems almost unthinkable. An HBCU football game without BOTH bands at halftime. It has happened before, though only in exceptional cases: an emergency back home, a suspended band, or budgetary chaos. But to purposely and preemptively not take one’s band on the road? In HBCU culture, it feels akin to breaking the thirteenth commandment—Thou Shall Not Not Make ‘Em Dance—or committing some kind of cultural apostasy. Yet, for all its sacredness, perhaps it is time to break the spell.

At the core of this radical idea lies a rather mundane but pressing question: money. Football remains a major cost centre for most HBCUs. Marching bands, while sources of school pride and cultural magnetism, are not cheap to move. Between buses, meals, lodging, uniforms, and instrument logistics, taking a full band of 150+ members on the road can easily cost upwards of $50,000 per trip—especially if the destination is cross-country or involves air travel. Multiply that over several away games and a program could be looking at a mid-six-figure expenditure for the season. For many financially struggling HBCUs, this is no longer tenable.

The Holy Trifecta: Football, Bands, and Black Culture

At HBCUs, the band is often a co-headliner alongside the football team. In fact, at many institutions, the halftime show garners more social media views than the football game itself. The human formations, the drumline cadences, the high-stepping majorettes—it is part performance art, part cultural ritual. This makes the suggestion to leave bands behind feel almost blasphemous. It would strip the game of a vital sensory component, some argue, and deflate the inter-institutional competition that thrives on the duality of football and music.

Yet, it is precisely because of the power and prestige of the band that its role should be more strategically deployed. Bands are brand equity, not just background music. And that equity can be preserved—even enhanced—by rationing its presence and reallocating its costs.

Opportunity Cost and the Marching Million

Take the example of a mid-tier HBCU football program with four away games and a 160-member band. Transporting that band to all four games (via coach buses and lodging in modest hotels) might cost around $45,000 per game, or $180,000 total. Now imagine what else $180,000 could fund:

  • A student internship fund supporting 60 summer internships with $3,000 stipends;
  • A marketing campaign aimed at boosting out-of-state recruitment;
  • Repairs to the music department’s aging instruments and facilities;
  • A reserve fund for the band itself, to increase scholarships or buy newer uniforms.

The fact that this trade-off rarely enters the conversation reflects how entrenched the band has become as a required amenity for HBCU athletics. But institutions facing increasing competition for enrollment, state budget cuts, and inflationary pressure must start examining what truly maximizes impact—and what has become tradition for tradition’s sake.

Enter the Bandlight Policy

A “Bandlight” policy—where the band does not travel to away games unless deemed a high-profile or high-impact matchup (such as classics or homecoming of an opposing school)—could preserve institutional pride while enabling budget reprioritization. To soften the cultural blow, this policy could be paired with livestreamed pregame performances from home, aired during halftime of away games, or partnerships with local high schools or community colleges to fill the halftime slot. In effect, HBCUs would still “show up” culturally—just not logistically.

Moreover, rival institutions could enter into alternating-year agreements where only one band travels per year to the same matchup, thereby cutting costs in half while preserving some tradition. Or the entire conference could collectively implement policies to standardize expectations.

Revenue Substitutes: Making Absence Profitable

There is also the question of replacement: if the band is not traveling, what can be put in its place—socially and economically?

  1. High School Recruitment Fairs: Away games, especially those in recruiting hotbeds like Atlanta, Dallas, or Memphis, could feature pre-game recruitment fairs or pop-up university expos that target prospective students. Hosted in the parking lots or auxiliary spaces near stadiums, these expos would draw interest beyond the usual alumni tailgating crowds and create a broader community impact.
  2. Alumni Investment Summits: Rather than just tailgates and chants, HBCUs could host micro-investment forums or alumni networking mixers tied to away games. These could feature information on planned giving, institutional capital needs, and legacy endowments. Such events reinforce the university’s brand as an enduring institution—not just a weekend pastime.
  3. Cultural Diplomacy Exchange: At many PWIs (Predominantly White Institutions), the visiting HBCU band often provides the primary Black cultural presence on campus. By not sending the band, HBCUs could instead host curated cultural experiences: pop-up film screenings of Black directors, panel discussions on African American history, or mini art exhibitions. These events would still showcase the university’s heritage—just in a different form.
  4. Digital Monetization: Finally, there is room for digital alternatives. Bands could record exclusive halftime content back on campus for broadcast during away game livestreams. With the right sponsorship and media packaging, this could even generate revenue—especially if made accessible to the broader HBCU diaspora via streaming platforms or partnerships with outlets like HBCU Go or KweliTV.

Making Room for Exceptions: The Classics, Championships, and Cultural Diplomacy

No policy should be absolute, and the “Bandlight” approach must leave room for strategic exceptions. Certain games carry weight not just in terms of school pride, but institutional visibility, alumni engagement, and revenue generation. These events—such as the Bayou Classic, Magic City Classic, Florida Classic, or Celebration Bowl—should remain exempt from the policy due to their national reach and cultural cachet.

In these cases, the financial and branding benefits of both bands being present far outweigh the costs. These events are often broadcast on national television, command six- or seven-figure sponsorships, and serve as major alumni gathering points. Not showing up in full force—band and all—would send the wrong message about the value of HBCU pageantry.

Similarly, championship games or playoffs should remain occasions where bands accompany the team, reinforcing institutional pride at the highest level of competition.

Lastly, special exceptions could be granted for “Cultural Diplomacy Games,” where HBCUs play PWIs in regions with limited exposure to African American cultural institutions. These matchups offer an opportunity to expand HBCU brand identity and cultural influence—missions that justify a larger financial investment.

By clearly defining such exceptions, institutions can retain flexibility without undermining the integrity of a more fiscally responsible standard for regular-season games.

From Brass to Bank: Strengthening Endowments Through Smart Savings

Perhaps the most compelling reason to consider limiting band travel is the long-term impact it could have on strengthening HBCU endowments—a chronic weakness in the financial armor of most historically Black colleges and universities. Endowments are not merely rainy-day funds; they are the bedrock of institutional independence, providing reliable income streams for scholarships, faculty retention, infrastructure improvements, and strategic initiatives. Yet, the vast majority of HBCUs remain dangerously undercapitalized.

As of 2024, only one HBCU—Howard University—has an endowment exceeding $1 billion. By comparison, over 50 predominantly white institutions boast endowments larger than $1 billion, and the average Ivy League endowment surpasses $10 billion. The gap in financial flexibility means that most HBCUs remain reliant on tuition, federal grants, and unpredictable philanthropic cycles. Closing this endowment divide must be a generational project—and rethinking every cost center, including football and band logistics, is a prudent step.

Let us revisit the travel cost scenario: an HBCU saves $180,000 annually by not sending its marching band to four away games. If that amount were instead directed into an endowment or investment fund yielding a 10% annual return, compounded over 30 years, the return on the first year’s investment alone would grow to approximately $3.1 million. But in practice, this contribution would not be a one-time deposit—it would be made every year for 30 years.

Each $180,000 annual deposit would compound over a different span of time—from 30 years down to 1 year for the final contribution. When we sum the compounded growth of all 30 annual contributions, the total value by year 30 is not merely $3.1 million, but a remarkable $32.6 million.

This is the true power of consistent, disciplined investing. What might seem like a relatively small annual sacrifice—foregoing band travel to four away games—can, when reinvested wisely, build a financial pillar for an HBCU that could support hundreds of scholarships, faculty lines, or capital improvements. Across multiple institutions, such strategy would not just close the endowment gap—it could transform it into a long-term competitive advantage. Using the future value formula:

FV = P × [(1 + r)^t – 1] / r
FV = $180,000 × [(1.10)^30 – 1] / 0.10
FV ≈ $3.1 million

Now imagine 40 HBCUs adopting this policy. If each institution redirected $180,000 annually into an endowment with a 10% annual return, the combined value of those contributions over 30 years would grow to an extraordinary $1.3 billion.

This isn’t speculative—it is mathematical certainty backed by compounding returns. What begins as a quiet cost-saving measure becomes a billion-dollar transformation of Black institutional capital. It is the kind of long-term vision HBCUs need to build financial independence and power. Leaving the bands at home, selectively and strategically, could finance a future where they never again play second fiddle to structural underfunding.

Such funds could be reserved for band scholarships, new instruments, music department endowments, or general institutional advancement. Equally important, this shift demonstrates fiscal maturity to large philanthropic donors who seek assurance of sustainability and capital stewardship. In this light, the silence of a band on one Saturday becomes a long crescendo toward institutional resilience.

Band Camp Economics and Reallocation Potential

Consider also the economic pressures on the bands themselves. Marching bands at HBCUs are often underfunded even as they serve as ambassadors and talent pipelines. Travel budgets could be redirected internally:

  • Higher stipends for band scholarships, which could attract more top talent;
  • Expanded outreach to middle and high school band programs to sustain the pipeline;
  • Better faculty-to-student ratios for music education;
  • New instrument purchases, particularly for percussion and brass sections, which endure high wear and tear.

An internal reallocation of $150,000–$250,000 annually per school could mean the difference between merely surviving and thriving for a band program.

The Cultural Blowback—and Counterarguments

Naturally, such a policy will meet resistance—not only from fans but from within. Band members may feel shortchanged on travel experiences. Alumni may bristle at what they see as a cultural dilution. Game promoters may worry about reduced ticket sales if the bands are not both present.

But it is precisely because bands matter so much that they should be protected from burnout and underinvestment. If leaving them home three or four times per year increases their overall budget, performance level, and recruitment reach, is that not a worthy trade?

Besides, culture evolves. Just as HBCUs have moved from AM radio to YouTube, from pamphlets to TikTok, so too can band culture adapt to a new hybrid reality—where physical presence is not the only measure of visibility or power.

A Conference-Wide Model: The SWAC and MEAC Could Lead

If this is to be implemented, it would ideally not be school by school, but as a conference-wide reform. Both the Southwestern Athletic Conference (SWAC) and the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (MEAC) could establish guidelines that limit band travel to key games while preserving equity among member institutions.

Such a policy might include:

  • A rotating system where each team brings its band to only half of its away games;
  • Revenue-sharing from livestreamed halftime performances;
  • Incentives for home teams to offer cultural hospitality to offset the absence of the visiting band.

It would also open new possibilities for sponsorship. Corporate partners who understand the influence of HBCU bands could be enlisted to underwrite digital halftime content or band scholarships—an easier pitch if funds are not being spent on transport and logistics.

March Differently, Spend Smarter

Culture is not weakened by strategy. In fact, when deployed wisely, it is made more resilient. Leaving the bands at home for select away games is not a betrayal of HBCU tradition—it is a restructuring of it to survive and thrive in a new era.

In a time when HBCUs are asked to do more with less, the question is not whether the bands should still matter. Of course they do. The question is whether they should have to march themselves into financial depletion to prove it.

Better to let them rest, regroup—and when they do appear, make it unforgettable.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT.

Leave a comment

Posted in Moneyball

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

What If Bronny James Were A Doctor?

Posted on October 21, 2025 by | Leave a comment

“Our children can’t be what they can’t see.” — Marian Wright Edelman

In August 2015, HBCU Money asked a provocative question: What if LeBron James were a doctor? It was more than a hypothetical. It was a cultural critique of how African American communities disproportionately invest their most visible male potential into athletics rather than professions like medicine, law, or academia. The premise was simple: what if the best of us were guided toward healing rather than hoops?

At that time, Bronny James was only 10 years old. He was already receiving national media coverage and projected to follow in the footsteps of his famous father. Ten years later, we know how the story unfolded: Bronny James is now 20 years old, an NBA player for the Los Angeles Lakers, having been selected 55th overall in the 2024 NBA Draft. He and LeBron have made history as the NBA’s first active father–son duo. But as we revisit that original question, we offer a new one for this moment:

What if Bronny James were a doctor?

The Pipeline That Still Leaks

In the decade since the original article, the numbers have moved very little. Black men remain just 2.9% of medical school applicants in the United States. While the total percentage of Black physicians has risen slightly to 5.2%, Black male doctors remain critically underrepresented in the field. The pipeline is still broken—too narrow, too leaky, and too unprotected.

Meanwhile, sports pipelines are expanding. Black male participation in college athletics remains high: 44% in NCAA Division I basketball and 40% in football. Yet only a fraction make it to the pros, and even fewer achieve career longevity. While Bronny James may earn an estimated $33 million over five years in the NBA, that sum when spread over a lifetime equates to about $750,000 annually pro-rated from age 21 to 65. By contrast, a primary care physician earning $280,000 annually over a 35-year career will earn nearly $10 million, with the added benefits of job security, community impact, and longevity.

Imagining Dr. Bronny James

What if Bronny James had chosen to study medicine instead of basketball?

He would now be entering his second year of medical school, perhaps at Morehouse, Howard, or Meharry. He would be poring over medical textbooks, studying cardiovascular anatomy, shadowing trauma surgeons, and preparing for his USMLE Step 1 exam. Instead of prepping for NBA Summer League, he’d be interning at the Cleveland Clinic or doing a rural health rotation through an HBCU pipeline program.

Bronny would not trend on Twitter. He would not have endorsement deals. But one day, he would help save lives. He might build a medical clinic in Akron, establish scholarships for Black boys in pre-med tracks, or serve as a thought leader in health equity. His white coat would carry power every bit as influential as his jersey and perhaps more transformative.

Investing in the Wrong Dream?

The culture of African American investment in financial, emotional, and institutional remains lopsided. Parents spend thousands each year on club sports, trainers, uniforms, and travel tournaments. The AAU circuit is a multi-billion-dollar enterprise. But few parents are encouraged or supported to invest similarly in chess clubs, science fairs, or summer medical programs. The problem isn’t sports. The problem is singularity. We teach Black boys to put all their ambition into the least likely path to success. That is not empowerment it is misallocation.

Sports should be one of the dreams. Not the dream.

And cultural influencers like celebrities, churches, schools, and even HBCUs must widen the lens of what is considered aspirational. Because when African American boys only see themselves celebrated on the court or field, they are conditioned to believe that’s the only route to greatness.

The Hospital That Could Change Everything

Now imagine a future where LeBron and Savannah James decide to reshape the health destiny of Black Ohio not just through education, but through medicine. In partnership with Central State University and Wilberforce University, the James family announces the creation of the Savannah & LeBron James Medical Center, a state-of-the-art teaching and research hospital in Dayton, Ohio. The hospital would be co-owned by the two HBCUs, offering an unprecedented model of HBCU institutional control and healthcare delivery.

At its helm? Dr. Bronny James, a board-certified trauma surgeon and hospital executive, returned from medical training with a mission not just to serve, but to system-build. Through a strategic pipeline, students from the I PROMISE School in Akron, established by the James family, would be funneled into dual-admissions programs at Wilberforce and Central State, beginning in middle school. African American students interested in health sciences would receive mentorship, MCAT preparation, research internships, and full scholarships in exchange for a five-year service commitment at the hospital.

The hospital would:

  • Serve as a Level 1 trauma center for the Midwest Black Belt.
  • Anchor a Black-owned HMO focused on preventive care and wellness.
  • House medical research departments focused on sickle cell, hypertension, and diabetes, disproportionately affecting Black populations.
  • Be staffed by a growing cadre of Black doctors, nurses, and technicians, trained from within the HBCU system.

It would be the first modern, Black-owned academic medical center in America in over a century.

Not just a facility but a movement.

HBCUs as Healthcare Engines

This is the next evolution for HBCUs. No longer content to only educate they must now employ, own, and lead. Currently, Meharry, Howard, and Morehouse are the most visible HBCU medical institutions, but they are not sufficient to serve a national population. HBCUs like Central State and Wilberforce can and should partner with philanthropists to enter the healthcare delivery space. Hospitals, urgent care clinics, dental schools, nursing programs—these are all industries HBCUs can lead, if given the capital and political will.

The Savannah & LeBron James Medical Center would become a model for how celebrity philanthropy can shift from access to ownership. The James family has built schools. Now they can build systems. Systems that outlast careers. Systems that create intergenerational empowerment. And Dr. Bronny James? He would not just be a doctor. He would be a symbol of new possibilities.

Culture, Media, and The Battle for Imagination

The Bronny we know exists because the culture invested in him—from trainers to scouts to sports media coverage. But imagine if that same investment were redirected into medicine.

What if:

  • ESPN tracked the top Black high school biology students?
  • SpringHill Company aired a documentary series on Black med students at HBCUs?
  • Nike sponsored lab coats instead of just sneakers?

Culture tells children what to value. The question is whether we value Black intellect enough to mass-produce it.

Father–Son Legacy: A New Kind of First

LeBron and Bronny made history as the NBA’s first active father-son duo. But what if they made history again this time as a father-son pair who reshaped African American health care? Imagine LeBron standing beside Bronny at the ribbon-cutting of the James Medical Center. One created legacy through sport. The other, through healing. That is a legacy few families could rival. That is the kind of dynasty African America needs now.

Final Thoughts: From Possibility to Policy

“What if Bronny James were a doctor?” is no longer a question about a single person. It is a challenge to families, schools, HBCUs, and philanthropists. It is a policy challenge: to build educational pipelines, mentorship structures, and HBCU-led medical institutions that keep Black talent from slipping through the cracks. It is a cultural challenge: to celebrate and invest in intellect and professionalism with the same intensity we invest in athletics. It is a power challenge: to shift from participation to ownership in one of the most critical sectors of our economy health care. The original article asked the question. Now, let us answer it—with vision, capital, and courage. Because if Bronny James were a doctor—and led a Black-owned hospital rooted in HBCU strength we would not just be saving lives.

We would be saving futures.

Leave a comment

Posted in Lifestyle

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

Schools For Husbands and Wives: Preparing African American Couples for Partnership and Institutional Power

Posted on October 10, 2025 by | Leave a comment

“The family is the nucleus of civilization.” — Will Durant

When news broke from Senegal that so-called “schools for husbands” were being used to lower maternal and newborn mortality rates, the headlines focused on the novelty of men being taught to wash dishes, attend prenatal visits, and support women’s healthcare. Yet beneath the surface, Senegal’s program is not just about chores or even just about health, it is about reshaping cultural norms so that households operate as functional units rather than fractured spaces of authority and neglect. In a country where patriarchal structures often keep women from making life-saving decisions without a man’s permission, Senegal’s government and community leaders recognized that sustainable change had to address the power imbalance between men and women.

This insight carries an important lesson for African America. The African American family is facing a structural crisis. Only 38 percent of African American children grow up in two-parent households compared to 78 percent of white children, and the numbers are even more stark when considering households of generational stability, wealth accumulation, and transmission of institutional knowledge. The decline of the two-parent household in African America has had profound consequences not just for children, but for adults who often enter adulthood without ever having witnessed sustained partnership between equals.

What if African America had its own version of Senegal’s schools expanded to include both husbands and wives, and designed for straight couples and LGBTQ couples alike? A “School for Husbands and Wives” could become a powerful cultural and institutional lever, equipping African Americans with the skills, expectations, and frameworks to build households that are not only emotionally healthy but also institutionally productive.

Why African America Needs Schools for Husbands and Wives

African Americans live in a paradox: on the one hand, they are among the most religiously active groups in the country, with churches historically serving as community hubs. On the other hand, African American households are disproportionately fragmented. The reasons are historical and structural—slavery destroyed family continuity, Jim Crow restricted marriage rights, mass incarceration and discriminatory welfare policies tore apart families, and modern labor and housing policies continue to erode family stability.

The consequence is that too many African Americans enter relationships without having observed healthy models of partnership. This absence manifests itself in multiple ways:

  • Gender distrust: Many African American men and women view each other as competitors rather than partners, shaped by economic inequality and media stereotypes.
  • Power imbalances: Without clarity on roles, relationships often collapse under stress: financial, emotional, or social.
  • Institutional gaps: Families are the basic units of institutions. When African American families are weak, African American institutions remain undercapitalized and undercoordinated.

This reality is not confined to heterosexual couples. LGBTQ African Americans, who face both external discrimination and internal cultural tension, often have even fewer family blueprints to draw upon. Whether in straight or queer relationships, the challenge remains: how do two people form a sustainable partnership when their models are fragmented, mistrust abounds, and institutional frameworks are weak?

A School for Husbands and Wives would take on this challenge directly, teaching the mechanics of partnership in the same way Senegal’s program teaches men the mechanics of maternal health support. But instead of focusing solely on chores or permissions, the African American model would expand to include economics, conflict resolution, institution building, and cultural grounding.

The Senegalese Model: A Starting Point

Senegal’s schools for husbands use respected community figures like imams, former soldiers, and elders to teach men about women’s rights, maternal health, and shared responsibilities. The success lies in reframing: chores are not humiliating, they are acts of love; women’s health decisions are not threats, they are family investments; shared authority is not weakness, it is strength.

For African Americans, a School for Husbands and Wives could use a similar approach: respected voices drawn from the community like professors, entrepreneurs, cultural leaders, and married couples who have sustained long-term partnerships would teach relationship and family skills as community investments. The aim would be to destigmatize conversations about partnership and create new models where none exist.

Curriculum for Partnership

What would a School for Husbands and Wives look like in African America?

  1. Economics of Partnership
    • Teaching couples how to pool resources effectively, manage debt, invest in assets, and prioritize institutional wealth over individual consumption.
    • Lessons on real estate, life insurance, trusts, and estate planning—so that households become wealth anchors, not debt traps.
  2. Conflict Resolution and Communication
    • Many couples replicate cycles of mistrust they observed growing up. Training in conflict resolution, active listening, and equitable compromise would be central.
    • Both straight and LGBTQ couples would benefit from structured conversations on navigating cultural stigma, managing extended family expectations, and sustaining emotional intimacy.
  3. Household Labor Distribution
    • Senegal emphasizes men helping with chores to reduce women’s burdens. In African America, the conversation must extend further: both partners share responsibility for cooking, cleaning, parenting, and professional ambitions.
    • The school would also address how unpaid labor at home directly connects to economic outcomes, productivity, and career success for both partners.
  4. Cultural and Historical Grounding
    • African American couples would be taught the history of the African American family as an institution under assault—from slavery to mass incarceration.
    • By understanding the intentionality of these assaults, couples would better grasp the importance of intentional partnership as resistance.
  5. Parenting as Institutional Strategy
    • Children should be raised not just with love, but with strategy: to become contributors to African American institutional wealth and culture.
    • Parents would learn to combine elements of “tiger” and “gentle” parenting—discipline and nurture balanced toward the goal of institutional power.

Straight and LGBTQ Couples Together

Too often, discussions of African American family structure exclude LGBTQ couples, reinforcing division where there should be solidarity. A School for Husbands and Wives would explicitly include both straight and LGBTQ couples, recognizing that the core challenges of partnership communication, trust, economic strategy, cultural grounding are universal.

In fact, LGBTQ couples often demonstrate resilience in building intentional families under hostile conditions, a skillset that all African Americans can learn from. By including diverse couple models, the school would normalize different family structures while emphasizing the shared goal: strong, functioning partnerships that build institutions.

Institutional Implications

African American institutions such as HBCUs, banks, businesses, nonprofits are only as strong as the families that sustain them. Wealth is built in households before it is transferred to institutions. If African American households remain fragmented, then institutions will remain weak.

A School for Husbands and Wives could therefore be sponsored or housed by HBCUs, serving both as a community program and as a research lab. Partnerships with African American financial institutions could integrate financial literacy into the curriculum. Faith institutions, cultural centers, and civic organizations could all play roles in teaching and sustaining graduates of the program.

The benefits would ripple:

  • Higher marriage stability rates among African Americans.
  • Greater pooling of household income, increasing wealth accumulation.
  • Stronger parenting, producing children with higher educational attainment and cultural grounding.
  • Increased institutional giving and investment, as families with stability contribute more to churches, HBCUs, and community organizations.

Policy and Public Health Dimensions

A School for Husbands and Wives should not be seen only as a cultural innovation, but also as a public health and policy strategy. The lack of stable households directly correlates with higher rates of poverty, incarceration, and health disparities. Policymakers could frame such schools as preventative investments, much like job training or nutrition programs.

Public funding, alongside philanthropic investment from African American institutions, could help establish pilot programs in cities with large African American populations. These schools could even be tied to existing healthcare infrastructure such as community health clinics so that relationship education is linked to wellness checkups, parenting support, and financial literacy programs.

If Senegal can link male training to maternal survival, African America can link couple training to family survival.

Lessons from Senegal’s Caution

Senegal’s experience shows that change is incremental and contested. Some men embrace new roles; others resist. Likewise, in African America, not everyone will accept the idea of formal schools for partnership. Some will argue that love is natural and cannot be taught. Others will resist LGBTQ inclusion. Some will see the program as unnecessary “therapy culture.”

But institutions are built through intentionality, not accident. Just as one studies law to become a lawyer or finance to become a banker, so too must African Americans study partnership if they are to build families that function as institutional engines.

A Vision Forward

Imagine a future where every African American couple, before or after marriage, participates in a School for Husbands and Wives. They leave not only with a deeper love for each other but with tools for building wealth, resolving conflict, and raising children with purpose. They learn to see themselves as not just individuals, but as co-founders of a household institution.

The Senegalese model shows us that cultural change is possible when men are trained to view equality as strength. African America can expand that vision: training both husbands and wives, straight and queer, to view partnership as the foundation of institutional survival.

Just as Senegal’s schools for husbands aim to save lives, African America’s schools for husbands and wives would aim to save legacies.ve legacies.

Leave a comment

Posted in Lifestyle

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

The “Real World” Myth: How Sending African American Children to PWIs Undermines African American Institutional Power

Posted on September 19, 2025 by | Leave a comment

“When you control a man’s thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. He will find his ‘proper place’ and will stay in it. You do not need to send him to the back door. He will go without being told; in fact, if there is no back door, he will cut one for his special benefit.”
— Carter G. Woodson, The Mis-Education of the Negro

For generations, African American families have been told a myth that has become so pervasive it often passes without challenge: the idea that sending their children to predominantly white institutions (PWIs) of higher education better prepares them for the “real world.” On its surface, the reasoning sounds practical. Parents believe that if their child learns how to navigate white spaces, acquires the habits and codes of those spaces, and builds networks with white peers, they will be more successful in corporate America and society at large. It is a calculation born of centuries of survival in a society structured against African Americans.

But this calculation, when examined deeply, does not hold up to scrutiny. Instead of preparing African American students for the “real world,” the widespread preference for PWIs undermines the institutional power of African Americans and deprives HBCUs of the very human and financial capital they need to thrive.

The “real world” itself is not a fixed entity. It is not a monolith that African Americans must prepare to join on white terms. The real world is what a group of people make it. White Americans have defined their world and fortified it through their institutions such as universities, banks, hospitals, corporations, and foundations. Asian Americans, Jewish Americans, and other groups have done similarly, leveraging their educational and economic institutions to shape their reality. Yet, African America, too often, has internalized the belief that its institutions are insufficient, opting instead to send its brightest students and most valuable tuition dollars into the coffers of PWIs.

This is not simply a matter of personal choice. It is a collective decision with collective consequences. The more African American families buy into the “real world” myth, the weaker HBCUs become, and the less capable African America is of shaping its own real world.

The PWI Path and Its Assumptions

African American parents who choose PWIs for their children often do so with good intentions. They want their children to access elite resources, prestigious networks, and the perceived stamp of approval that comes with a degree from a PWI. They assume that because the U.S. labor market is majority white, exposure to that environment early on is critical to future success.

But these assumptions reveal several contradictions. White students do not consider attending an HBCU to balance their cultural experiences. They do not think, “I’ve had too much whiteness; I need a more balanced education.” Instead, they progress from a PWI undergraduate degree to a PWI graduate school, then into PWI-dominated corporate and institutional spaces. Their cultural immersion is never questioned, because their institutions define normalcy.

Meanwhile, African Americans alone have been conditioned to believe that too much African American immersion is dangerous, insular, or unrepresentative of the “real world.” The irony is sharp: a student may attend an HBCU, which is itself a diverse universe of African American culture, class, geography, and ideology, and still be told they have not had enough “exposure.” Yet a white student who grows up in an all-white town, attends an all-white PWI, and joins all-white firms is never told they lack “diversity of experience.”

This asymmetry is not accidental. It is a reflection of who controls institutional narratives in America. African Americans who absorb the “real world” myth are effectively outsourcing their children’s futures to white institutions, all while their own institutions wither from neglect.

The Diversity Within HBCUs

Another overlooked dimension of this myth is the assumption that HBCUs are homogeneous, insular spaces. This could not be further from the truth. The African American experience itself is vast. It includes children of Caribbean immigrants, descendants of enslaved Africans, first-generation college students from rural Mississippi, affluent families from Washington, D.C., African students from Nigeria and Ghana, Afro-Latinx students from Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, and more.

To attend an HBCU is not to encounter “less” diversity; it is to engage with the broad spectrum of the African Diaspora in concentrated form. These institutions are living laboratories of cultural exchange, intellectual competition, and class interaction.

By contrast, a PWI often provides African American students with only a sliver of diversity: they are frequently tokenized, expected to represent their entire race, and shuffled into diversity programming that centers their marginalization. Their peers may never learn about African American life beyond stereotypes, because the institution itself was never designed to illuminate African American experiences.

Thus, the African American student at an HBCU receives not just an education, but an immersion in African American pluralism is a preparation for engaging the world on African American terms. The PWI student, meanwhile, often internalizes the idea that their presence is conditional, exceptional, or peripheral.

Institutional Power and the Capital Flight from HBCUs

Every African American student who chooses a PWI over an HBCU represents more than an individual choice. It is the redirection of tuition dollars, alumni loyalty, and future endowment contributions away from African American institutions.

Imagine if even half of the African American students currently enrolled at PWIs redirected themselves to HBCUs. The financial impact would be transformative. Endowments would grow, faculty recruitment would expand, research capacity would increase, and the prestige of HBCUs would rise proportionally. These gains would compound over decades, creating a feedback loop of institutional strength.

Instead, what we have is a leakage of capital and talent into institutions that do not prioritize African American empowerment. PWIs benefit from African American enrollment statistics, which they parade as evidence of diversity, while offering little in terms of institutional reciprocity. They gain the reputational boost, while HBCUs lose the enrollment and financial stability they desperately need.

The result is predictable: HBCUs remain underfunded, under-endowed, and under-appreciated, not because they lack quality, but because too many African American families believe the myth that their children will be better off elsewhere.

The Real World Is What We Make It

The central flaw in the “real world” argument is the assumption that African Americans must adapt to a world built by others rather than shape their own. The real world is not an objective standard but it is the result of group will, institutional building, and cultural reinforcement.

White Americans shaped their “real world” through the sustained investment in Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and thousands of other institutions that center their history, culture, and power. Jewish Americans created their “real world” through a network of universities, foundations, and cultural centers that prioritize their collective survival. Asian Americans are building their own “real world” through business networks, educational pipelines, and capital flows that stretch across the Pacific.

If African Americans accept the premise that their children must be trained in white institutions to succeed, they have already conceded that they cannot or will not shape their own real world. They have abandoned the project of institutional power in favor of individual adaptation. This is not preparation; it is surrender.

Psychological Implications: Internalizing Inferiority

Beyond the economic impact, the myth has deep psychological consequences. African American students raised on the belief that HBCUs are not “the real world” internalize a subtle but corrosive idea: that their own culture is insufficient. They may carry degrees from elite PWIs, but the cost is often an alienation from African American institutional life.

The psychological message is clear—white spaces are the pinnacle of preparation, while African American spaces are something to escape. This creates a generational feedback loop where each successive cohort of African American parents pushes harder for PWIs, believing they are giving their children an advantage, while in reality they are weakening the very institutions that could make African America self-sufficient.

It also distorts identity. An African American child who grows up believing they must leave their community to succeed will often view their success as individual rather than collective. They may become comfortable being the “only one in the room,” rather than building the rooms where African Americans are not tokens but owners.

The Comparative Case: No Other Group Thinks This Way

No other racial or ethnic group in America sends its children away from its own institutions to gain “real world” experience. White families do not think Harvard students lack preparation because they have spent too much time around other white students. Jewish families do not believe their children need to avoid Jewish institutions to be competitive. Chinese Americans do not view Chinese language schools or cultural institutions as a liability to their children’s preparation.

It is only African Americans who accept this self-defeating logic. This uniqueness underscores the lingering effects of centuries of racial conditioning. From slavery to Jim Crow to modern structural racism, African Americans have been taught that their own institutions are inferior. The “real world” myth is simply the modernized version of this lesson.

By contrast, when other groups send their children to institutions, they do so with the understanding that these institutions will strengthen their cultural identity while equipping them to engage broader society on their own terms. For African Americans, the task must be the same: build HBCUs into the kind of institutions that define, rather than defer to, the real world.

Rethinking the “Preparation” Narrative

If the goal of higher education is preparation, then the question is: preparation for what? For African Americans, preparation should not simply mean being employable in someone else’s institution. It should mean being capable of building, leading, and sustaining African American institutions.

An HBCU graduate is not less prepared for corporate America than a PWI graduate; in many cases, they are more resilient, more culturally grounded, and more aware of systemic barriers. The difference is that the HBCU graduate, if supported by their community, is positioned to reinvest in African American institutional life.

The narrative that PWIs uniquely prepare African Americans for the “real world” ignores the fact that many HBCU alumni have gone on to excel in every imaginable field from politics, science, business, culture while also strengthening the institutions of African America. The preparation HBCUs offer is not narrow; it is holistic, rooted in both academic rigor and cultural affirmation.

A Call to Reclaim Institutional Power

For African Americans to continue believing in the “real world” myth is to ensure that the next century looks much like the last: individual success stories amid collective institutional weakness. To break this cycle, African American families must reorient their thinking.

Sending a child to an HBCU is not a limitation; it is an investment in collective power. It is a statement that African Americans will not only participate in the real world but will define it. It is a recognition that every tuition dollar, every alumni donation, and every student enrollment strengthens the institutional backbone of African America.

The time has come to retire the myth once and for all. The real world is not something African Americans must be prepared for by others. It is something African Americans must build for themselves, through the strengthening of HBCUs and the rejection of narratives that undermine them.

Until that shift happens, African America will remain trapped in a paradox: sending its children to PWIs in search of preparation, only to find that the institutions that could truly empower them are being starved of the very resources they need.

The “real world” is not out there waiting. It is in our hands to create.

 Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT.

Leave a comment

Posted in Lifestyle

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

The Gridiron Mirage: Debunking the NFL as the Engine of African American Wealth

Posted on August 26, 2025 by | Leave a comment

“A lot of enslaved people actually made money, but they had no power.” – William Rhoden

In the annals of American mythology, few institutions occupy as outsized a symbolic role in African American economic advancement as the National Football League. It is a league awash in spectacle and saturated with the rhetoric of opportunity. “The NFL has made more African American millionaires than any other institution,” say its defenders. This refrain—recited with patriotic pride or cynical resignation—has come to function as a social truism, a talisman held up to justify the nation’s meager investments in structural equity. But like most myths, its repetition does not make it true.

This article contends that this notion is not only false but insidious. It misrepresents the scale and structure of wealth in the African American community, diverts attention from more potent engines of generational prosperity, and masks the extractive and precarious nature of professional sports as a vehicle for wealth creation. The NFL is not a wealth escalator; it is, at best, a short-lived income spurt machine for a statistical elite, and at worst, a cultural and physical treadmill leading back to zero.

Gridiron Arithmetic: The Numbers Game

The first fallacy is numerical. As of the 2023 season, there were approximately 1,696 active NFL players spread across 32 teams. Around 58% of these players identified as African American, or roughly 984 athletes. Even when one accounts for the extended rosters, practice squads, and recent retirees still living off their earnings, the figure remains marginal—perhaps a few thousand men across multiple generations.

Contrast this with sectors such as healthcare, education, government, and business. The National Black MBA Association alone counts tens of thousands of members, many of whom have built sustainable wealth through entrepreneurship, investment, or corporate ascendancy. African American doctors number over 50,000. Black-owned businesses, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, exceed 140,000 with paid employees, and millions more operate as sole proprietorships.

The American Bar Association reports over 50,000 African American attorneys. Even the public sector, often decried as slow or bureaucratic, employs hundreds of thousands of Black professionals across local, state, and federal levels. These occupations, while lacking the glamour of a touchdown, generate far more stable, scalable, and generationally transferrable wealth.

Income vs. Wealth: The Shaky Foundations of NFL Riches

To understand the illusion, one must disentangle income from wealth. Wealth is not what one earns; it is what one owns. It is the portfolio, the property, the equity stake, the passive income stream, and, perhaps most critically, the ability to transfer resources across generations. NFL players earn substantial salaries during their brief careers—an average of $2.7 million per year, though the median is closer to $860,000. But careers are short, averaging just 3.3 years.

This creates what economists call a “high burn rate, low accumulation” profile. Studies have found that 15% of NFL players file for bankruptcy within 12 years of retirement, despite millions in earnings. Others do not go bankrupt but live in quiet precarity, reduced to local celebrity gigs and motivational speaking to sustain a post-football identity. The 2022 National Bureau of Economic Research paper “Bankruptcy Rates among NFL Players with Short-Lived Income” confirms this vulnerability, showing how the lack of financial literacy, support systems, and institutional guidance leads to dissipation rather than accumulation.

Meanwhile, wealth in America is driven by ownership: of businesses, real estate, stocks, and institutions. The NFL offers none of these to the vast majority of its Black athletes. Ownership, it must be said, remains the exclusive domain of white billionaires. As of 2025, there are zero majority African American owners of NFL franchises. While the NBA has made token strides—see Michael Jordan’s brief tenure as majority owner of the Charlotte Hornets—the NFL remains rigid in its old-world capital structure.

The Plantation Paradigm: Extraction, Not Empowerment

It is hard to avoid the uncomfortable metaphor that the NFL structurally resembles a modern-day plantation. African American bodies fuel the labor force, endure the risks, suffer the injuries, and entertain the masses. White ownership, white commissioners, and white-centered media conglomerates reap the institutional profits. The league generates $18 billion in annual revenue. The average team is valued at $5 billion. And yet, the athletes, even at the apex of their earning power, remain labor, not capital.

This is not a critique of sports per se. Athletics can inspire and galvanize. But the mythologizing of football as a viable strategy for racial uplift is akin to mistaking a single rainstorm for an irrigation system. The commodification of Black excellence in a space so structurally white in ownership and control cannot plausibly be the foundation for true economic emancipation.

This is made all the more clear by examining the fates of even the most successful. Players like Vince Young, who signed a $26 million contract and ended up broke, or Warren Sapp, who earned $82 million only to file for bankruptcy, are cautionary tales. Exceptions like LeBron James, who has parlayed his brand into equity ownerships and venture capital, are held up as archetypes. But these are aberrations, not templates. And they are not NFL stories.

The Opportunity Cost of Myth-Making

Perhaps the greatest harm of the “NFL creates millionaires” myth is opportunity cost. It distorts the allocation of attention, aspiration, and investment within the African American community. While youth in other demographics are taught to pursue STEM, financial literacy, or entrepreneurship, too many African American boys are sold a lottery ticket disguised as a profession. A 2021 study by the Journal of Black Studies found that African American adolescent males are 40 times more likely to aspire to a professional sports career than to become an engineer or entrepreneur.

This has ramifications far beyond the individual. It weakens pipelines to industries that are scalable, recession-resistant, and foundational to intergenerational wealth. No serious community-wide wealth can be built on the shoulders of 53-man rosters. Nor can economic independence arise from dependency on one of the most exploitative and physically damaging professions in modern labor.

There are also societal consequences. The overrepresentation of African Americans in professional sports distorts public perception. It fosters the narrative that “Black people are doing fine” because a few are seen in Super Bowl commercials or luxury car ads. It becomes a justification for denying systemic reform, funding cutbacks to HBCUs, or underinvestment in majority-Black schools. “Why do they need help?” ask the indifferent. “They have the NFL.”

Institutional Power vs Individual Stardom

In the game of wealth, institutions win. The NFL is an institution—one whose structure benefits its owners and media affiliates. The real wealth in sports lies not in being a player but in being an owner, a broadcaster, a media rights holder, or a licensed merchandiser. It lies in being Robert Kraft, not the running back who suffers a concussion under his ownership.

African American wealth building must shift its focus toward institutions that compound, aggregate, and replicate power. HBCUs, Black-owned banks, cooperative land trusts, investment syndicates, media companies, and technology accelerators are more viable pathways to collective advancement than any draft pick. Consider that a single Black-owned private equity fund managing $500 million will produce more Black millionaires than five decades of NFL careers.

In fact, historical analogues suggest that professional exclusion led to the construction of powerful Black institutions. During segregation, African Americans built hospitals, universities, bus lines, and newspapers. These were incubators of both economic and cultural power. In today’s integrationist fantasy, too many of these have been sacrificed in favor of proximity to elite white institutions—like the NFL—that will never relinquish true control.

The Global Lens: Transnational Wealth Thinking

Moreover, the fixation on domestic sports ignores the global economic realignment. The world’s fastest-growing wealth markets are in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Forward-thinking African Americans should be exporting services, partnering with Pan-African institutions, and investing in sovereign wealth opportunities. Yet, the “NFL as savior” narrative keeps too many tethered to a narrow, provincial idea of success.

The NFL does not build factories. It does not fund innovation. It does not seed capital. It does not provide passive income. It does not own land, develop cities, or engage in infrastructure. It sells tickets. It sells ads. It breaks bodies. It builds billion-dollar stadiums on taxpayer subsidies and pays its workers less than hedge fund interns.

Real wealth is built through scale and succession. The Black farmer who owns 1,000 acres and passes it down is more transformative than the Pro Bowler whose children inherit post-career medical bills and reality show royalties.

Toward a New Narrative: Wealth Without Injury

African American communities need new wealth myths—ones grounded in fact, finance, and future orientation. The idea that the NFL is a pinnacle of Black achievement should be retired. In its place must come narratives about investment clubs, fintech startups, regenerative agriculture, urban development, and cooperative real estate ventures.

Educational institutions and cultural gatekeepers have a responsibility here. Public school counselors, pastors, and media platforms should deglamorize the sports-to-riches narrative and illuminate more durable paths. Foundations and philanthropies should invest not in football camps, but in coding bootcamps, maker spaces, and entrepreneurship labs.

Policy must evolve, too. Tax incentives should reward community ownership and capital retention. States should support Black-owned banks the way they support stadium construction. Reparations conversations should be about equity stakes, not honorary jerseys.

The NFL is not evil. It is, however, a business. And like all businesses, it is designed to maximize returns for its investors—not to solve racial inequality. The sooner we disabuse ourselves of the myth that it is a wealth escalator, the sooner we can begin the real work of building wealth—wealth that endures beyond the roar of the crowd, the flicker of the lights, or the brevity of a three-season career.

Trading Helmets for Holdings

In conclusion, the NFL is a distraction, not a development strategy. It is a parade, not a pipeline. It is a pageant of athletic excellence exploited for institutional enrichment. And it is a cultural sedative—one that soothes legitimate anger over systemic inequality with the spectacle of a few lucky gladiators.

The real revolution will not be televised on Monday Night Football. It will be written in balance sheets, ownership ledgers, and multi-generational trusts. African Americans must trade the helmet for holdings, the franchise tag for franchise ownership, and the myth of athletic salvation for the measured, compound reality of institutional power.

That is not as thrilling as a fourth-quarter comeback. But it is the only way to win the long game.

Leave a comment

Posted in Moneyball, Uncategorized

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