Category Archives: Lifestyle

For Paying College Athletes? Yes, Then Cut The High School Athletes A Check Too

By William A. Foster, IV

“When hypocrisy is a character trait, it also affects one’s thinking, because it consists in the negation of all the aspects of reality that one finds disagreeable, irrational or repugnant.” – Octavio Paz

My freshman year of high school was nerve wracking and exciting. As far as academics were concerned I did fairly well that first year, but the football field was where I was most excited. I had a good year and heard rumblings that the varsity head coach had me in consideration for varsity my coming sophomore year. I fit his system of defense. I was small, but I had good football IQ and did not mind taking or giving a hit. All of that changed though when he got fired at the end of my freshman year for using an ineligible player during the year and having to forfeit almost all of the school’s games. In his place came a coach I was familiar with because the year before me and father went to see Jack Yates High School, the high school I grew up watching my father coach play in the state playoffs take on Temple High School and the offensive coordinator would then become our school’s head coach. I was excited, but nervous. They ran a different brand of football. We had been a predominantly running team and our talent fit that style. Instead, he ran an early version of the spread that was not very popular throughout. We were built for ground and pound and he wanted an air attack. I was switched positions from defense to offense and scored the first touchdown of the new regime, and from there it was all down hill.

By my junior year, I was deep into my academics and this was becoming a problem unbeknownst to me for my coaches. It would come to a head when I asked for more time before practice to get tutoring and one of my coaches said to me, “Son, you need to choose between them books and this team.” I would never forget that moment. I was shocked. I had parents who were college professors. Choose? Is he serious? Not only was he, but it would escalate. After our game that week, which I did not have a particularly good one and little did I know it was really the end of my football career. As we sat and watched game film the next week a play that I missed came up. The coach stopped the film, flipped on the lights, and looked dead at me and said to the team, “We have some players who are not committed to this team.” Being the hot tempered teenager I was at the time, I calmly put my head down as if I was rubbing it with one finger. I will let you guess which one. From that point on, I was in the dog house and at the end of the season was told to turn my equipment in. My father would talk me back onto the team for my senior year, but quite honestly it was hell and part of me wish I had never gone through it. I loved football growing up, playing in the street, watching my father coach, going to the state championship, and thought one day that would be me. Little did I understand, the “business” I was walking into.

Texas high school football is different. There is no doubt about that and Friday NIght Lights probably left more than a few things out that would traumatize people. I for one recall getting pulled over one night after drinking and in no condition to be behind a wheel, but once the police found out I played for the local high school team they were more interested in telling me about them playing for the police football team. Ultimately, they let me go with a minor in possession and let me drive myself home. On my high school football team we had some of everything going on from the drug dealers, drug users, massive illiteracy, and more than a few things I have blocked from my memory for good reason.

You see most of them were not just playing football for the love of the game. They were playing because they saw it as their only way out. Many of my teammates came from impoverished backgrounds, with few educational opportunities and even fewer economic ones. For them, football was not just a pastime it was a potential career. And yet, despite the immense pressure placed on high school athletes to perform, there is virtually no financial compensation for their efforts. If we are going to argue that college athletes deserve to be paid for their labor, then high school athletes who also generate millions of dollars in revenue deserve the same consideration.

The financial power of high school football, especially in states like Texas, is undeniable. According to a 2019 report by the Texas Education Agency, the state spent over $500 million on high school football stadiums between 2008 and 2018. Some stadiums rival those of small colleges in both size and amenities, with the most expensive high school stadium in the country, Legacy Stadium in Katy, Texas costing $72 million to build. These stadiums are packed on Friday nights, bringing in millions of dollars in ticket sales, sponsorships, and media rights.

Despite this, the players on the field, the ones drawing the crowds see none of this revenue. While their coaches earn six-figure salaries (the highest-paid high school coach in Texas makes $158,000 per year), the athletes themselves play for free, risking injury and sacrificing their time and education in the hopes of making it to the next level.

The physical toll on high school athletes is just as severe as it is for college players. According to a study by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS), there are approximately 1.1 million high school football players in the U.S., and every year, an estimated 300,000 sports-related concussions occur among high school athletes. The risk of serious, long-term injury is real, yet these players receive no compensation for putting their bodies on the line.

Consider this: the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has been pressured to provide financial assistance for athletes suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a brain disease caused by repeated head trauma. If college athletes deserve compensation for these risks, shouldn’t high school athletes who are just as vulnerable also receive financial protection?

Some may argue that high school sports do not generate as much money as college athletics. While it is true that high schools do not have billion-dollar TV contracts like the NCAA, local revenue generation is still significant. The Texas University Interscholastic League (UIL) collects millions of dollars in revenue from the state football championships, including ticket sales, sponsorships, and broadcasting rights. ESPN, Fox Sports, and other major networks regularly feature high school games, and Nike and Adidas have begun sponsoring elite high school programs.

In 2021, Alabama’s Hoover High School reported earning over $2 million annually from its football program. Southlake Carroll High School in Texas made nearly $1.5 million in a single season from ticket sales, donations, and sponsorships. The bottom line? High school football is not just a game it is a business. And in any other business, the labor force gets paid.

The NCAA’s decision to allow Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals for college athletes has already set a precedent. High school athletes in several states including Texas, California, and Florida are now allowed to profit from their NIL rights. Players like Jaden Rashada, a high school quarterback in California, reportedly signed a $9.5 million NIL deal before ever playing a college snap. This demonstrates that high school athletes do, in fact, have market value.

But what about the majority of players who will never receive NIL deals? They are still sacrificing their time, bodies, and educational opportunities for the sport. If coaches, administrators, and organizations profit from their efforts, then why should the athletes themselves be excluded? A stipend, medical coverage, or even a trust fund for players who complete their high school careers would be a step in the right direction.

Critics argue that paying high school athletes could open the door to corruption, recruiting scandals, and financial mismanagement. However, these problems already exist in amateur sports. Boosters have been caught illegally paying recruits for decades, and schools have been sanctioned for bending the rules to secure top talent. If anything, formalizing a compensation structure would bring transparency to a system that already operates in the shadows.

Others worry about the financial burden on school districts. However, if schools can afford multi-million-dollar stadiums and six-figure coaching salaries, then they can find ways to fairly compensate athletes. The money is already there but the question is who gets to benefit from it.

The reality is that high school football is more than just a game. It is an industry, one that generates millions of dollars while placing tremendous physical and mental demands on young athletes. If we accept the argument that college athletes should be paid because of the revenue they generate, then we must apply that same logic to high school athletes.

High school athletes do more than just entertain. They fill stadiums, drive merchandise sales, and fuel an economy that benefits everyone except them. It is time to acknowledge their worth and compensate them accordingly. Whether through stipends, medical coverage, or NIL opportunities, high school athletes deserve to see a share of the wealth they help create. Otherwise, we continue to exploit their labor under the guise of “amateurism.” The system is broken, and until high school athletes get a piece of the pie, it will remain unfairly rigged against them.

 Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT.

(We Were Wrong) Beyond the $30 Billion: Why African American Boys Require a Longer, Costlier Educational Climb

In a recent analysis published by HBCU Money, we argued that a $30 billion endowment would be sufficient to close the associate degree attainment gap between African American men and their women counterparts. The logic was elegant in its simplicity: take 50,000 African American men annually who are missing from associate degree completion, provide each with $30,000 per year—covering tuition, housing, and basic support—and the gender gap in Black post-secondary education begins to narrow. We were wrong – very wrong.

It is a compelling proposal, steeped in demographic logic and economic urgency. But elegant does not mean complete. If higher education is a pipeline, then this approach merely caps a leaky valve at the end of the conduit. The real structural deficiency lies upstream—far upstream. The associate degree gap is not born at age 18. It is the cumulative effect of educational disparities that take root as early as age 3 and metastasize through adolescence. The sobering truth is this: by the time African American boys reach college age, a significant portion have already been statistically written out of the academic script.

To reverse that fate, to genuinely provide parity in academic opportunity and outcomes for African American boys, would require not a $30 billion endowment, but a new institutional architecture rooted in Afrocentric values, collective capital, and global Black solidarity.

The Persistent Early Gap

The academic challenges of African American boys begin not in college, but in kindergarten. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), by the fourth grade, over 85% of African American boys are reading below grade level—an early indicator that portends long-term academic disadvantage. This early literacy gap is not anomalous. It is systemic and persistent.

Studies show that reading proficiency by the third grade is a leading predictor of high school graduation, incarceration, and lifetime earnings. Yet African American boys are often consigned to underfunded schools, taught by less experienced teachers, and disproportionately subjected to school disciplinary measures that remove them from instructional time. Suspension rates, for instance, are three times higher for Black boys than their White peers, often for subjective offenses like “willful defiance” or “disrespect.” The gap becomes a chasm.

In math, the picture is no better. By eighth grade, only 14% of African American boys score at or above the proficient level in mathematics, compared to over 40% of White boys. These figures reflect a system that neither recognizes nor remediates inequity early enough. If education is the great equalizer, it has yet to live up to its billing for Black boys.

The Endowment Illusion

The $30 billion associate degree endowment, calculated on the basis of a 5% annual return, yields $1.5 billion in perpetuity—enough to support 50,000 students at $30,000 per annum. Yet, that only addresses the symptom of educational inequality, not the cause. True solutions must draw from a cultural legacy of African American educational institution-building that spans from the Freedmen’s Bureau to HBCUs to freedom schools. In order to even arrive at the starting line of post-secondary education, a comprehensive educational investment must begin in early childhood and follow through until high school graduation.

Let us imagine a program that supports 50,000 African American boys per year from age 5 to age 18—a full 13-year K-12 education track. This support would include high-quality preschool, experienced teachers with cultural competency, supplemental tutoring, mental health services, STEM and arts enrichment, parental engagement programs, and college readiness support. At a conservative cost of $10,000 per student per year (a figure aligned with successful charter networks like KIPP and Success Academies), the total cost would be $130,000 per student across their K-12 experience. Multiply this by 50,000 students per cohort and you arrive at an annual outlay of $6.5 billion.

To sustain such an initiative in perpetuity with a 5% endowment return, the required endowment would be $130 billion. And this is merely to bring these students up to average outcomes.

From Parity to Excellence

Parity, however, is not the goal. African American boys do not merely need to catch up; they must be positioned to compete at the highest levels of academic achievement. That means cultivating talent pipelines that reach into gifted education, elite science competitions, top-tier university admissions, and entrepreneurial ventures.

This level of academic excellence requires not just catching up, but leapfrogging. It means summer academies at HBCUs, AP and IB course preparation, access to dual-enrollment programs, mentorship by professionals, scholarships for out-of-school opportunities, and extended learning days. According to data from the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, programs that support high-achieving students from disadvantaged backgrounds can cost between $5,000 and $10,000 annually per student, in addition to standard educational expenditures. But to leave no doubt, we must go above and beyond even the $10,000 annually.

If we allocate an additional $15,000 annually to the $10,000 base cost to foster excellence, we reach $25,000 per student per year, or $325,000 over 13 years. For 50,000 students, the annual cost rises to $16.25 billion. The endowment needed to sustain this model? $325 billion.

It is a daunting number. But it is one that puts the $30 billion associate-degree-only strategy into perspective. In reality, that $30 billion merely addresses the final 10% of the educational gap. The remaining 90% remains unfunded and unresolved.

The True Cost of a Kindergarten Cohort

To grasp the full scale of closing the education gap for African American boys, it is useful to broaden the lens beyond a cohort of 50,000 to include all Black boys entering kindergarten in a given year. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021 American Community Survey, there are approximately 254,000 African American boys enrolled in kindergarten in the United States.

If the aim is to ensure each of these boys receives high-quality, enriched education support—costing $10,000 per year from kindergarten through 12th grade—this results in a total cost of $130,000 per child across their 13-year pre-college journey.

Multiply this by 254,000 boys and the total cohort investment requirement becomes $33.02 billion.

To maintain this annually and support each new kindergarten cohort indefinitely, the endowment would need to provide $33.02 billion every year. With a conservative 5% return, this would require a $660.4 billion endowment—just to bring African American boys to average educational outcomes.

However, as previously argued, parity is not enough. To make these boys genuinely competitive with the highest-performing demographic groups—often White or Asian boys from affluent, well-resourced districts—an additional $15,000 per year per child would be required. This would cover gifted education, STEM academies, mentoring, tutoring, and college preparation resources. The total annual investment per student rises to $25,000, or $325,000 over 13 years.

At this enhanced level of investment, the cost for the entire cohort would total $82.6 billion per year.

To generate this perpetually from a 5% return, the requisite endowment would balloon to $1.7 trillion.

This almost multi-trillion-dollar figure is not hyperbole. It is the sober arithmetic of justice. The $30 billion endowment proposed for closing the associate degree gap appears generous—until it is juxtaposed with the lifelong investment actually required to ensure those young men ever reach a college classroom. In truth, the educational equity gap for African American boys is not a $30 billion problem; it is a $660 billion to $1.7 trillion problem.

A Demographic Catastrophe in Waiting

The implications of not investing early and deeply are severe. According to the U.S. Department of Education, African American boys represent just 8% of public school students but 33% of those suspended at least once. They are also overrepresented in special education and underrepresented in gifted and talented programs.

Incarceration rates mirror educational failure. Black men are six times more likely to be incarcerated than White men. Nearly 70% of all inmates are high school dropouts. The school-to-prison pipeline is not metaphor—it is infrastructure, one built on policy choices and funding gaps.

Moreover, the economic costs compound. A 2018 study by the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce found that closing racial education gaps would add trillions to U.S. GDP. Investing in African American boys’ education is not merely a moral imperative—it is an economic one.

Philanthropy Alone Will Not Suffice

One might reasonably ask: where will $325 billion—or $1.7 trillion—come from? That sum exceeds the current combined endowments of all HBCUs by a factor of over 50. Harvard University’s endowment—at roughly $50 billion—is still only a fraction of the required amount. Relying on philanthropy alone, especially given the racialized disparities in donor patterns, would be naïve.

Instead, what is needed is a hybrid model of public-private partnerships, federal-state philanthropic compacts, and structured endowment legislation. Just as the GI Bill transformed post-war White middle-class fortunes, so too must a generational investment in Black boys be treated as a national economic priority.

Such a policy could resemble the Social Security Trust Fund model, whereby a long-term capital pool is created and invested with fiduciary prudence, returning 5% annually. Contributions could be sourced through structured community bond offerings underwritten by Black-owned financial institutions, cooperative tithing networks across African American faith communities, and revenue-sharing agreements with diaspora enterprises committed to educational reparative justice, reparations frameworks, and HBCU-aligned investment vehicles.

An African American Male Youth Education Trust (AAMYET) could be codified through legislation and act as an autonomous entity with board representation from HBCUs, Black investment firms, educational experts, and community leaders. This would ensure the governance of the fund is as transformative as its purpose.

Institutional Infrastructure: The HBCU Opportunity

Any serious endowment strategy must inevitably route through the nation’s HBCUs, which have long served as both sanctuaries and springboards for African American excellence. With their mission-focused approach, deep community trust, and track record in producing African American professionals, HBCUs are ideally positioned to be the institutional stewards of such an initiative.

Their role could include operating early college academies, developing teacher pipelines specifically for Black boys, hosting summer STEM institutes, and coordinating alumni mentoring networks. A dedicated center—perhaps named The Center for the Advancement of African American Boys (CA3B)—could operate as a national think tank, research institute, and program incubator.

This center could live at an HBCU with strong education and public policy faculties such as Howard University or North Carolina A&T, reinforcing HBCUs as hubs of cultural knowledge, economic development, and intergenerational stewardship. It would be tasked with longitudinal data analysis, best-practices dissemination, and inter-HBCU coordination. Its mission: ensure the pipeline remains robust from age 5 through 25 and beyond.

Lessons from Elsewhere

There are precedents. The Harlem Children’s Zone, under Geoffrey Canada, demonstrated the compounding power of investing in children from birth to college. The program includes parenting classes, quality pre-K, rigorous charter schooling, after-school enrichment, and college counseling. It costs upward of $20,000 per child annually but has produced impressive graduation and college enrollment rates.

Similarly, the Kalamazoo Promise—a city-funded college scholarship program—has led to higher college completion rates, especially among students of color. Yet even these models often lack national scale and sustainable endowment backing.

The Politics of Boys

There is also an uncomfortable political dimension to funding African American boys. Much of the education philanthropy and policy discourse has centered—rightly—on Black girls and women, who experience their own unique forms of marginalization. But there is hesitancy, even fatigue, in specifically addressing the needs of boys, particularly in the wake of contentious debates around masculinity and privilege.

Yet the data speak clearly. Black boys are being academically outpaced not only by their White peers, but increasingly by their own sisters. The gender gap within the African American community is growing, with 66% of Black bachelor’s degrees awarded to women. To ignore this is to risk building a one-legged stool of advancement.

The conversation must therefore be reframed—not as a zero-sum battle of genders, but as a holistic pursuit of parity. A strong, educated Black male population strengthens Black families, communities, and institutions. And a $325 billion endowment for that cause is not extravagance—it is strategy.

A Different Return on Investment

Understanding the Endowment Logic

It is important to clarify that the $660 billion and $1.7 trillion endowment figures presented are not annual funding requirements. Rather, they represent the size of a one-time, permanent endowment needed to sustainably support African American boys across generations.

Much like university endowments, these funds would be invested, and the Cooperative would spend only the annual interest income—estimated conservatively at 5%—without ever touching the principal. This means a $1.7 trillion endowment would yield approximately $82.6 billion annually, which could be used to support the full cohort of 254,000 African American boys from kindergarten through 12th grade every year, in perpetuity.

In this model, once the endowment is built, there is no need to raise another $1.7 trillion for future cohorts. Each new generation is supported by the returns of a community-built financial engine—ensuring long-term stability, intergenerational continuity, and independence from political volatility.

In financial terms, $325 billion might appear colossal. But African American communities have learned through generations that self-reliance and institution-building are more durable paths to empowerment than waiting on national consensus. The federal government has consistently underinvested in the success of African American children, and there is little indication that this pattern will meaningfully reverse.

Instead, African American institutions—especially HBCUs, Black-owned banks, community foundations, and faith-based networks—must chart a Pan-Africanist course rooted in collective economic action. Just as African American communities once built schools under Jim Crow and funded college scholarships through Black churches and fraternal organizations, so too must this generation forge a new education endowment through cooperative wealth strategies.

A national African American Education Endowment Cooperative could be seeded with pooled resources from HBCU alumni, Black entrepreneurs, entertainers, athletes, and Pan-African allies across the diaspora. A modest $1,000 annual contribution from one million African Americans, matched by Black institutions and philanthropic partners, would yield $1 billion annually in capital formation. With prudent investment management, even that could lay the foundation for a $30 to $50 billion fund over a generation—entirely self-directed.

Moreover, diaspora investment from African nations seeking to strengthen transatlantic ties offers another opportunity. Countries like Ghana, Nigeria, and South Africa have both strategic interests and moral incentives to support African American educational uplift. A global Black education compact, co-stewarded by HBCUs and African ministries of education, could institutionalize these alliances.

The return? A generation of African American boys empowered not by charity but by communal sovereignty. Doctors, engineers, scientists, historians, entrepreneurs, and leaders grounded in African cultural capital and global competitiveness. To fund their ascension is not merely a financial imperative—it is a declaration of belief in our own capacity to shape the future on our own terms.

No, Your (Black) Parents Are Never Giving You Your Birth Certificate

“History is not everything, but it is a starting point. History is a clock that people use to tell their political and cultural time of day.” – Dr. John H. Clarke

“I am 32 years old. I am married. I just had a baby. I called my parents for my birth certificate… these people gave me a photocopy.” — J.J. McAvoy

Cue the collective Black laughter that says, “Yeah… that tracks.”

For many African Americans—and children of Black immigrants—this scenario isn’t just relatable. It’s practically law. There exists in our households an unwritten yet universally enforced mandate: You do not own your documents. Your parents do. Whether you’re 12, 22, or 42, asking for your birth certificate is like requesting access to national security archives—at best, you’ll get a heavily redacted photocopy; at worst, a reminder that “they’re in a safe place” and no further information will be disclosed.

Yet what begins as a meme-worthy moment veiled in humor reveals something deeper—intergenerational trauma, immigration anxieties, institutional distrust, and the invisible threads of caretaking and control that define Black familial life.

Birth Certificates, Blackness, and Bureaucracy

Black people in America—and Black immigrants especially—understand the stakes of documentation in ways others simply don’t. It’s not just paper. It’s protection. It’s legitimacy. It’s survival. From the days of freedmen who needed freedom papers to prove they weren’t property, to Caribbean and African immigrants who were taught by necessity to file away every school record, immunization report, and ID in a manila envelope the size of a novel manuscript—documents are currency. And parents? They’re the vault.

HBCUs have long understood this dynamic, too. Campus move-in days often feature parents armed with accordion folders bulging with immunization forms, financial aid papers, and—yes—original birth certificates that will never see a dorm room drawer. Even at 18, as a student legally responsible for yourself, the assumption is clear: your documentation stays in the family archives unless and until it’s needed. And only your parents decide what constitutes “needed.”

The (Unspoken) Reasons Why

So why don’t our parents just hand it over?

1. Institutional Distrust:
Historically, Black people have had good reason to distrust American institutions. From stolen land deeds to denied voter registrations to medical exploitation like the Tuskegee Study, paperwork—or the lack thereof—has been used as both sword and shield. Birth certificates especially were once used to deny African Americans social services, employment, and even their very existence in the eyes of the state.

Holding onto that paper is, in some ways, holding onto power.

2. Immigration Mentality:
Immigrant parents—particularly from African, Caribbean, and Latinx backgrounds—often operate under the logic that documentation must be preserved, not just for legal reasons, but because replacement is not guaranteed. Many come from countries where losing a document meant spending days in government offices, or worse, being permanently excluded from education or employment. The habit of over-documenting is one born from necessity, not paranoia.

3. Generational Control:
Let’s be honest—sometimes, it’s a control thing. Documents are a symbol of adulthood, of autonomy. But in many Black families, adulthood is earned, not merely reached by age. Holding onto your birth certificate is just one more way to remind you that your elders are still in charge. Even if you have a spouse, a job, a mortgage, and a child of your own.

4. Sentimentalism & Safeguarding:
There’s also a layer of emotional preservation at play. For some parents, especially mothers, the birth certificate is a living memory. The hospital receipt, the baby bracelet, the inked footprints—these items are sacred. Giving them to you feels like giving away a piece of your infancy they’ve guarded like treasure.

A Cultural Running Joke… But Also a Warning

On Black Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram, stories like jjmcavoy’s are met with likes, laughs, and a flood of similar testimonies:

  • “I’m 38 and my mom just mailed me my baby teeth, but not my social security card.”
  • “My dad keeps the birth certificates in the Bible. You’ll never find them.”
  • “I asked my aunt for my birth certificate once. She said, ‘For what? You tryna run away?’”

These shared experiences are part of the Black collective memory—and they help build community through humor. But embedded in that comedy is a stark lesson: we don’t always feel safe in the system, so we create our own.

In Black America, documentation isn’t just paperwork—it’s protection. And when trust in state infrastructure is low, your parents become your bureaucratic buffer. They don’t trust “the system” to have your back, so they keep it all—just in case.

HBCUs and Documentation Culture

Within the context of HBCUs, this culture plays out in subtle but impactful ways.

Admissions Counselors at HBCUs are often more patient and understanding when a student says, “My mom has that,” in response to requests for transcripts or ID. They’ve heard it before—maybe they’ve lived it.

Financial Aid Officers are used to parents showing up to sign forms, not out of necessity, but tradition.

Registrars know that some students may not know their Social Security numbers off the top of their heads, because those numbers are still in a locked filing cabinet three states away.

This familiarity becomes a quiet advantage in navigating Black student life, especially when compared to predominantly white institutions (PWIs), where rigid adherence to individual responsibility can feel jarring.

When the System Fails, the Family Files

African American communities have long developed workarounds for systems that marginalize them. Oral histories compensate for redlined census data. Church records double as unofficial archives. Grandmothers are genealogists, tracing kinfolk across counties based on memory and letters, not legal filings.

Our parents’ refusal to give up your birth certificate is not just about withholding—it’s about preserving. Preserving your existence, your legacy, your ability to say “I am here, and I can prove it.”

Navigating the Handoff

Eventually, there comes a time when you must take ownership of your documentation. Whether it’s applying for a passport, enrolling your child in school, or—like Ms. McAvoy—giving birth to the next generation, adulthood demands paperwork. But the transition is rarely smooth.

So how do you make the leap from child to custodian?

1. Create a Formal Ask
Instead of casually requesting it, frame the conversation around responsibility. “I’m building my family file. I’d like to keep originals of all my documents for safekeeping and future planning.”

2. Offer a Digital Archive
Scan and share. Offer to digitize the family’s entire document archive as a service. You’ll likely earn enough goodwill to walk away with your originals.

3. Understand Their Fear
Recognize that their reluctance comes from love, not spite. Thank them for safeguarding you all these years—and assure them you’ll carry the baton forward.

4. Seize the Entrepreneurial Opportunity
This entire dilemma opens a major door for innovation. A Black entrepreneur could launch a culturally responsive document safekeeping and digital archiving startup designed specifically for African American families. Think of it as a cross between Dropbox, Notarize, and a legacy planning firm—infused with cultural empathy. This could include secure cloud storage, physical document lockers, and mobile apps with prompts for family milestones, estate planning, or even generational wealth transfers. Black-owned banks and credit unions are especially well-positioned to expand into this space, offering document protection services as part of their wealth-building and financial literacy programs. Imagine opening a savings account and also being offered a secure vault for your family’s vital records. In a world where trust and service matter, this is not just a business—it’s a cultural preservation mission.

Final Thought: A Legacy Worth More Than Paper

No, your Black parents are probably not going to give you your birth certificate—at least not without some emotional negotiation. And maybe, just maybe, that’s okay. Because behind their hoarding of paperwork is a story of resilience. Of protection. Of love in a world that hasn’t always treated our existence as worthy of documentation, let alone preservation.

They’ve held onto the receipts of your life because they knew someone had to.

So yes, laugh about the photocopy. Roll your eyes at the manila envelope. But when you finally get that official, embossed, gold-stamped certificate in your hands—thank them.

Because while you may just see a piece of paper, they saw proof that you mattered.

And they’ve been safeguarding that proof your whole life.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT.

A Different World, Same Old Hierarchies: Colorism, Class, and the Untold Pairings of Hillman College

“Television doesn’t just reflect our world—it reinforces its unspoken rules. And sometimes, it’s in what’s left unsaid that the truth screams loudest.”

There is perhaps no show more foundational to African American Gen X and elder millennial identity than A Different World. Premiering in 1987 as a spinoff from The Cosby Show, the sitcom quickly found its own voice and purpose, blossoming into a cultural beacon that reflected the richness and complexity of Black college life at fictional Hillman College—an HBCU modeled after Spelman, Howard, and other elite institutions.

From apartheid and HIV awareness to campus politics and colorism, the show tackled subjects few mainstream programs dared to touch. But even within its groundbreaking storytelling, some narratives were never fully explored. Perhaps most glaring among these were the unexplored romantic pairings of Ron Johnson and Whitley Gilbert, and Kimberly Reese and Dwayne Wayne. Their absence is not simply a matter of creative choice, but rather a symptom of entrenched internalized hierarchies of colorism, class, and gendered desirability—even in Black-led creative spaces.

This isn’t merely nostalgia-fueled fan fiction. It’s a cultural audit.

Ron Johnson: Miscast by Archetype, Not Background

Ronald Johnson, Jr. was not some scrappy kid from the margins. He was a light-skinned, second-generation college student from Detroit, Michigan. His father owned a car dealership, and Ron worked summers there—signaling not just work ethic, but a proximity to Black wealth and business infrastructure. In fact, by Hillman’s standards, he and Whitley Gilbert were socioeconomically parallel: both came from upper-middle-class families, both had access to private social capital, and both had expectations of upward mobility baked into their upbringing.

And yet, Ron’s portrayal consistently tilted toward buffoonery. He was the punchline. The skirt-chaser. The guy you liked but didn’t take seriously. His aesthetic—flashy suits, jewelry, and New Jack Swing flair—was coded as nouveau riche and unserious, despite being emblematic of a generation of young Black men redefining business and culture.

Meanwhile, Whitley Gilbert, with her Southern debutante air, was elevated as aspirational. She was light-skinned, soft-spoken (when she wanted to be), and came from a family steeped in respectability politics. That she would end up with Dwayne Wayne—a Brooklyn-born, dark-skinned, ambitious math major with a heart of gold—was played as a triumph of emotional growth and opposites attracting. But the coupling obscured the more natural pairing: Whitley and Ron.

Why were two light-skinned, upper-middle-class, culturally fluent characters kept apart?

The answer lies in how class and colorism intersect with gender expectations in Black storytelling. Ron’s light skin and wealth didn’t earn him narrative maturity because he was not written as emotionally serious. Whitley’s light skin and wealth did, because Black women must still fit a limited spectrum of desirability to be seen as love-worthy.

The Subtle Rejection of Intra-Class, Intra-Color Love

Pairing Whitley and Ron could have offered a natural and compelling relationship arc, exploring how two Black elite youth—one from the industrial North, one from the genteel South—navigate love, identity, and social expectations. Ron was not without emotional depth. He showed loyalty, ambition (eventually co-owning a nightclub), and a genuine desire to be taken seriously.

But Whitley’s arc was preordained. She was meant to be elevated—refined through her relationship with Dwayne Wayne, whose dark skin, nerdy brilliance, and working-class roots made him both lovable and “in need of” polish. The show allowed Dwayne to evolve from a bumbling flirt into a serious partner, but that grace wasn’t extended to Ron. His business acumen was never valorized. His family wealth never framed as legacy-building. His light skin did not shield him from being typecast.

Why? Because Black masculinity on screen is often given limited templates: the hustler, the hero, or the helpmate. Ron didn’t fit any box neatly enough. He was light-skinned without gravitas, rich without respect, and flirtatious without the redemption arc. The result? He was denied the narrative dignity of love with someone in his actual social class.

Whitley Gilbert: The Chosen Debutante

Whitley’s character arc—from elitist to empathetic—was among the show’s most powerful. Her internal classism was challenged, her superficiality peeled away, and her vulnerability finally exposed. But she was also shielded by her presentation: light-skinned, poised, and conventionally attractive within Eurocentric standards.

This made her “worthy” of the show’s grandest romance—the epic, sometimes rocky, and ultimately redemptive love story with Dwayne Wayne. Their courtship wasn’t just about two young adults figuring it out; it was a narrative about respectability and romantic transformation, a staple of Black middle-class media.

But what if Whitley had fallen for Ron? It wouldn’t have been about transformation. It would have been about familiarity—two people from the same world finding common ground. That wasn’t the story the show wanted to tell. It wanted aspirational transformation, not intra-class reflection.

That choice reveals the quiet but powerful ways in which class and colorism combine to sculpt who gets to be complex, who gets to grow, and who gets chosen.

Kimberly Reese: The Invisible Anchor

If Whitley Gilbert was the show’s belle, Kimberly Reese was its backbone. Played by Charnele Brown, Kim was dark-skinned, hyper-focused, and working multiple jobs to stay afloat in pre-med. She represented a different kind of Black excellence: gritty, grounded, and God-fearing.

Yet, for all her virtues, Kim was largely ignored romantically. She had flings and moments, but never a grand love story. Her pairing with Ron was fleeting. Her moment with Matthew, a white medical student, felt more like a plot device than an earnest exploration of interracial love. She was never positioned as a leading lady in the way Whitley was.

But why not pair Kimberly with Dwayne?

Both were academically driven, socially awkward at times, and navigating the pressures of being exceptional. Both came from working-class families. A relationship between them could have explored what it means to build a future together—struggling to balance career goals, family expectations, and a desire to uplift each other.

Instead, the show doubled down on the colorist formula: dark-skinned man, light-skinned woman. Dwayne and Kimberly were emotionally compatible, but Kim was never allowed to be seen as “soft” or romantic enough to be chosen.

She was the strong Black woman. And in television, that often means being alone.

The Economics of On-Screen Desirability

At HBCUs, where the intersection of class and colorism is often most stark, these dynamics are not fiction. They are lived experience. Generational wealth, skin tone, regional culture—all shape who gets attention, who is seen as “wife material,” and who becomes invisible. A Different World was written by people who understood those dynamics intimately, which is why their omissions are so revealing.

The coupling of Dwayne and Whitley functioned not just as a love story, but as a marketing strategy. A light-skinned woman and dark-skinned man satisfied the public’s craving for aspirational integration—of class, color, and character. Ron and Kim, both of whom would’ve represented more internally coherent couplings with their respective counterparts, were left out not because they lacked chemistry, but because they challenged the marketable image of what Black love was supposed to look like on television.

The Reboot Hillman Needs

What if A Different World were rebooted with new eyes?

  • Ron and Whitley: two heirs to Black economic mobility navigating authenticity, ambition, and vulnerability.
  • Dwayne and Kim: two strivers, from humble beginnings, falling in love through academic rigor and emotional resilience.

Today’s Hillman could tell these stories. And it must. Because representation is not just about being on screen—it’s about how we are portrayed. Who is seen as lovable. Who gets growth. Who gets the happy ending.

If the goal is not just to show Black faces but to dismantle Black hierarchies, then these “what-ifs” are not trivial. They are necessary.

Love in the Shadow of Respectability

A Different World did for HBCUs what few shows have ever done for any institution. It made them aspirational. It brought them into the living rooms of millions. But it also brought with it the quiet assumptions of who gets to be desired, respected, and redeemed.

Ron Johnson was more than a clown. He was a young Black man with legacy wealth, light skin, and untapped emotional depth. Kimberly Reese was more than a study machine. She was the embodiment of strength and softness—if only the writers had allowed it.

The couples we never saw reveal as much about us as the ones we did. And in the silence of those omissions lies the challenge for future creators: will they continue to tell safe stories, or will they tell the stories that make us all feel seen?

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT.

From Showtime to Shutout: What the Lakers Sale Says About Black Ownership in Sports

“Wealth is created in ownership. If you don’t own, you’re always at someone else’s mercy.” – Robert F. Smith

June 2025’s record-shattering $10 billion sale of the Los Angeles Lakers to Guggenheim Partners chief Mark Walter confirmed what many already suspected: franchise values are rocketing into the financial stratosphere. Yet the deal also spotlighted a harsher truth. After nearly a half-century of hard-court brilliance and gridiron dominance, African Americans are still largely locked out of true ownership power. This article examines why—tracing the structural barriers that keep Black wealth on the playing field instead of in the owner’s suite, and outlining the institutional reforms needed to change the score.

From the Field to the Boardroom: Still a One-Way Street

African Americans make up roughly 70–75 percent of NBA players and about 60–65 percent of NFL rosters. In the WNBA, the share is even higher. Yet across 154 combined franchises in the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL:

  • Zero teams are majority-owned by African Americans in the NFL, MLB, or NHL.
  • Only one historic example (Robert L. Johnson’s Charlotte Bobcats/Hornets) and one recent example (Michael Jordan, 2010–2023) exist in the NBA.

Three forces keep that door shut:

  1. Intergenerational-Wealth Deficit – Most Black athletes are first-generation millionaires, while many current owners are third- or fourth-generation billionaires.
  2. Limited Collective Capital Vehicles – Black-controlled banks and investment firms are few and undercapitalized relative to mainstream counterparts.
  3. Opaque League Gatekeeping – Franchise valuations above $4 billion and insider-driven vetting processes deter new entrants without deep networks.

The Robert L. Johnson Breakthrough—And the Mirage of Progress

On December 18, 2002, BET founder Robert L. Johnson secured the NBA’s Charlotte expansion franchise for $300 million, becoming the first African American majority owner of a modern U.S. pro team. The milestone was historic, but it proved fragile. Lacking a pipeline of Black institutional capital—no HBCU endowment co-investors, no African American businesses or firms operating as minority owners—Johnson operated alone. By 2010 he sold controlling interest to Michael Jordan, whose own 2023 exit returned the league to its status quo: African American talent on the court, minimal African American equity off it. Symbolic breakthroughs absent institutional follow-through do not create sustainable inclusion.

The LeBron Conundrum: Cultural Power Without Governance Leverage

Billion-dollar athlete-entrepreneur LeBron James epitomizes the new Black business titan—owning film studios, apparel lines, and minority stakes in Fenway Sports Group. Yet even LeBron, arguably the most financially astute athlete of his generation, cannot write a solo check for a majority share of an NBA or NFL team. Average franchise prices now exceed $4 billion in the NBA and $6.5 billion in the NFL.

LeBron’s estimated net worth, while staggering at $1.2 billion, pales in comparison to the financial firepower wielded by new Lakers controlling owner Mark Walter, who is worth an estimated $5.5 to $6 billion personally—and controls access to far greater institutional capital. As CEO of Guggenheim Partners, Walter leads a global financial firm with over $345 billion in assets under management (AUM), according to the firm’s own reporting.

That institutional reach gives Walter an unparalleled advantage: the ability to deploy capital at scale, with leverage, and over long time horizons. His 2012 acquisition of the Los Angeles Dodgers for $2 billion was just the beginning. Now, his control over the Lakers reflects how ownership is secured not by personal wealth alone—but by deep institutional infrastructure.

The gap is not merely one of celebrity or business acumen—it is one of capital architecture. LeBron’s wealth is largely rooted in earned income and venture-backed enterprises, while Walter’s access to Guggenheim’s multi-hundred-billion-dollar asset base enables him to execute major acquisitions swiftly and without co-investors.

Until African Americans gain collective control of similar institutional investment vehicles—through private equity firms, pension-managed funds, or bank-led syndicates—Black excellence in sports will continue to be celebrated on the court, but denied authority in the boardroom.

Building a Syndicate That Can Actually Write a Check

If African Americans are to move from the highlight reel to the cap table, the capital stack must shift from aspirational community pooling to institutional syndication—driven by organizations already designed to deploy large checks and assume complex risk. Pragmatism, not idealism, is the order of the day.

Capital SourceAsset BaseRealistic Deployment Rationale
Black-Owned Banks (18 nationwide)$6.4 billion in assetsFDIC-insured balance sheets, access to low-cost deposits—including the growing wave of Fortune 500 “diversity deposits”—can underwrite debt facilities or pledge Tier 1 capital to a buyout fund.
Black Investment & Private-Equity Firms (e.g., Ariel, Vista, Fairview, RLJ)$70–90 billion AUM (collectively)Deep GP/LP relationships with public pensions and foundations; experienced at assembling $100–$500 million special-purpose vehicles (SPVs) around a single asset.
HBCU Endowments (102 institutions)≈ $5 billion totalAsk for 0.5–1 percent commitments per school—$25–50 million system-wide—providing research access, internships, and brand equity rather than acting as anchors.
Athlete Sidecar FundVariableStructure a managed feeder that lets players co-invest passively (no tithes or self-directing). Capital is professionally deployed—removing behavioral risk.
Corporate & Public PensionsTrillionsMany plans reserve 5–10 percent for “emerging managers.” A Black-led sports-ownership PE fund fits this mandate.

1. Banks as Capital Bridges
Black-owned banks can’t buy teams outright, but they can warehouse capital and extend critical financial infrastructure. By leveraging corporate “diversity deposits” and issuing credit facilities, they can become crucial intermediaries that keep transaction fees and governance influence in Black hands.

2. Investment Firms as Syndicate Architects
Black-led PE firms already understand the terrain. By structuring a flagship $400–$600 million sports-focused fund, they can attract institutional LPs and scale their acquisitions from minority WNBA stakes to majority control in emerging or undervalued leagues.

3. HBCUs as Modest Strategic LPs
HBCUs should not be burdened with anchoring such funds. Instead, they can contribute symbolic capital, student talent pipelines, and academic value. For example, a 1 percent commitment from Howard or Spelman tied to naming rights or internship guarantees would align mission with opportunity.

4. Athletes & African American Families as Co-Investors, Not Donors
A feeder fund with low buy-ins and lock-up periods allows them to invest with institutional support. This protects them from high-risk self-management and ensures alignment with professional fund managers.

5. Execution Timeline

  • 2026–2028: Assemble GP team, secure $150 million from banks and PE partners, with layered support from HBCUs and athlete and African American businesses co-investors.
  • 2028–2032: Close a $500 million Fund I and acquire equity in two WNBA teams and a controlling NWSL stake bundled with real estate.
  • 2032–2037: Launch Fund II at $1 billion, targeting a controlling interest in an MLS or NBA franchise.
  • 2040: Own a major-league asset with governance representation from African American banks, investment firms, and HBCU partners—creating long-term cash flows and intergenerational wealth held by Black institutions.

Media Rights and the Power Gap

Owning teams is only half the battle. The NBA’s next domestic media deal could top $75 billion, and yet no Black-owned network will participate directly in those revenues. Streaming platforms, RSNs, data-analytics firms, and betting partnerships—all profit off Black athletic performance. Until African American institutions enter the media-rights supply chain, the revenue fountainhead remains out of reach.

Cultural Iconography, Financial Dispossession

Hip-hop tracks blare in arenas, sneaker culture drives merchandise sales, and social-media highlights fuel league engagement—but licensing profits flow to predominantly white ownership groups. Careers end; ownership dynasties do not. The average NFL tenure is 3.3 years; Robert Kraft has owned the Patriots for 31 years. Equity compounds; salaries evaporate.

From the Boardroom, Not the Ball Court: Where Owners Really Make Their Money

A glaring misconception is that sports fortunes begin with sports talent. In practice, franchise control stems from non-sports industries:

OwnerTeam(s)Primary Wealth Source
Steve BallmerLA ClippersMicrosoft stock
Stan KroenkeRams, Nuggets, ArsenalReal estate / Walmart marital fortune
Robert KraftPatriotsPaper & packaging
Mark CubanMavericksBroadcast.com tech exit
Joe TsaiNets, LibertyAlibaba IPO
Josh HarrisCommanders, 76ersApollo Global Mgmt. (private equity)

None earned money playing pro sports; all deployed patient, appreciating, often tax-advantaged capital to buy franchises. In contrast, athlete income is earned, highly taxed, and front-loaded. A $200 million NBA contract, after taxes, agents, and lifestyle inflation, seldom equals the liquidity needed for a $6 billion NFL acquisition.

African Americans dominate labor yet rely on labor income to pursue ownership—an uphill climb when the ownership class uses diversified portfolios, inheritance, and leverage. The gap is not just financial; it’s structural.

A Blueprint Forward

African American banks, PE firms, and institutional investors must build syndicates that mirror the strategies of the existing ownership class—while rooting the returns inside Black institutions.

  • 2026–2030 – Launch a $500 million Fund I with contributions from banks, investment firms, HBCUs, and athletes.
  • 2030–2035 – Acquire multiple minority and controlling stakes in undervalued leagues.
  • 2035–2045 – Expand into media-rights, merchandising, and facilities ownership.
  • 2045–2050 – Control a major-league asset and use it to empower future generations via scholarships, pensions, research grants, and equity reinvestment.

Owning the Game—or Owning What Funds the Game?

The persistent call for African American ownership in major league sports raises a deeper question: Should African Americans even prioritize owning sports franchises, when we remain almost entirely absent from the very industries—technology, finance, energy, real estate—that generate the wealth used to buy these teams in the first place?

Mark Walter didn’t become the Lakers’ majority owner through basketball. He did it through Guggenheim Partners—a financial firm managing $345 billion in assets. Steve Ballmer bought the Clippers not from years of courtside ambition, but from cashing out Microsoft stock. Owners dominate sports not because of athletic brilliance, but because they own pipelines, patents, trading desks, and land—the assets that make sports ownership a byproduct, not a goal.

For African Americans, the concern isn’t just that they don’t own the team. It’s that they don’t own the banks that financed the team, the media companies that broadcast the games, or the tech platforms monetizing fan engagement. It is a misallocation of focus to aim for the outcome—sports ownership—without first entering the industries that produce ownership-level capital.

There’s no harm in wanting a seat in the owner’s box. But the more strategic question is: why not aim to own the entire ecosystem? The scoreboard. The stadium real estate. The ticketing software. The AI that tracks player stats. The advertising networks.

Athletes made sports cool. Billionaires made sports profitable. African America must ask whether it wants symbolic entry into an elite club—or whether it wants to control the industries that fund the club.

The real power isn’t just in the arena. It’s in what surrounds it. And until African Americans own those arenas—of finance, data, infrastructure, and media—they will always be positioned to play the game, but not define it.

Final Whistle

The scoreboard of ownership still reads 0-154 against African Americans in most major leagues. Talent fills highlight reels; equity fills trust funds. The route to flipping that score will not be paved by bigger contracts or more MVP trophies. It will be built through African American banks mobilizing capital, investment firms leading syndicates, and HBCU institutions gaining board seats—not just honorary jerseys.

Athletes have inspired generations. Now, institutions must finance generations.

The next dynasty to celebrate should not just hoist a trophy—it should hold a deed.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT.