I’ve always been a poet. My dad went to Lincoln University with Gil-Scott Heron, so I came out of the womb listening to Gil-Scott Heron. – Malcolm Jamal-Warner
Dear Malcolm,
I will never forget where I was when the alert came on my phone. I was sitting in the woods for work. We were having a retreat of sorts in the Santa Fe National Forest for the morning. The cellphone service was spotty at best and most of the time my service said SOS. But every now and then I would get one bar and notifications would come pouring in. Around late morning early noon an alert from the Associated Press came in that you had passed and my entire insides collapsed. I had to find every way I could to hold it together. The disbelief helped. That cannot be right, but of course it coming from the Associated Press made it almost impossible for it to be an error. Yet, I hoped it was. My mind raced to find composure. I certainly could not shout out what I just saw on my phone. It would not make sense to anyone around me. While I am sure there are some around my age that work with me I cannot readily think of who. Even moreso, I am the only African American in my organization. It would not make sense to anyone to break down in tears at that moment. To have to explain why you are crying over a celebrity, but in a space of African Americans we know you were never that even if you were that.
It is complicated at times to understand cousins and play siblings AKA “Brother/Sister from another Mother” to those outside of our community. These connections are deep and I do mean DEEP. There are cousins who I have not spoken to in years who could call me right now and I would get on the first plane smoking to go defend them in whatever capacity they needed. They just need say the word. You became that to so many of us. A cousin and/or brother from another mother. You were an eclectic soul and that meant the world to me. You explored the world and your curiousities without feeling bound. Something I so deeply value in my own life. To explore your interests without worry of what anyone would think and say. Many wish they could live life without those restrictions and you did it effortlessly. You never “Sold Out” or went “Hollywood” on us. You were always willing to speak up and speak about the African American community in a manner that felt real and felt true. I appreciated that despite your own admitted struggles of feeling like enough you overflowed the cups of so many African American boys and girls who grew up with you.
Since you left us I kept thinking about how to describe you to the world as I saw you. You were a regular Brotha who was EXCEPTIONAL. That is all I keep thinking as I grapple with the tears of knowing another Brotha being gone far too soon. I took for granted that we would see you in our older years. That you would continue to impart your wisdom of how you saw the world and just the shining example of being an African American man, son, brother, husband, father, and all the complex layers that come with the lives we live.
There is no need to discuss your accomplishments. We all know them. We all lived them with you. I told a friend today you were someone who I wished I could meet one day and share ideas for our community and knew you would understand. They would be ideas you would love and embrace and support. For me, there are so few that I believe I could have those conversations with in the world and deeply saddens me that now there is one less person in this world I feel I can realte to and who would understand me. It took a lot to hold it together the rest of that day. Until I get home and sit with the stages of grief that it feels like the entirety of African America is trying to find the words for day after day right now. I think about your daughter and wife. How you really were the regular guy just enjoying a family vacation. The regular guy who loved being a father and put her flower in your fitted cap as you left us your final message. It still feels like one of the worst dreams I have ever had. For a community that needs good Brothas and often feels like we have too few this is a blow that I am uncertain we will ever an answer for anytime soon – if ever. I could go on, but there is no need. All I can do, all any of us can do from today forward is think of you, reminisce of you, and try each day to carry just a little of the light you showed to the world in our own way.
“Real estate power does not wait on political peace—it plans around it.” — HBCU Money
In commercial real estate, calm markets are often a prerequisite for aggressive growth. When volatility creeps in—especially from policy uncertainty—wise investors do not panic, but they do reposition. As rumors swirl that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell may be removed from office before the end of his term, the CRE market is already baking in disruption. For HBCU alumni who invest in real estate, this moment demands attention, strategy, and foresight.
Although Powell’s official term runs through May 2026, and he can technically serve until 2028, market insiders are moving as if his exit could happen sooner—possibly under a second Trump administration. On July 17, GlobeSt.com reported that commercial real estate markets are increasingly factoring in political risk, with deal structures, loan pricing, and capital flows tightening ahead of any actual policy change.
For HBCU alumni who have spent years assembling rental portfolios, developing mixed-use properties, or backing Opportunity Zone projects near campuses, this isn’t abstract economic theory. This is cash flow, cap rates, and leverage dynamics in real time.
The Federal Reserve controls interest rates, liquidity, and lending standards—the lifeblood of commercial real estate. But the Chair also shapes expectations. Even the perception of instability at the Fed causes lenders to pull back and investors to reprice assets.
Jerome Powell has been seen as a steady hand, even when unpopular. His cautious rate policy—especially amid post-pandemic inflation—kept CRE markets from overheating or crashing. But if he’s ousted or disempowered, markets may expect more aggressive rate cuts under political pressure, a weakening dollar complicating international investment and supply chain costs, and a loss of institutional independence introducing a political lens into every Fed decision.
For HBCU alumni real estate investors, it means more volatile borrowing costs, reduced predictability in returns, and a need to re-evaluate how aggressively to pursue expansion or refinance.
Lenders are tightening up—and they are doing so before Powell is removed. That should concern anyone whose real estate model is sensitive to capital cost.
Bridge and construction loans are becoming harder to secure without pristine credit and higher equity injections. Cash-out refinances—especially for small portfolios—are being capped or delayed altogether. Development deals in low-income communities (where many HBCU graduates invest as a mission) are being scrutinized harder or shelved entirely.
As one investment banker told GlobeSt, “We’re seeing deals priced as if Powell’s out in six months, and we’re living in a very different rate environment.” It’s not a prediction—it’s a hedge. And HBCU alumni need to do the same.
If you’re invested in—or considering entering—any of the following CRE asset classes, Powell’s fate may shape your returns:
CRE Sector
Risk From Fed Instability
Multifamily
Rising rates hurt acquisitions and refinancing; rent growth may not keep up with cost of capital
Retail
Already under pressure from e-commerce; volatile rates shrink tenant pool and landlord leverage
Hospitality
Heavily exposed to economic cycles; refinancing becomes challenging if Fed turmoil hits
Industrial/Logistics
Generally stable, but price compression expected if Fed credibility drops
Development Projects
Most vulnerable—cost of capital, input inflation, and credit availability all in flux
HBCU alumni often favor multifamily and mixed-use in urban corridors. That makes preparation even more critical.
Let’s be clear: instability in the Fed disproportionately hurts Black real estate investors.
Less institutional capital backing Black developers means higher reliance on bank debt. Lower net worth and liquidity reserves can make it harder to endure tightened credit cycles. Projects in historically Black neighborhoods—often underinvested already—face greater scrutiny from conservative lenders during uncertain times. And Black investors are more likely to reinvest locally, meaning pullbacks hit community wealth and revitalization efforts harder.
If you’re financing student housing near Howard, renovating a historic property near Southern, or redeveloping land near Fort Valley State, you may suddenly find banks “reassessing” your application—not because of your deal, but because of Washington.
HBCU alumni have a legacy of building through adversity. This moment demands no less. Key investor moves right now include:
Renegotiate your debt terms while rates are still predictable. If your loans mature in 2026 or 2027, the window to lock in current rates or secure extensions is closing. Powell’s tenure—and potential replacement—will shape forward rate curves. Beat the volatility while you still can.
Shift to fixed-rate debt. Adjustable-rate debt was cheap two years ago. Now it’s a ticking time bomb. Consider refinancing into fixed-rate debt, even at a slight premium, to gain stability and prevent future cash flow disruptions.
Expand your lender relationships. Do not depend on one or two institutions. Build ties with Black-owned banks, CDFIs, and credit unions aligned with HBCU values. These institutions may have more mission-aligned flexibility if traditional banks tighten up.
Build a liquidity cushion. Discipline now prevents desperation later. Liquidity is the real hedge during economic uncertainty—especially if tenants default, contractors raise costs, or refinance windows close.
Delay discretionary projects. This is the time to tighten pro formas, not push for maximum leverage. If a deal still pencils at 9% debt, proceed. If it only works at 6%, wait.
Pool capital. Use alumni associations and real estate clubs to form investment syndicates. One investor may get denied a $5M deal. Five alumni together might get approved for $25M. Leverage unity, scale, and relationships.
Crisis also presents acquisition opportunities. There will be distressed sellers needing to offload assets quickly, developers unable to complete projects, and landlords who can’t refinance expiring loans. HBCU alumni, especially those with capital or credit, should keep an eye out. Joint ventures among alumni can create scale and deploy capital when others retreat. Use this time to buy smart, not fast.
Beyond Powell himself, it’s the Fed’s credibility that gives investors confidence to commit capital to 10–30 year projects. If a new Chair appears beholden to political pressure, markets may price in new risks to long-term bonds, accelerate inflation fears, and depress asset values. That would slow not just your next project—but the next generation’s.
That is why HBCU alumni must take this seriously, not just as investors—but as stewards of intergenerational wealth.
HBCU institutions also have a role to play. They can create alumni investment syndicates that provide deal flow and capital. They can offer discounted land or property near campus to alumni developers. They can develop relationships with mission-driven lenders and introduce alumni projects for financing. And they can host economic briefings and real estate strategy sessions to keep their alumni sharp and agile in rapidly changing markets.
Colleges like Tuskegee, Texas Southern, and FAMU have alumni who are reshaping skylines. These institutions must recognize this as an extension of their impact—and protect it.
The Federal Reserve Chair is not a figurehead. Powell’s potential removal would represent a seismic shift in economic planning—especially for real estate. For HBCU alumni, many of whom have built their portfolios in the shadows of systemic exclusion, the message is clear: this is not a time to panic—but it is time to prepare.
Build alliances, lock in rates, stockpile liquidity, and be ready. The future of our neighborhoods, our campuses, and our financial independence will be shaped by how we respond to this moment.
And if the rest of the market goes quiet, remember: Black investors have never needed perfect conditions to build power—we’ve just needed a plan and each other.
“Health is not valued till sickness comes.” – Thomas Fuller
For most in the United States during the first 18 years of their life once they enter the K-12 system they are required to participate in physical activity for one hour a day. Once they leave the K-12 system, unless they voluntarily are an active person we see a precipitous decline in physical activity overall with each passing year and decade declining further and further. As life events happen like marriage, children, and others that decline is likely to become even more dramatic. This for many, while sitting at an office or working from home 8-10 hours a day.
How physical education in the workplace is becoming a strategic investment in health, morale, and the bottom line
In the early 20th century, a worker might find a gymnasium nestled inside a factory, next to the cafeteria or above the warehouse floor. Industrial giants like Ford Motor Company and Pullman believed that a healthy worker was a productive one. Then came the white-collar revolution, and fitness was outsourced to the private sphere. But as chronic disease rates climb and employer healthcare costs spiral upward, companies are again looking inward—this time to yoga mats and standing desks.
The reintroduction of physical education (PE) into the workplace is no mere wellness fad. In the age of burnout, sedentary jobs, and hypercompetitive talent wars, physical activity has evolved into a strategic imperative. Companies that once prized proximity to Ivy League MBAs now seek proximity to hiking trails, bike lanes, and boutique gyms. Remote work may have altered where we work, but it has not changed the fact that workers, like machines, require routine maintenance.
A new breed of employer, from start-ups to Fortune 500 firms, is making a case for fitness as a lever of cost control, employee retention, and morale. The evidence, increasingly, supports them.
The Quiet Crisis of Sedentarism
The modern office is a crucible of inactivity. According to the World Health Organization, physical inactivity is the fourth leading risk factor for global mortality, responsible for 3.2 million deaths annually. American workers, particularly in tech, finance, and administrative roles, sit for an average of 10 to 13 hours per day. A study by the CDC found that sedentary office jobs contribute significantly to obesity, cardiovascular disease, and Type 2 diabetes—all conditions with direct cost implications for employers.
Workplace-related healthcare costs in the United States are a quiet crisis. The U.S. spends more per employee on healthcare than any other developed country, with employer-sponsored health insurance accounting for over $1.3 trillion in annual expenditures. For companies that self-insure, the connection between employee health and the bottom line is brutally direct.
The economic rationale for workplace fitness programs thus begins with the simple arithmetic of prevention. A study by Harvard researchers found that medical costs fall by about $3.27 for every dollar spent on wellness programs. Moreover, companies report reduced absenteeism, improved productivity, and fewer disability claims.
From Gym Perk to Health Strategy
The workplace fitness revolution has quietly evolved beyond on-site gyms. While Silicon Valley once wooed engineers with climbing walls and nap pods, the new emphasis is on integrated wellness architecture—spaces and schedules designed to facilitate movement throughout the day.
“Fitness is no longer a perk; it’s a strategy,” says Dr. Lena Gupta, a workplace health consultant based in Washington, D.C. “We’ve moved from subsidized gym memberships to embedded physical literacy—movement as part of the workday, not something squeezed in before or after.”
The emerging gold standard includes standing meetings, ‘active breaks’, group workouts during lunch hours, and even walking audits of corporate campuses. Some firms are experimenting with “movement nudges”—AI-generated reminders to stretch, walk, or perform micro-exercises during long Zoom calls.
But the centerpiece of this strategy is structured physical education, inspired by traditional PE curriculums in schools. Think guided classes in mobility, resistance training, posture correction, cardiovascular endurance, and mindfulness, all tailored for adult bodies and office constraints.
A Return on Health Investment
For all the enthusiasm around morale and culture, it is the actuarial tables that are tipping decisions. Chronic diseases account for 90% of America’s $4.1 trillion in annual healthcare spending. Of these, many are lifestyle-driven—meaning, preventable.
Companies are discovering that workplace fitness programs can dramatically reduce the incidence and severity of these diseases. Johnson & Johnson, which has run one of the longest-standing corporate wellness programs in the U.S., reports annual savings of $225 per employee through reduced medical claims. Bank of America, which introduced PE-like programs as part of its health initiative, saw employee turnover drop by 25% over five years.
Critically, such programs also reduce presenteeism—the hidden cost of employees who are physically present but unwell or disengaged. According to a study by the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, productivity losses due to health-related issues are estimated to cost U.S. employers $225.8 billion annually.
The Morale Multiplier
Physical education at work does more than extend lifespans or reduce claims. It builds camaraderie. Shared movement is one of the few rituals that transcends hierarchy, industry, and age. A lunchtime yoga session or post-work cycling group allows interns to sweat beside executives. This flattens organizations and strengthens culture.
More importantly, it signals care. In a Gallup poll, employees who feel their employer is genuinely concerned for their well-being are 69% less likely to search for a new job. At a time when burnout is driving the Great Resignation and Gen Z expects holistic benefits, the presence of a PE program can differentiate employers in a fiercely competitive labor market.
“You don’t need bean bags and kombucha,” says Rashida Bellamy, head of HR at a mid-sized fintech firm in Chicago. “You need to show that you’re investing in health—physical, emotional, communal.”
Retention through Rejuvenation
It is no accident that companies with robust wellness cultures also tend to have high retention rates. A 2023 report by Deloitte found that 77% of employees are more likely to stay at a company that prioritizes their well-being. For millennials and Gen Z—who now comprise over half the workforce—flexibility, purpose, and health are inseparable.
PE programs also play a quiet role in institutional knowledge retention. When employees feel better physically, they are less likely to take long-term medical leave, retire early due to preventable illnesses, or disengage from developmental opportunities.
Consider this: a mid-level manager with 12 years of firm-specific knowledge leaves due to burnout-induced hypertension. Replacing her may cost upwards of 150% of her salary when factoring in lost productivity, recruitment fees, and onboarding time. If a $500-a-year investment in fitness classes could retain her, the cost-benefit ratio is impossible to ignore.
Barriers and Blind Spots
Despite their promise, workplace fitness programs face real challenges. The first is space. Not all companies have campuses or in-house gyms. Urban firms in high-rent buildings may find it difficult to dedicate square footage to wellness.
The second is participation. Programs often fail due to lack of buy-in. Employees feel guilty leaving their desk. Managers send mixed signals. Without top-down modeling, fitness initiatives wither.
Third, there’s the inclusion gap. Not all bodies, ages, or cultural backgrounds approach physical activity the same way. A CrossFit session at 6am may thrill a 29-year-old developer but alienate a 52-year-old accountant managing arthritis.
Smart companies address these challenges by being deliberate. Fitness should be normalized—not exceptionalized. It should be inclusive, adaptive, and aligned with performance, not just aesthetics. Firms like Salesforce, for instance, offer tiered wellness programs, from chair yoga and desk stretching to high-intensity bootcamps, each guided by professionals trained in adaptive movement.
From Fitness to Policy
The rise of workplace physical education is not purely a private trend. Public policy is beginning to take note. In the U.K., companies receive tax breaks for providing certain wellness benefits. In Germany, the government subsidizes up to €500 per employee for approved health-promoting workplace activities. In the U.S., wellness programs can be tied to health savings accounts (HSAs), with the potential for future tax incentives.
More provocatively, some economists are arguing that workplace fitness could become part of national health strategy. If chronic disease is a macroeconomic risk, then workplace movement is not just a human resources issue—it’s a matter of national competitiveness.
The Future of Corporate Kinesiology
The most forward-thinking firms now view workplace movement as part of corporate infrastructure. Just as Wi-Fi, lighting, and HVAC systems became essential, so too will movement pathways, fitness pods, and employee biometric monitoring. In the age of wearable tech, companies may eventually optimize workflows around energy cycles and physical rhythms.
Already, some start-ups are experimenting with “kinesiology-as-a-service”—subscription-based platforms that provide customized movement plans, daily challenges, and performance tracking for hybrid teams. Others are integrating wellness directly into task management tools, prompting users to stretch between emails or walk during calls.
In this vision, physical education is not a nostalgic return to high school gym. It is a reinvention of the workday itself—a dynamic, embodied, and biologically attuned experience.
Moving the Bottom Line
For all the metrics, charts, and ROI calculations, the case for physical education at work comes down to a simple truth: humans were not designed to sit 10 hours a day staring into blue light. The modern workplace must evolve—not only to optimize performance, but to safeguard the humanity of its workers.
In doing so, companies may rediscover something long forgotten in the drive for efficiency: that a healthier, happier employee is not a cost, but a compounding asset.
Benefits of Physical Education in the Workplace
Enhanced Employee Health and Wellness Regular physical activity reduces the risk of chronic illnesses like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. This leads to fewer medical claims, contributing to significant long-term savings on healthcare costs for employers.
Lower Long-Term Healthcare Costs By promoting physical fitness, companies can reduce the frequency and severity of employee health issues. This not only lowers healthcare premiums but also decreases out-of-pocket expenses for employees, boosting their overall satisfaction and loyalty.
Improved Productivity and Focus Exercise boosts cognitive function, energy levels, and alertness. Employees who engage in regular physical activity are better equipped to tackle their work with greater focus and efficiency.
Higher Employee Morale Group fitness activities, wellness challenges, and company-sponsored health initiatives foster a sense of community and belonging. Employees who feel supported in their well-being are generally more positive, motivated, and satisfied with their workplace.
Reduced Stress and Burnout Physical activity is a proven method for managing stress. Offering workplace fitness programs helps employees cope better with demanding workloads, resulting in improved mental health and a more resilient workforce.
Improved Employee Retention Wellness programs, including physical education, demonstrate a company’s commitment to its employees’ well-being. Such initiatives are attractive to job seekers and help retain current staff by reinforcing a supportive and health-conscious work culture.
Stronger Workplace Culture Fitness initiatives encourage teamwork and camaraderie, fostering stronger interpersonal relationships among employees. This contributes to a more cohesive and collaborative workplace environment.
How to Introduce Physical Education in the Workplace
On-site Fitness Classes Offer yoga, pilates, Zumba, or aerobics classes during lunch breaks or after hours.
Dedicated Fitness Spaces Provide gyms or multipurpose rooms equipped with fitness gear. Even small spaces with basic equipment can make a big difference.
Wellness Challenges Organize step competitions, fitness challenges, or team-based activities. Provide rewards such as gift cards or extra vacation days to incentivize participation.
Active Breaks Encourage employees to take short, active breaks during the day to stretch, walk, or do light exercises.
Collaboration with Professionals Partner with trainers, therapists, or health coaches to offer tailored programs and guidance.
Flexible Work Hours Allow employees to integrate physical activity into their schedules without feeling penalized for stepping away from their desks.
Outdoor Activities and Events Plan outings like fun runs, team hikes, or charity sports events that combine fitness with social engagement.
Fitness Subsidies Provide financial support for gym memberships or home fitness equipment to remove cost barriers for employees.
Challenges and Solutions
Limited Resources
Solution: Start small with walking groups or virtual fitness programs, and grow the initiative as resources allow.
Low Participation Rates
Solution: Offer diverse programs that cater to various fitness levels and interests. Create an inclusive environment and incentivize participation with rewards.
Initial Costs
Solution: Frame the program as an investment that will yield long-term savings on healthcare and employee turnover. Over time, cost reductions in other areas can offset the upfront expenses.
The Long-Term Impact
Investing in workplace physical education yields far-reaching benefits. Companies can reduce healthcare costs by minimizing the risk of chronic illnesses, while higher employee morale contributes to a more motivated and engaged workforce. Employees who feel valued and supported are more likely to stay with the organization, reducing turnover and recruitment costs. By fostering a culture of health and well-being, companies not only enhance individual employee lives but also ensure the organization thrives.
“In the absence of state support, those with capital must decide: will they merely enjoy the benefits of a stable society—or invest in the institutions that make it possible?” — Arielle Morgan, Senior Fellow, Institute for Civic Infrastructure
The withdrawal of $1.1 billion in federal funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is not merely a fiscal adjustment—it is a structural dislocation. It marks the effective end of a decades-long social contract in which the U.S. government ensured the existence of a nationwide, non-commercial broadcasting ecosystem intended to serve the public interest. For PBS, NPR, and their hundreds of affiliate stations across the country, the clock is now ticking toward an uncertain future.
But if the U.S. government is no longer willing to fund public broadcasting, another powerful bloc may have to: the ultra-wealthy and the corporations that have long built brand equity on the back of public trust and public platforms. In other words, the very elite who most benefit from stability, reliable information, and a functioning democracy may now be expected to underwrite one of its most foundational institutions.
The price tag? $27.5 billion.
A Simple, Uncomfortable Equation
To replace $1.1 billion in federal funding with investment returns, the equation is straightforward. Using a conservative draw rate of 4%—commonly applied by universities and foundations to ensure long-term preservation of capital—an endowment of $27.5 billion would be required to generate that annual payout.
This is not a charity exercise. It is a capital strategy.
To reach this target, two basic donor models stand out:
275 individuals contributing $100 million each
2,750 individuals contributing $10 million each
These figures are within striking distance of the top echelon of American wealth. As of 2024, the United States had over 800 billionaires and more than 23,000 centi-millionaires (individuals with $100 million or more in net worth). Put bluntly, it would require only 1.2% of America’s centi-millionaires to secure the future of public broadcasting in perpetuity.
What’s at Stake for the Elite
There is a growing recognition—even among the ultra-wealthy—that civil society must be preserved, even if governments no longer have the capacity or political will to do so. The fragility of liberal democracy, demonstrated by political polarization, misinformation, and institutional distrust, poses long-term risks not only to the electorate but also to markets, capital flows, and reputational value.
Public broadcasting—independent, educational, and widely trusted—has long been a stabilizing force in this ecosystem. Its reach into rural towns, inner cities, and suburban households makes it a conduit for shared narratives and factual baselines. It is not exaggeration to say that NPR and PBS, through All Things Considered, NewsHour, Frontline, and Sesame Street, have helped preserve a measure of social cohesion in a deeply divided country.
For the ultra-wealthy, losing this infrastructure would not simply be a cultural loss. It would be a strategic risk.
Hence the question: if the state won’t fund it, why won’t they?
The Precedent Is There
Large-scale philanthropic endowments are nothing new. In the past two decades:
Michael Bloomberg has donated over $3.3 billion to his alma mater Johns Hopkins University.
MacKenzie Scott has given away over $16 billion since 2019.
The Gates Foundation operates with a $67 billion endowment and deploys billions annually to global health and education initiatives.
Ken Griffin recently contributed $300 million to Harvard University.
Yet public broadcasting—a sector with tangible civic impact—has rarely drawn the same scale of contribution. This may be due in part to its status as a federal recipient, which gave the impression of permanence and stability. That illusion has now evaporated.
What remains is the opportunity to build a truly private-public media model—one whose operating capital is drawn from private wealth but whose editorial independence is legally insulated from donor interference.
A Corporate Response to a Public Crisis
Philanthropists are not the only entities positioned to act. Corporations, particularly those with vested interests in news, content, or public trust, have a strategic imperative to help capitalise such an endowment. Among the most obvious candidates:
Technology firms such as Apple, Amazon, Google, and Meta, which dominate digital content distribution and advertising, but face persistent scrutiny over misinformation and platform responsibility.
Media conglomerates such as Comcast, Disney, and Paramount, whose own news divisions benefit from a well-informed public and a credible informational ecosystem.
Financial firms such as JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and BlackRock, for whom geopolitical and social stability underpin long-term asset growth.
Indeed, a structured vehicle—such as a Public Broadcasting Endowment Corporation (PBEC)—could allow corporations to make long-term contributions that are tax-deductible, reputationally beneficial, and materially impactful. Their names need not appear on programming or editorial decisions; the return on investment would be brand credibility and a stronger civic framework.
Moreover, such a fund could become a flagship ESG initiative—aligning corporate interests with measurable civic outcomes.
Structuring the Capital Stack
A diversified funding approach would enhance resilience and buy-in. A potential framework:
Donor Type
Target Contribution
Total
275 HNWIs @ $100M
$27.5 billion
100%
OR
1,000 HNWIs @ $10M
$10 billion
36%
100 Corporates @ $100M
$10 billion
36%
Broad-based campaign
$7.5 billion
28%
Total
$27.5 billion
100%
A broad-based campaign could also complement elite contributions. Imagine a national “Democracy Dividend” campaign: one million Americans pledging $1,000 annually for ten years. That alone would yield $10 billion—a testament to public commitment alongside private wealth.
From Pledge Drives to Private Equity
Public broadcasting has traditionally raised funds through grassroots donations and corporate underwriting. But this model is no longer viable on its own. What is required is a transition from pledge drives to portfolio management.
The envisioned endowment would be governed by a professional board and investment committee, structured similarly to major university endowments. Earnings would be deployed annually to:
Sustain local PBS and NPR affiliates, especially in underserved areas
Support original investigative journalism and children’s educational content
Fund innovation in digital and streaming public media
Preserve and digitize historic programming archives
Maintain emergency broadcast systems and rural information networks
Crucially, editorial integrity would be enshrined by legal charter—preventing donors or sponsors from influencing content.
Philanthropy as Infrastructure
Too often, philanthropy is reactive—applied to symptoms rather than systems. An endowment, by contrast, is structural. It is a recognition that certain institutions are too important to be left at the mercy of annual budgets, market swings, or election cycles.
The erosion of federal support for public broadcasting is a warning signal. The infrastructure of civic life—fact-based journalism, educational programming, and communal storytelling—requires capital insulation, not just ideological support.
This is not about saving Big Bird or Masterpiece Theatre. It is about fortifying one of the last remaining platforms where Americans—regardless of political identity or geography—encounter one another not as algorithms or enemies, but as citizens.
Will the Wealthy Step Up?
The government has walked away. The funding gap is real. But the wealth to close it is readily available.
If even a fraction of the world’s wealthiest individuals and corporations stepped forward with capital rather than condolences, the future of public broadcasting could shift from a question of survival to a model of strategic, sovereign independence.
In the end, it is not about whether we can raise $27.5 billion. It is whether the people most capable of doing so will finally recognise that their wealth is not a wall—but a bridge to a more stable, informed, and democratic society.
🎯 Key Facts
Total CPB federal subsidy rescinded:$1.1 billion
This funding supports both PBS and NPR, primarily by supporting local member stations.
Goal: Replace $1.1 billion per year in perpetuity through investment returns from an endowment.
📊 Endowment Calculation Assumptions
To generate $1.1 billion annually, the endowment must safely yield that amount without depleting principal.
Scenario
Investment Return
Annual Draw Rate
Required Endowment
Conservative
5% return
4% draw
$27.5 billion
Moderate
6% return
4% draw
$27.5 billion
Ambitious
8% return
5% draw
$22 billion
Rule of Thumb:
Endowment needed = Annual Budget ÷ Draw Rate
So for $1.1 billion with a 4% draw: $1,100,000,000 ÷ 0.04 = $27.5 billion
🏛️ Comparisons to Similar Institutions
Institution
Endowment
Notes
Harvard University
$50.7B (2024)
Largest university endowment
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
$67B (2024)
Largest U.S. philanthropic fund
NPR
N/A
Does not have a large central endowment
Howard University
$1B (2024)
Largest HBCU endowment
🔄 Alternatives or Supplements
If not a full endowment, partial coverage models could include:
A $5B–$10B endowment paired with annual fundraising
Public-private consortiums involving universities, foundations, and philanthropists
💡 Final Recommendation
To fully replace the $1.1B annual CPB subsidy, a minimum $27.5 billion endowment would be needed under conservative investment assumptions. This figure ensures long-term sustainability without needing annual appropriations or political reauthorization.
You can’t have political power unless you have economic power. You can’t have economic power unless you own something. — Dr. Claud Anderson
In the quiet towns of Wilberforce, Ohio, two institutions — Central State University and Wilberforce University — have stood for generations as monuments of African American intellectual resilience and historical fortitude. Founded in eras when the very idea of African American higher education was radical, both institutions have graduated engineers, entrepreneurs, theologians, and teachers who seeded entire Black communities with knowledge and leadership. Yet, in 2025, they remain financially fragile — their endowments barely grazing the thresholds needed for robust institutional health.
Meanwhile, Governor Mike DeWine just approved $600 million in state funds — sourced from Ohio’s $4.8 billion in unclaimed assets — to support the Cleveland Browns’ new domed stadium in Brook Park, an NFL franchise owned by billionaires. The Haslam Sports Group, the Browns’ owners, is contributing an additional $1.2 billion to the project, and Cuyahoga County is expected to round out the financing with another $600 million. The stadium, estimated at $2.4 billion, is framed as a jobs and tourism engine — the typical rationale for professional sports subsidies. But beneath the surface lies a deeply racialized economic pattern: Black bodies as capital, Black institutions as afterthoughts.
Let us state this plainly — $200 million in endowment funding (split between Central State and Wilberforce University) would account for just 4.17% of the $4.8 billion in unclaimed assets Ohio plans to repurpose. Yet it would transform the future of two of America’s most storied HBCUs, whose total combined endowments likely do not reach even $20 million today.
The $200 Million That Could Rebuild Black Educational Futures
An endowment is the economic engine of institutional independence. It enables faculty hiring, scholarships, research labs, infrastructure repair, and the kind of multi-generational planning that insulates a university from the unpredictable winds of politics and philanthropy.
Central State University, Ohio’s only public HBCU, receives state support — but suffers from persistent underfunding compared to Ohio’s predominantly white public institutions.
Wilberforce University, a private HBCU affiliated with the African Methodist Episcopal Church and the first college owned and operated by African Americans, has been in survival mode for decades, enduring accreditation threats and enrollment declines — largely due to chronic financial starvation.
A $100 million endowment per institution, conservatively managed with a 5% annual drawdown, would provide each HBCU with $5 million per year in perpetuity. That’s enough to:
Offer full-ride scholarships to dozens, if not hundreds, of students.
Endow faculty chairs in business, STEM, and African American studies.
Fund campus maintenance and restoration for aging facilities.
Launch centers focused on African American policy, agriculture, or entrepreneurship.
Reduce reliance on tuition and thus open doors to more low-income students.
In short, it would empower these institutions to build, not just survive.
Meanwhile, the Billionaire NFL Franchise Gets a Taxpayer Bailout
The Cleveland Browns’ new stadium is not just an economic development plan — it’s a public-funded monument to private wealth. Let us remember: The NFL is a tax-exempt cartel whose franchises are operated by billionaires and whose profits — through broadcast rights, luxury boxes, and merchandise — soar year after year.
The public rationale for subsidizing stadiums is that they will generate jobs, tourism, and long-term economic vitality. Yet, study after study from economists across ideological spectrums consistently shows that these promises are overstated or entirely unfounded. Most NFL stadiums create a short-term construction boom, followed by long-term debt and opportunity costs.
But perhaps more galling is this: the economic lifeblood of the NFL is disproportionately Black men. While roughly 13% of the U.S. population is Black, nearly 60% of NFL players are African American. These players, often trained in underfunded high schools, many from single-parent households and first-generation college trajectories, generate billions — yet the communities and institutions from which they originate remain underdeveloped and neglected.
It is a grotesque inversion: Black talent builds white wealth, while Black institutions remain marginal.
Black Athletes, White Wealth, and the Poverty of Institutional Ownership
The NFL, and by extension the Cleveland Browns, benefits from a system where the labor is Black, but the ownership is almost entirely white. Out of 32 NFL teams, only one have non-white principal owners: Shahid Khan, a Pakistani-American who owns the Jacksonville Jaguars.
Meanwhile,no HBCU alum holds equity in any major professional sports franchise, despite HBCUs being core contributors to the American athletic pipeline that fuels leagues like the NFL and NBA.
Despite producing generations of elite athletes, coaches, and sports executives, no collective of HBCU alumni has leveraged its wealth or influence to acquire equity in a major professional sports franchise, leaving the economic rewards of Black athletic labor concentrated elsewhere.
Imagine a model where Ohio had used even half of the $600 million to create a Black Education & Sports Endowment, partially controlled by a consortium of HBCUs, Black public schools, and community development organizations. The returns from that endowment could support thousands of students, community health centers, literacy programs, and STEM labs for generations.
Instead, we see yet another example of extractive economics, where African American physical, cultural, and intellectual capital is used to build empires for others, while Black institutions — including HBCUs — remain dependent on begging, philanthropy, and hope.
Why Unclaimed Funds Should Serve The Forgotten
Ohio’s decision to redirect $1.7 billion in unclaimed funds to cover state expenditures is fiscally creative — but morally questionable. These are not “free” funds. They are monies left in dormant bank accounts, uncashed checks, unclaimed insurance payouts — many of which disproportionately belong to low-income individuals who lacked the resources or knowledge to retrieve them.
Data suggests that Black Americans are disproportionately represented among unclaimed property holders — in part due to higher levels of economic displacement, address changes, and financial exclusion. Redirecting these funds to subsidize an NFL franchise, instead of redressing the institutional and educational gaps that created that unclaimed status, is a betrayal.
Ohio could have:
Created a permanent Black Higher Education Trust, benefiting Central State and Wilberforce.
Used 5% of unclaimed funds — about $240 million — to fund Black-led public health initiatives in underserved areas.
Directed even 1% of those funds — roughly $48 million — to finance land acquisition and economic development for Black-owned businesses.
Instead, we’ve chosen to rescue billionaires from spending their own money.
HBCU Endowments Are An Economic Empowerment Issue — And the Gateway to Political Power
Endowments are more than just financial assets. They are strategic tools of power — insulating institutions from political winds, enabling bold experimentation, and giving their stakeholders the leverage to influence policy, not just plead for it.
For African America, the chronic undercapitalization of HBCUs is not merely a funding gap — it is an economic power vacuum that undercuts the entire community’s ability to advocate effectively for systemic redress.
While Williams College and Bowdoin College — small liberal arts schools with fewer than 2,500 students — boast endowments of $3.7 billion and $2.58 billion respectively, many HBCUs operate with endowments under $50 million, and some under $10 million. This discrepancy is not accidental. It is the compounding result of centuries of exclusion from generational wealth accumulation, philanthropic networks, and public investment.
Until African American institutions — especially HBCUs — are armed with independent and sizable capital, they will remain vulnerable to the whims of legislatures, accreditation bodies, and philanthropic trends. Worse, they will lack the institutional might to challenge inequity in courtrooms, boardrooms, and ballot boxes.
The fight for reparations, education equity, health justice, and fair housing requires leverage — and leverage requires capital. Political power without economic power is temporary and transactional. But economic power institutionalized through endowments can translate into permanent seats at the table, not just access to it.
Endowing HBCUs, then, is not a charitable gesture. It is a foundational strategy for African American sovereignty and redress. Without institutions that are capable of outlasting election cycles and media trends, African America will continue fighting uphill with borrowed tools and limited voice.
Ohio had a chance to fund that future. Instead, it chose to subsidize a stadium — once again reminding us: until we build our own institutions, we will always be asked to cheer from the stands while others profit from our play.merican educational infrastructure for the next 100 years. Instead, he invested in a stadium with a 20-year shelf life.
Choose the Future You Fund
In 2029, a new domed stadium will open in Brook Park. It will gleam with LED lights and imported steel. It will be filled with cheering fans on Sundays and concerts on Saturdays. The Browns may even win a playoff game or two.
But just 50 miles away, on the campuses of Wilberforce and Central State, students will still walk cracked sidewalks. Professors will still work on contracts. Students will still withdraw for financial reasons.
Unless Ohio chooses to invest in the institutions that nurture and protect Black futures, those futures will continue to be harvested but never planted.
This is not just about football. It is about the future of Black Ohio. And whether our institutions will ever be allowed to rise beyond survival — and into sovereignty.
HBCU Money 