Tag Archives: Black institutional power

Building Dynasties: What It Will Take for African American Families to Rise to Power

Posted on July 28, 2026 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

“control, control of resources, control of self, control of nation, requires preparation — Garveyism was about total preparation.” – Dr. John Henrik Clarke, writing on Marcus Garvey’s philosophy of Black institutional power

In 1952, a mason in Americus, Georgia bought eleven acres with cash he’d saved from three decades of laying brick. He built a house on it, a smokehouse behind it, and a wraparound porch where he told his grandchildren that the land was the family’s now, forever. He died in 1979. By 1994, the eleven acres had been split six ways, sold in fragments to cover a funeral, a divorce, and two bad business loans. Today a subdivision sits where the smokehouse stood. The mason did everything right by the logic he was given: work, save, buy, own. What he lacked was not virtue. It was infrastructure. Nobody had ever taught him that land without governance is just land waiting to be divided.

That story is not an outlier. It is the median outcome. And it is the central argument of this piece: African America’s problem was never a shortage of individual achievement. It is a near-total absence of the legal, financial, and cultural machinery that converts one generation’s success into the next generation’s platform. Until that machinery is built, deliberately and aggressively, every dollar earned by this community will keep dying with the person who earned it.

Start with the scoreboard, because the scoreboard is brutal. The Federal Reserve’s 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances put median Black household net worth at $44,900, against $285,000 for the median White household — a gap of more than six to one, and one that widened in absolute dollar terms even as Black wealth grew faster in percentage terms during the pandemic recovery. Growth rate is a vanity metric when the base is this small. A 60 percent increase on $28,000 is still poverty with better arithmetic. The gap is not closing. It is compounding, in the same way interest compounds, except in the wrong direction.

Now layer on top of that the single largest wealth movement in American history, already underway. Cerulli Associates projects that $84 trillion will pass from the Baby Boomer and Silent Generations to heirs and charities through 2045, the bulk of it concentrated among households that were already high-net-worth. This is not a rising tide. It is an inheritance economy, and inheritance economies reward whoever already has family structures in place to receive, consolidate, and reinvest capital across generations. Families without that structure will watch the transfer happen around them, not to them. The transfer is not going to wait for African America to get its paperwork in order.

This is where the sentimental version of “generational wealth” needs to be retired. Passing down money is not the same as passing down power, and Black America has been sold the former as if it were the latter. Power, as any serious student of the Waltons, the Rockefellers, or the Kochs understands, does not come from an inheritance check. It comes from the entity that controls the check. The Walton family does not merely benefit from Walmart’s success; through Walton Enterprises LLC and the Walton Family Holdings Trust, they collectively control roughly 45 percent of the company’s outstanding shares, a concentrated bloc large enough to determine board composition, executive succession, and long-term strategy three generations after Sam Walton’s death. That is not inheritance. That is institutionalized command, engineered through trust structures, family governance, and a refusal to let ownership fragment. Jay-Z’s net worth impresses a magazine cover. It does nothing for the fortieth Black family down the street, because it is not organized as an institution — it is one man’s balance sheet, subject to one man’s mortality.

The uncomfortable truth is that most families, of any race, fail at this. Research tracked by the Family Business Institute finds that roughly 30 percent of family-owned businesses survive into a second generation, about 12 percent make it to a third, and only 3 percent endure into a fourth. Succession is hard even with capital, even with lawyers, even with three generations of practice at running something. What that data point exposes is not that Black families are uniquely undisciplined — it’s that family continuity is a discipline nobody is taught, and African America has had roughly one-fifth of the time (counting from Emancipation, and accounting for the systematic destruction of Black wealth through redlining, urban renewal, and outright terrorism such as the 1921 razing of Tulsa’s Greenwood district) to build the muscle memory that older American dynasties built over five and six generations. The response to that deficit cannot be more individual grit. It has to be structure, copied deliberately from where it already works, and adapted ruthlessly to this community’s actual starting conditions.

So build the structure. A family constitution — a written document specifying mission, capital rules, and succession mechanics — costs nothing but discipline and an afternoon with a competent estate attorney, yet almost no Black family has one, while every dynasty mentioned above treats theirs as more binding than a corporate bylaw. A family office does not require billionaire assets to justify its existence; pooled family capital in the low six figures is sufficient to retain a fee-only advisor, establish an LLC or trust structure, and begin making coordinated decisions across a real portfolio — brokerage accounts, retirement vehicles, business equity, insurance-funded trusts, even royalty and intellectual-property streams — instead of six relatives each managing a fragment of the same family’s capital in isolation. Land is one asset class among several and should be governed the same way the rest are: never liquidated to cover an emergency when it could instead be collateralized, folded into a trust, or held alongside an equity stake in a family business and a diversified investment account, each professionally managed rather than administered by whichever relative answered the phone first.

None of these families stayed inside their founding asset. Koch Industries began as a part-interest in a single Minnesota oil refinery bought out in the 1940s and 1960s; under Charles Koch it diversified deliberately into pipelines, fertilizer, pulp and paper, ranching, glass, electronics, and commodities trading, so that no single market downturn — a refining glut, a paper-price collapse, a bad cattle season — could touch the whole estate at once. The Rothschilds began as court bankers to European nobility in the 1760s and, over two centuries, moved family capital into railways, mining, real estate, energy, and, notably, wine estates like Château Lafite and Château Mouton — acquired not as hobbies but as productive, appreciating assets that diversified the family’s holdings away from the banking sector that made them. Even the Waltons, whose fortune is most associated with a single company, don’t hold it as a single asset: Walton Enterprises runs its own internal investment arm allocating family capital into private equity, real estate, and outside ventures entirely apart from Walmart stock, precisely so the family’s fate isn’t fused to one retailer’s stock price. In every case, the founding asset became the seed capital for a portfolio, not the permanent shape of the estate. That is the model the eleven acres in Americus should be measured against. The land was never meant to be the ceiling of that family’s wealth — it was meant to be collateral for the next asset, security for a loan into a business, a hedge alongside a brokerage account, one holding in a portfolio instead of the whole of it. Held that way, structured that way, it doesn’t matter whether the estate a family passes down began as land, a barbershop, a nursing license, or a pension. What matters is whether it was ever allowed to grow past its origin.

None of this is exotic. It is standard operating procedure for every dynasty this essay has named. It has simply never been marketed to African America as something within reach, because the wealth management industry profits more from selling individual products than from building family institutions that don’t need it.

Institutions of the wider Black ecosystem have a direct, self-interested role here, and this is where the case must be made in dollars, not sentiment. A Black-owned bank or credit union that captures family trust deposits and estate accounts gains stable, patient capital instead of transactional balances. A historically Black college or university that structures a real endowed-chair or scholarship-naming relationship with a family — rather than accepting a one-time gift — gains a recurring donor relationship spanning generations rather than a single tax-season transaction. Fisk, Tougaloo, Dillard, and Xavier of Louisiana have decades of experience cultivating exactly this kind of multigenerational donor family; Alcorn State, Coppin State, Savannah State, Bethune-Cookman, Norfolk State, Delaware State, Fort Valley State, and Morgan State could each become the anchor institution for a rising family dynasty if they pursued the relationship as deliberately as the Rockefellers pursued the University of Chicago or the Dukes pursued the university that bears their name. The institution that captures a family early, before its capital scales, is the institution that owns the relationship when that capital multiplies. This is not charity. It is customer acquisition, and any HBCU treating it otherwise is leaving its own endowment on the table.

The same logic extends past the water’s edge. Diaspora capital coordination — joint investment vehicles linking African American family offices with counterparts in the Caribbean and across Africa Core — is not a symbolic gesture toward Pan-Africanism. It is a hedge against the concentration risk of building wealth inside a single, historically hostile domestic market. A family real estate or infrastructure fund co-managed across African American, Jamaican, and Ghanaian family offices diversifies political risk, currency exposure, and asset class in one structure, while building exactly the kind of institutional density and strategic coordination that isolated, single-country family wealth can never achieve alone.

None of this happens through moral appeal, and this publication has no interest in making one. Appeals to racial solidarity have moved conferences and Twitter timelines; they have not moved balance sheets. The case for family institutionalization has to be made the way the Waltons, the Kochs, and the Wallenbergs made it to their own descendants: this structure protects what you have from your own children’s mistakes, from probate courts, from market volatility, and from the actuarial certainty that someone in every family eventually dies without a plan. Estate planning is not morbid. It is the single highest-leverage act of institution-building available to a family with under a million dollars in assets, and it costs less than a used car.

There is also a governance failure hiding inside the sentimental version of Black wealth-building that deserves direct confrontation. Families that treat wealth distribution as an equality exercise — splitting everything evenly among heirs regardless of role, competence, or commitment — are optimizing for fairness at the expense of survival. The Family Business Institute’s own data on why family enterprises collapse points overwhelmingly to succession disputes and undefined governance, not lack of capital. A family that assigns real roles — someone accountable for investment decisions, someone accountable for philanthropic strategy, someone accountable for legal and tax exposure — and backs those roles with actual authority, not just a title at Thanksgiving, will outlast a family that insists every cousin gets an equal, undifferentiated vote on every decision. Institutions require hierarchy. Families building institutions will have to get comfortable with that, however uncomfortable it sits against a cultural instinct toward flattened, communal decision-making.

The alternative to all of this is not neutral. It is continued erosion. Every family that fails to formalize governance sends its capital back into the undifferentiated churn of individual consumption — the paycheck model this publication has criticized elsewhere, in which wealth is treated as something to be spent rather than something to be commanded. Every dollar that leaves the Black institutional ecosystem through an unplanned estate, an uninsured death, or a liquidated piece of land is a dollar the next generation has to earn from zero, while families with institutional infrastructure simply compound what they already hold. The compounding gap in the Federal Reserve’s data is not an accident of history. It is the visible output of one set of families running institutional software and another set running none at all.

The mason in Americus did not fail his family. He succeeded at everything available to him in 1952, in a state where a Black man building wealth at all was itself an act of defiance. What failed him was the absence of a structure that could have held what he built past his own lifetime, and the absence of a plan to let that first asset become seed capital for a second and third — a trust, a governance document, a designated successor with both the authority and the training to keep the estate whole and growing, whatever form that estate took or became. That absence is fixable, at a scale of millions of families, in this generation, and it applies as much to a brokerage account or a stake in a family business as it does to eleven acres of Georgia clay. The Kochs turned one refinery into a dozen industries. The Rothschilds turned a banking desk into vineyards and mines. Neither family mistook where they started for where they had to stay. It requires no act of Congress and no act of philanthropy from outside the community. It requires families to stop organizing themselves as clusters of individuals bound by affection, and start organizing as institutions bound by structure, because affection does not survive probate court and structure does. The eleven acres are gone. Whatever the next generation holds — land, equity, a business, a portfolio, or something none of them have thought to build yet — does not have to stop there, and does not have to follow them into the ground.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Lifestyle

Tagged Africa Core, African American economic empowerment, african american families, african american wealth, asset diversification, Black dynasty building, Black family wealth, Black institutional ecosystem, Black institutional power, black land ownership, black wealth building, Black-owned banks, capital retention, diaspora investment, estate planning, family business succession, family capital coordination, family constitution, family governance, family office, family trust, financial literacy in Black communities, generational power, generational wealth, generational wealth building, Great Wealth Transfer, HBCU economics, hbcu endowments, institutional density, land loss, multigenerational wealth, racial wealth gap, succession planning, walton family, wealth preservation, wealth transfer

Can We Talk About More Than Sports? The Disappearance of the African American Male Intellectual

Posted on July 7, 2026 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

If I want intellectual rigor, I have to go into spaces with people who do not look like me. The spaces where we talk objectively about military strategy, economics, technology, space, institutional development, endowments, and the systems that build power. When I need institutional work done, I look to African American women because they show up. For reasons that are numerous, most Black men are on the sidelines or consumed by individualism. Our Diaspora awaits the next generation of Dr. John Henrik Clarke, Kwame Nkrumah, Steve Biko, DuBois, Garvey, Washington, and countless men who were thinkers, fighters, builders, and doers. But I am no longer sure they are coming. – William A. Foster, IV

When a community’s most visible men are athletes, entertainers, and algorithm-driven provocateurs, the institutions that could translate attention into power are left to build themselves. There is a particular kind of institutional poverty that does not show up in endowment reports or balance sheets. It is subtler and, in the long run, more corrosive than the capital deficits that HBCU Money typically examines. It is the poverty of visible intellectual leadership specifically, the near-total absence of African American men from the serious public discourse of economics, geopolitics, institutional strategy, and capital formation. What fills the vacuum is well documented by anyone who has spent time on YouTube, on cable television, or in a social gathering of professional Black men: sports commentary, entertainment industry gossip, and a growing genre of conspiratorial self-help that markets itself as political awakening but delivers little more than grievance with a production budget. The consequences of this vacancy are institutional, not merely cultural, and any honest account of why African American community-building institutions remain fragile must reckon with it.

Romaine Bostick, the Bloomberg Television anchor, is frequently cited and for good reason as something close to an anomaly. He is an African American man with a prominent platform inside a credentialed financial media institution, covering markets, macroeconomics, and capital with the rigor the subject demands. That his name is cited as singular rather than representative is not a reflection on him; it is an indictment of the structural conditions that produced only one of him at that level of visibility. The financial influencer class that has proliferated across social media in the last decade is a poor substitute. These platforms trade in individual wealth accumulation tips like portfolio aesthetics, real estate flipping, credit score optimization framed in aspirational language that carefully avoids any structural critique or institutional prescription. They are, in the language of the economist, private goods masquerading as public ones: they may benefit the individual subscriber but they produce nothing resembling the collective institutional infrastructure that a community’s long-term capital position actually requires.

The geopolitical vacancy is if anything more severe. The Jewish American community, the Indian American community, the Irish American political diaspora each has produced, over generations, a class of intellectuals, strategists, and institutional builders who translate geopolitical analysis into concrete lobbying architecture, foreign policy positioning, and diaspora coordination frameworks. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee did not emerge from a vacuum; it emerged from decades of serious people doing serious analytical work and then building the organizational scaffolding to convert that work into leverage. The African American community, with a diaspora that spans the Atlantic world and a set of geopolitical interests that touch on the entire African continent, U.S. foreign policy in the Caribbean, trade frameworks, and international development finance, has produced no comparable institution anchored in credentialed, rigorous, non-partisan strategic analysis. What exists instead is a loosely connected series of advocacy organizations whose analytical capacity is episodic at best and whose institutional memory rarely survives leadership transitions.

This is not an argument about individual men failing to apply themselves. It is an argument about the structural incentive architecture that shapes which kinds of African American male expression receive platforms, capital, and cultural reinforcement. Sports and entertainment are not accidents; they are the products of a media and investment ecosystem that has found it profitable to channel Black male talent into spectacle and to treat Black male intellectual output as a niche product with limited commercial upside. The algorithm that governs YouTube’s recommendation engine is not neutral; it reflects and amplifies the market logic that has always been more comfortable monetizing Black performance than Black analysis. The red pill content ecosystem which deserves to be understood as an ideological product, not an organic community is filling a genuine vacuum in the discourse by offering what appears to be structural critique while systematically redirecting legitimate grievance away from institutional analysis and toward interpersonal conflict. It is, in this sense, a distraction infrastructure with considerable commercial and political utility to those who benefit from African American institutional disorganization.

What makes this dynamic particularly difficult to dislodge is that it has produced a convincing counterfeit of intellectual engagement. A podcast downloaded by a hundred thousand people, a YouTube channel with three-hour deep dives assembled from Google searches, a social media account that circulates economic statistics stripped of their methodological context none of these is institutional development, and none constitutes rigorous research or analysis. The distinction matters enormously. Genuine analytical infrastructure requires peer accountability, primary source methodology, longitudinal data collection, and the kind of institutional memory that persists beyond any individual’s attention span or content calendar. A think tank analyst who has spent five years building a quantitative model of African American capital flows in the Gulf South is doing categorically different work than a podcaster who has spent five years doing the same Google searches on a better microphone. Conflating the two does not merely flatter the latter; it degrades the standard against which the former is measured and obscures the actual vacancy the community needs to address. Fluency in the language of analysis is not the same as the capacity to produce it, and a community that cannot distinguish between the two will continue to mistake audience size for institutional weight.

*African American male YouTuber whose room is filled with sports and rap on the walls and TV while he discusses sports commentary.*

The pattern repeats at every level of Black public life. When prominent African American athletes and entertainers, men with platforms reaching millions and net worths that rival the asset bases of the largest Black-owned banks in America, comment on the condition of majority-Black cities, the frame is almost invariably that of the consumer: the amenities, the hotel, the general atmosphere of a road trip. The institutional landscape like the HBCU that has anchored the city’s intellectual life for over a century, the Black-owned bank that King named from the pulpit, the planned African American neighborhood that once constituted an entire economic ecosystem is simply not visible from that vantage point. That invisibility is not a personal failing. It is the predictable output of a system, diagnosed with precision by William C. Rhoden in Forty Million Dollar Slaves, in which Black wealth is generated within structures designed to route it outward from communities rather than back through the institutions those communities need to build durable power. Individual civic commitment, however genuine, does not substitute for the analytical infrastructure that would make institutional orientation the default rather than the exception.

The think tank gap is perhaps the most concrete expression of this structural absence. The Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for Strategic and International Studies are not merely academic repositories; they are influence infrastructure. They produce the analysis that shapes congressional testimony, executive branch policy, corporate strategy, and media framing. The African American intellectual presence within these institutions is real but peripheral; what does not yet exist is a Black-led, HBCU-anchored, intellectually credentialed think tank with the resources and gravitas to place African American institutional interests at the center of national economic and foreign policy debate. This is not a complaint; it is a specification. The W.E.B. Du Bois tradition, rigorous, data-grounded, institutionally minded provides the intellectual lineage. The question is whether the generation of African American men currently consuming sports highlight reels and financial influencer content will produce the institutional builders who can turn that lineage into operating infrastructure.

The HBCU system is the most logical anchor for that infrastructure, and the institutions best positioned to build it are not necessarily the ones that already carry the heaviest brand weight. Morgan State University in Baltimore, with its pathway to R1 research designation and deep roots in urban economic analysis, is positioned to anchor a serious institute for African American urban policy, one that could feed analysis directly into the D.C. policy corridor less than an hour away. Fisk University in Nashville carries the intellectual lineage of W.E.B. Du Bois’s Atlanta Studies and the American Missionary Association’s most rigorous scholarly tradition; it has no dominant professional program crowding out an identity, which means a well-capitalized center for African American diaspora economics and geopolitical strategy could become the institution’s defining contribution to the next generation of scholarship. Delaware State University, with its proximity to the financial and legal infrastructure of Wilmington and the policy apparatus of Washington, has the geographic position to build an international trade and diaspora investment research program that no other HBCU is currently occupying. And Tougaloo College in Mississippi — small, historically central to the civil rights intellectual tradition, located in the heart of the Black Belt — represents exactly the kind of institution where an endowed center for African American political economy could become a flagship program rather than an appendage. The argument for these institutions over the obvious names is not that the obvious names lack talent. It is that talent concentrated in already-crowded institutional identities produces marginal gains; talent concentrated in institutions with open institutional real estate produces defining ones.

None of this infrastructure can be built without reckoning honestly with what the pipeline into it looks like. The analytical deficit does not begin in adulthood; it begins well before any young man ever encounters a university campus. According to DC Action’s analysis of District assessment data, only 23 percent of Black students demonstrate reading proficiency and a mere 11 percent demonstrate math proficiency — compared to 82 and 75 percent respectively for their white peers. These are not Washington anomalies; they are a concentrated reflection of a national pattern. Compounding the academic deficit is the enrichment deficit: a Wallace Foundation study found that while nearly 1.9 million Black children participated in structured summer learning programs in 2019, an additional 2.3 million would have enrolled if programs had been available, with cost cited as the primary barrier. Debate leagues, Model UN chapters, economics competitions, civic enrichment programs develop the extracurricular architecture that socializes young people into rigorous analytical discourse before they arrive at college are precisely the programs that disappear first in underfunded majority-Black school systems. An HBCU cannot build a think tank culture if the students arriving have spent twelve years in environments that did not reward that kind of engagement and had no institutional infrastructure to cultivate it.

But the educational deprivation is only one layer of the pipeline problem. Boys and in particular Black boys are not exempt from this, arguably face an intensified version of it are socialized from an early age into codes of masculinity that position intellectual seriousness as a threat to social belonging. Yanis Varoufakis, an economist and former Finance Minister of Greece, reflecting on his own formation, observed that even in the most progressive environments, boys construct their identity through hierarchies among themselves and in relation to girls, a dialectic of recognition that has little room for the boy who reads political economy or debates monetary policy at the lunch table. For Black boys in particular, this universal male socialization pressure is compounded by the specific cultural script that the media ecosystem has assigned to Black masculinity: athletic dominance, entertainment charisma, and street credibility. Anti-intellectualism is not merely tolerated within that script it is frequently enforced, with academic seriousness coded as a form of social betrayal. The community pays for that enforcement every generation, in the form of men who arrive at adulthood with the raw intelligence for serious analytical work and none of the institutional orientation or scholarly habits that would convert that intelligence into research, analysis, and institutional leadership. The misogyny that runs alongside the anti-intellectualism is not incidental to it; both are features of a masculinity script that defines strength as dominance rather than as the capacity to build something that outlasts you.

There is also an honest conversation to be had about the social environments in which African American professional men operate and the norms those environments reinforce. A friend group that discusses travel plans and makes no space for discussions of institutional investment, community capital formation, or coordinated political strategy is not merely a social observation; it is a microcosm of a broader norm enforcement mechanism. Social belonging within many African American professional male networks has been decoupled from the kind of civic and institutional seriousness that characterized the generation of men who built the original HBCU infrastructure, the African American financial institution network, and the civil rights legal architecture. That decoupling is not random; it is the downstream consequence of decades of systematic underinvestment in the institutions like the historically Black newspapers, the civic fraternal organizations with genuine programmatic ambitions, the professional associations with real research and advocacy functions that once transmitted serious institutional norms across generations of Black men.

The isolation felt by those who maintain a serious institutional orientation in this environment is real and should be named plainly. It is the isolation of working against the grain of both a mainstream media architecture that has no structural interest in platforming Black male institutional seriousness and a community social architecture that has internalized the substitution of individual aspiration for collective institutional ambition. It is exhausting in the way that all labor against structural inertia is exhausting. But exhaustion is a data point, not a reason for retreat. The work of rebuilding the intellectual infrastructure of African American institutional life — the think tanks, the policy journals, the credentialed analytical voices, the geopolitical strategy apparatus — is among the highest-leverage investments available to the HBCU ecosystem and its allies. The vacancy at the table is not permanent. It is a structural problem, which means it has structural solutions. The task is to build them with the same seriousness that previous generations built everything from Tuskegee to the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, one institution at a time, on a foundation of rigor rather than spectacle.

EDITOR’S NOTE

The argument in this article is not that African American men lack the intellectual capacity for institutional seriousness. It is that the infrastructure which would reward and amplify that seriousness has not been built and that building it is a higher-order priority than any individual wealth-building strategy this publication will ever publish. A community with no analytical architecture is a community that will always be responding to other people’s institutional decisions rather than shaping its own. The athletes will keep playing. The entertainers will keep performing. The influencers will keep posting. The question is whether, alongside all of that, the institutions get built. That is the only question that matters at scale.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by Claude AI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Lifestyle

Tagged African American capital formation, African American geopolitical analysis, African American male intellectual, African American men media representation, Black institutional power, Black intellectual leadership, Black male misogyny masculinity, Black male public discourse, Black male socialization anti-intellectualism, Black student reading proficiency, delaware state university, financial influencer vs institutional analysis, Fisk University diaspora studies, HBCU Money editorial, HBCU policy institute, HBCU research infrastructure, HBCU think tank, Morgan State University policy, racial education gap, Romaine Bostick Bloomberg, summer learning programs Black students, Tougaloo College political economy, William Rhoden Forty Million Dollar Slaves

Invite Allies to the Potluck but Protect the Cookout

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

Do not show me the person dancing to our music, enjoying our food, fetishizing the Black man, or some other cultural consumption. Show me the one who is demanding Harvard deposit $100 million of their own funds to OneUnited Bank so that OneUnited, Liberty Bank, and other African American owned banks can make loans to our community for business and homeownership. Show me the ones who uses their privilege to stick up for what society has done and does to Black women and Black family. That is who can come to the potluck, but the cookout is ours. We have a tendency to shrink ourselves to Others’ fragility of real conversations that we need to have for ourselves when Others are present. – William A. Foster, IV

There is an old story, told in various forms across African American communities, about a family that learned to cook in secret. For generations, they had grown their own food, developed their own techniques, and built a kitchen that could feed a neighborhood. One day, a neighbor knocked on the door, drawn by the smell. They were welcomed in, fed generously, and they returned often. They brought friends. They praised the food. They called themselves part of the family. Eventually they began to suggest improvements to the kitchen — a different arrangement, a new appliance, a recipe adjusted for broader tastes. The family, grateful for the company, accommodated each request. By the time they looked up, the kitchen still stood. The neighbor’s name was on the deed. The family was still cooking. They just no longer owned the stove.

But generosity extended without institutional clarity is not community building. It is exposure. And the history of African American institutional life is, in no small part, a history of spaces built with collective sacrifice that were subsequently absorbed, diluted, defunded, or dismantled once their value became legible to the outside world.

The cookout, in other words, is not a metaphor. It is an asset. And assets require more than governance, they require protection. Not the passive protection of a community that hopes its institutions will be respected, but the active, disciplined defense of people who understand that what they have built has value precisely because others will seek to capture it. Protection, at the institutional level, is not always a defensive posture. Sometimes it means going on offense by organizing buying power before the crisis arrives, building legal capacity before the lawsuit is filed, funding Black media before the narrative is set by someone else. Communities that wait to protect what they have until after it is threatened are communities that spend their energy on recovery rather than accumulation. The history of Black Wall Street, of the Freedman’s Bank, of the systematic dismantling of Black-owned cooperatives during the mid-twentieth century is not a history of insufficient gratitude from the outside world. It is a history of insufficient institutional defense from within. The lesson is not to be less generous. It is to be better armed.

The analytical literature on Black wealth formation is consistent on a foundational point: communities that retain capital, talent, and institutional loyalty generate compounding returns across generations. Communities that allow those resources to migrate outward whether through spending patterns, marriage partners, talent pipelines, or cultural appropriation subsidize the wealth accumulation of others while undermining their own. The cookout dynamic maps directly onto this framework. When African American cultural production, social spaces, and institutional knowledge are shared without reciprocal investment, the result is a net transfer of value from Black institutions to non-Black ones. This is not a theoretical concern. It is the operating condition of the present economy.

Consider the structure of the music industry, where Black artists have generated the dominant commercial genres of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries — blues, jazz, rock and roll, hip-hop, R&B — while the majority of accumulated wealth from those genres has resided in non-Black-owned labels, distributors, publishing houses, and streaming platforms. Consider the food economy, where Black culinary traditions have been commodified into billion-dollar restaurant chains and packaged goods while the originators of those traditions remain systematically underbanked and undercapitalized. Consider the fashion and beauty industries, where aesthetics developed within African American communities command global markets while the infrastructure of those markets sits largely outside Black institutional ownership. In each case, the cultural product was welcomed. The economic architecture was not extended.

Allies who celebrate Black culture without supporting Black institutions are not allies in any operationally meaningful sense. They are consumers. The distinction is not semantic. An ally, by institutional definition, extends their power, capital, and access in support of an aligned party’s strategic objectives. A consumer extracts value from a community’s production without contributing to the institutional conditions that make that production possible. The presence of a non-Black person at the potluck enjoying the food, the music, the wit, the aesthetic while opposing or simply ignoring the policy conditions, banking relationships, and institutional investments that African American communities require to sustain themselves, is the profile of a consumer, not a coalition partner. They have not earned the potluck. They have certainly not been invited to the cookout.

This distinction becomes especially critical in the current political economy. Federal and state policy over the past several decades has systematically defunded or defanged the institutional infrastructure of Black America: HBCUs chronically underfunded relative to their peer institutions; Black-owned banks capitalized at a fraction of the levels needed to serve their communities; Black neighborhoods subject to environmental, housing, and educational policies that extract tax revenue while withholding proportional investment. In this context, cultural adjacency or rather the willingness to celebrate Juneteenth, consume Black media, or engage Black social vernacular is insufficient as an expression of solidarity. It may, in fact, function as cover for the absence of the structural commitments that matter.

The HBCU sector offers a particularly instructive case study. Historically Black Colleges and Universities were built precisely because African Americans were excluded from the educational institutions of their own country. They were not a gesture of separatism; they were an institutional response to exclusion. Over the course of the twentieth century, HBCUs produced a disproportionate share of the Black professional class, trained the majority of Black doctors, lawyers, engineers, and teachers of their generation, and served as incubators for the civil rights movement’s leadership and organizational capacity. They are, by any rigorous measure, among the most productive institutions in American higher education history relative to the resources they have been given.

Yet HBCUs now operate in a competitive landscape that rewards endowment size, federal research designation, and alumni giving rates; all measures that reflect historical access to capital rather than institutional quality or community impact. Predominantly white institutions that previously excluded Black students now recruit them aggressively, drawing talent and tuition revenue that would otherwise compound within the HBCU ecosystem. The language used to justify this recruitment is almost always the language of inclusion and opportunity. But inclusion in another institution’s ecosystem is not equivalent to investment in your own. A Black student who attends a well-resourced predominantly white institution may gain individual credentials. The HBCU they did not attend loses the tuition, the alumni relationship, endowment compounding, and the network density that transforms good universities into great ones.

This is not an argument against shared space. There are potlucks to which allies are genuinely welcome that inlcude moments of coalition, cross-cultural solidarity, and mutual investment where the presence of non-Black partners strengthens rather than dilutes collective purpose. But a potluck is not a cookout, and the distinction is not decorative. At a potluck, everyone brings something to the table. The host provides the space; the guests contribute to the meal. It is a transaction of mutual provision, and it works precisely because no one arrives empty-handed expecting to be fed. A cookout is different. A cookout is the community’s own table that is prepared by Black hands, funded by Black resources, held in Black space, for Black people. Its purpose is not coalition. Its purpose is sustenance, honesty, and the particular freedom that only comes when a people can speak plainly among themselves without managing anyone else’s comfort. Both gatherings have their place. They are not interchangeable, and confusing one for the other is how communities lose the only space that was ever entirely their own.

What African American institutional life requires is a clear distinction between spaces of engagement and spaces of sovereignty. Spaces of engagement are where coalitions are built, where allies demonstrate reciprocity, where the community interfaces with the broader economy and polity on its own terms. Spaces of sovereignty are where Black families and communities convene among themselves to assess the wealth gap without softening the diagnosis, to discuss the particular pressures facing Black women and Black men without moderating the conversation for outside sensibilities, to make strategic decisions about institutional investment and political alignment without the distortion that comes from managing the reactions of those who do not share the same structural position. Both kinds of space are necessary. Only one of them is currently treated as optional.

What does that governance structure look like in practice? It looks like HBCU alumni choosing, as a default rather than an afterthought, to bank with Black-owned financial institutions the Liberty Banks, the OneUnited Banks, the First Independence Banks rather than routing deposits to institutions that do not reinvest proportionally in Black communities. It looks like Black professionals who have achieved positions of institutional authority actively directing contracts, investment mandates, and philanthropic dollars toward Black-owned firms and HBCU vendors rather than defaulting to the institutional relationships they inherited. It looks like African American civic organizations insisting on quantifiable reciprocity as a condition of coalition not cultural appreciation, not rhetorical solidarity, but measurable investment.

There is a separate and equally important argument that must be made here, because it is the one most frequently obscured by well-intentioned framing: inclusion is not ownership. Even in the most favorable version of the ally relationship where non-Black partners, institutions, and individuals are genuinely committed to diversity, sincerely supportive of Black participation, and actively working to open doors none of that changes the structural necessity of Black-owned institutions. Inclusion operates within someone else’s architecture. Ownership builds your own.

This distinction is not abstract. It has a balance sheet. When a Black professional is included in a non-Black-owned firm, their labor generates returns that compound within that firm’s ownership structure and those are returns that flow to shareholders, partners, and stakeholders who are, in the aggregate, not Black. The professional may advance. They may be compensated well. They may even occupy positions of genuine authority. But the wealth generated by their inclusion does not build Black institutional capital; it builds the institution that included them. Inclusion, at scale, is a mechanism by which Black talent subsidizes non-Black institutional growth. It is not a substitute for ownership. It is, in many cases, its alternative.

The same logic applies to HBCUs operating in a landscape of ostensibly inclusive predominantly white institutions. The argument made against HBCU investment that the best Black students should simply attend the best-resourced universities, wherever those happen to be is structurally an argument against Black institutional ownership in higher education. It accepts inclusion as a terminal condition rather than a transitional one. A Black student included at Harvard is not the same institutional fact as Harvard-level resources flowing into an HBCU. One is a credential extended to an individual. The other is capacity built within a community-owned institution that will outlast any single student and compound across generations.

Ownership is also the only form of institutional participation that is durable against shifts in political will. Inclusion depends on the continued goodwill of those doing the including. When political climates shift, when diversity commitments are deprioritized, when administration changes, when economic contractions force budget realignments the “included” are the first to absorb the cost. Ownership is not subject to another party’s goodwill. A Black-owned bank does not require a non-Black institution to remain committed to serving Black depositors. A Black-owned media organization does not require a conglomerate’s editorial patience. An HBCU does not require a predominantly white institution to remain interested in Black academic excellence. Ownership is the only form of institutional security that does not expire when someone else’s priorities change.

This is why the recent assault on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in American corporations and universities however dismaying as a political signal is not the fundamental crisis for African American institutional life that it is sometimes framed as being. The fundamental crisis predates the DEI rollback and will outlast its reversal. It is the historical condition of a community that has been systematically excluded from ownership while being selectively included in participation. DEI programs, at their most effective, opened doors into institutions that someone else owned. Their elimination forecloses that access. But their presence never resolved the ownership question. The community that owns nothing is equally vulnerable in both eras, it simply has a longer walk to the door in one of them.

The same analytical framework applies to an institution that is rarely named as such in discussions of Black economic strategy: the Black family. The family unit is not a private matter sealed off from institutional analysis. It is the primary site of intergenerational wealth transfer, the first school of civic and financial literacy, and the foundational node in any network of community institutional density. How the Black family is formed, sustained, and oriented toward community investment is therefore a question of institutional consequence, not merely personal preference.

This makes the question of interracial partnership and specifically, the assumptions that sometimes travel with it a legitimate subject of institutional inquiry. The concern here is not interracial partnership as such. It is the set of ideological commitments that non-Black partners sometimes bring into Black family formation, and what those commitments mean for the community institutions that depend on family-level investment and loyalty to survive.

A non-Black person who partners with a Black man or woman has not, by virtue of that partnership, demonstrated any commitment to African American institutional empowerment. The relationship is personal. The institutional question is separate, and it must be asked separately. Does this person bank at Black-owned financial institutions? Do they support HBCU attendance, alumni giving, and network loyalty as a family value? Do they understand that the wealth gap their Black partner navigates is not an abstraction but a structural condition reproduced through specific policy and capital allocation decisions and that their own family’s economic choices either mitigate or compound that condition? Personal love does not answer institutional questions. Only institutional behavior does.

The specific case of non-Black women partnered with Black men warrants direct analysis, because it intersects with a set of structural realities that the colorblind framework is particularly ill-equipped to see. Black women in America face a documented and compounding disadvantage in the partner market, a disadvantage produced not by individual preference alone but by the structural devaluation of Black femininity in American cultural and economic life, by the incarceration and early mortality rates that reduce the available pool of Black men, and by media and social ecosystems that actively hierarchize desirability along racial lines. These are not grievances. They are measurable structural conditions with identifiable institutional causes.

Non-Black women who partner with Black men enter this landscape with structural advantages they did not earn and, in the colorblind framework, are not required to acknowledge. The colorblind framework of “we are the world,” love is love, race doesn’t matter to me functions in this context not as enlightenment but as insulation from accountability. It allows a person to benefit from the aesthetics and community of Blackness, to be welcomed into Black family life and Black social space, while remaining ideologically committed to a universalism that forecloses any obligation to the specific institutional needs of the community whose door they have entered. The distinction between a potluck and a cookout becomes precise here: they have been given a seat at the table of coalition, but they have wandered into the cookout consuming its warmth, its honesty, its intimacy without ever acknowledging who built the table or accepting any obligation to help it stand.

This matters institutionally because family formation is where ideology meets capital allocation. A household in which one partner is oriented toward Black institutional investment and one is oriented toward a colorblind universalism that treats all institutions as equivalent is a household with a structural conflict embedded in its financial decisions. Where will their children attend college? Which financial institutions will hold their savings? Which civic organizations will receive their philanthropic commitments? Which political candidates and policy frameworks will they support? These are not questions that love resolves. They are questions that ideology answers and the colorblind ideology consistently answers them in ways that route resources away from the Black institutional ecosystem and toward the universal one, which in practice means the mainstream one, which in practice means the predominantly non-Black one.

The institution of the Black family, therefore, must be understood as requiring the same institutional clarity as any other node in the African American ecosystem. Welcoming a non-Black partner into Black family life is not categorically different from inviting a non-Black guest to the potluck. In both cases, the question is not the warmth of the welcome. The question is whether the guest understands what was built, what it cost, and what it requires to survive and whether they comprehend that the cookout, the sovereign space, the honest table, was never theirs to enter simply because they were loved by someone who belonged there. Structural advantages do not disappear because they are unacknowledged. They accumulate. And a household ideology that refuses to see those advantages and to accept the institutional obligations they create is not a neutral position. It is a position that benefits from Black institutional labor while declining to contribute to it.

It also looks like intellectual clarity about co-optation, which is the more subtle and in many ways more consequential threat to Black institutional space. Co-optation does not require hostility. It requires only that a framework, a concept, a methodology, or a space developed with Black intellectual labor and institutional capital be adopted and repackaged by actors who do not acknowledge its origin, do not direct resources back to its source, and do not bear the institutional costs that made its development possible. This happens in academia, where Black Studies frameworks migrate into mainstream curricula without corresponding investment in Black Studies departments. It happens in corporate diversity programs, where the conceptual vocabulary of African American equity movements is deployed in the service of institutional reputation management rather than structural change. It happens in media, where Black cultural aesthetics are packaged for mass consumption while Black-owned media organizations operate on fractional budgets.

The question facing African American institutional leadership is not whether to engage with the broader economy and polity of course it must. The question is on what terms. Engagement without institutional conditions is simply absorption. The HBCU sector, the network of Black-owned banks and CDFIs, the ecosystem of Black professional associations and civic organizations, the tradition of Black media, these are not relics of a segregated past. They are the institutional architecture of a future in which African Americans participate in American (and global) economic and political life from a position of institutional strength rather than perpetual dependency.

That institutional architecture does not sustain itself through cultural warmth. It sustains itself through capital, coordination, and the disciplined exercise of institutional loyalty. The potluck can be generous and it should be, because coalition requires genuine exchange. But the cookout is not the potluck. The cookout is where the community gathers to be honest with itself, to protect what it has built, and to plan for what it still must build. Allies are welcome at the potluck when they bring something real. The cookout is not their invitation to extend.

The fire is on. The food is ready. But the table was built by people who had no other table to go to. That history is not decoration. It is the deed.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by Claude AI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Editorial

Tagged African American household formation, African American wealth building, Black community investment, Black family institution, Black institutional power, black media, Black women marriage market, Black-owned banks, capital retention, co-optation, colorblind ideology, cultural appropriation economics, economic empowerment, hbcu endowments, HBCU institutions, institutional loyalty

The HBCU Card? Why the Community’s Institutional Dollar Constantly Fails to Circulate at the HBCU’s Front Door

Posted on June 7, 2026 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

Let us put our money together; let us use our money; let us put our money out at usury among ourselves, and reap the benefit ourselves. – Maggie Lena Walker

The HBCU Card routes HBCU community spending through a family-owned Minnesota bank. African American-owned financial institutions are watching from the sideline. HBCUs are institutions with balance sheets, alumni networks, and banking relationships. When those relationships run through a family-owned bank in St. Paul, Minnesota, the question is not whether the partnership is well-intentioned. The question is who is building institutional capacity for whom.

There is an old arrangement, familiar to the sharecropping South, called the company store. The employer owned the land, controlled the wages, and operated the only store within reach. The worker labored, earned, and spent and every dollar completed a circle that ended back in the employer’s pocket. The arrangement was not presented as exploitation. It was presented as convenience. As service. As the reasonable way things worked given the options available. The options, of course, were controlled by the same party that ran the store. HBCUs in 2026 are not sharecroppers. They are institutions with endowments, alumni networks, and balance sheets. Which makes it harder, not easier, to explain why they are running the company store model on their own communities.

A prepaid Mastercard called the HBCU Card is circulating in HBCU communities, issued through Sunrise Banks, N.A., a family-owned bank headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. It carries the logos of individual HBCUs. It returns a fraction of transaction fees to participating schools. The pitch is that HBCU students and alumni can express institutional pride through their spending and send a little money back to their alma mater in the process. That is the whole proposal. Read it twice if you need to.

It is not alignment. It is a licensing agreement dressed up as solidarity.

Sunrise Banks is a privately held, family-owned institution headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, wholly owned by University Financial Corp, GBC, led by CEO David Reiling and his father, Bill Reiling. The bank is a certified B Corporation and holds CDFI designation from the U.S. Treasury. Its social impact commitments are real. None of that is the point. Sunrise Banks is not an African American-owned institution. It has no ownership ties to the HBCU community. It is not part of the African American financial ecosystem in any structural sense. It is a vendor that found a distribution channel, and the distribution channel said yes. Banking is not a transaction. It is infrastructure. Deposits flow into balance sheets that fund mortgages, small business loans, and community reinvestment. When that capital is held by institutions with ownership accountability to the depositing community, it compounds within that ecosystem. When it flows to an outside institution, however well-certified, however socially conscious its marketing, it leaves. A branded card does not change the direction of the outflow. Pride does not reroute capital. Ownership does.

HBCUs are, by their founding logic, in the business of building something that lasts. Endowments. Land. Research infrastructure. Alumni networks that compound across generations. That is the institutional premise. Against that premise, the HBCU Card is an embarrassment. It asks HBCU communities to generate transaction fee revenue, a rounding error in any serious capital strategy — and hand the actual value of the arrangement to a Minnesota family bank. The HBCU gets logo placement. Sunrise Banks gets a branded distribution network across dozens of historically Black institutions, customer acquisition at scale, and the reputational association with one of African America’s most symbolically resonant set of institutions. That is not a partnership. That is a concession. This would be forgivable if there were no alternative. There is. There are 221 of them.

As of 2025, there are 205 active African American-owned credit unions holding more than $8.15 billion in assets and serving nearly 727,000 members across 29 states and the District of Columbia. There are 16 African American-owned banks holding $6.7 billion in combined assets. Louisiana alone has 25 African American-owned credit unions. Illinois has 23. Virginia has 13. These institutions are not obscure. They are documented, chartered, federally insured, and in many cases operating within miles of HBCU campuses. Six HBCU-affiliated credit unions, institutions built specifically to serve the campus financial community, are still active after five such institutions closed or were absorbed since 2020. Their combined assets total $76.8 million. They are contracting. The HBCU Card is expanding. This is the choice being made.

The six that remain deserve to be named because the institutions they were built to serve have apparently forgotten them. Southern Teachers & Parents Federal Credit Union, founded to serve the Southern University system across its Baton Rouge, New Orleans, and Shreveport campuses, is the largest of the survivors at $30.3 million in assets. Florida A&M University Federal Credit Union serves the flagship public HBCU in Florida. Virginia State University Federal Credit Union serves one of Virginia’s historically Black institutions. Councill Federal Credit Union serves the Alabama A&M University community. Arkansas A&M College Federal Credit Union serves the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. Xavier University of Louisiana Federal Credit Union serves the only historically Black Catholic university in the Western Hemisphere. These six institutions held a combined $76.8 million in assets as of the most recent reporting, a number that should be ten times larger given the campus communities they sit inside. Prairie View A&M University Federal Credit Union, founded in 1937 by sixteen people who built a financial institution to serve the employees of Texas’s first state-supported college for African Americans, did not survive. It was absorbed by Cy-Fair Federal Credit Union, the credit union of a Houston-area school district with a documented record of racial inequity in its own student discipline. An 85-year-old Black institution, built by and for a Black university community, became a subsidiary of a school district credit union. Prairie View A&M University has nothing publicly to say about it. These institutions are not disappearing because they failed their communities. They are disappearing because their communities’ own flagship institutions will not anchor them.

The scale of what coordinated HBCU engagement could mean to this sector is not theoretical. The median African American-owned credit union holds approximately $2.47 million in assets and serves roughly 618 members, operating at the margin of viability in an asset tier where the national system is contracting fastest. Only 40 percent have a functional public website. Thirty percent are congregation-affiliated, with succession risks that threaten their continuity across a single pastoral transition. These institutions are not failing for lack of purpose. They are failing for lack of the institutional anchor relationships that would capitalize and stabilize them. HBCUs are precisely that anchor. A single mid-sized HBCU redirecting its payroll processing and student financial services to an African American-owned financial institution is a capitalization event for that institution. Six HBCUs doing it in a coordinated way reshape a sector. Instead, the sector contracts and HBCUs sign prepaid card deals.

The HBCU Card requires nothing from the institution except a logo. There is no governance, no balance sheet commitment, no strategic partnership to build or manage. An administrator with a full calendar can execute it in an afternoon. That is the real explanation, and it is worth saying plainly: this is what institutional avoidance looks like when it has been dressed up with branding. Banking with an African American-owned institution requires relationships to be built, terms to be negotiated, and sometimes real advocacy inside a bureaucracy that defaults to the path of least resistance. It is harder. It is supposed to be harder. Institutions that will not do the harder work in service of their own community’s financial ecosystem are not being strategic. They are being comfortable.

The Jewish American institutional ecosystem did not build generational financial infrastructure by licensing its brand to well-intentioned outside vendors. It built banks. It built credit unions. It built investment vehicles and directed capital toward them, institution by institution, decade by decade. Cuban American financial infrastructure in South Florida did not emerge from branded prepaid cards issued by Anglo-owned banks. It emerged from institutional discipline from the deliberate decision to route deposits, payroll, and investment relationships toward institutions owned by the community they were meant to serve. African American institutions are capable of the same discipline. The question that must be asked plainly, at this point, is whether they intend to practice it.

Sunrise Banks will receive a branded distribution network across the HBCU ecosystem, customer acquisition at scale, and the reputational weight of an association with institutions that African America has defended, funded, and attended for over 150 years. HBCUs will receive a transaction fee drip. That is the deal, and anyone who has read a term sheet in their life can see which side of it they want to be on. The deeper insult is that the card’s central premise that cultural identity can be expressed through a branded payment instrument is not wrong. OneUnited Bank, one of the largest African American-owned bank in the country with $756 million in assets, already offers a full range of culturally branded debit card designs as part of its standard deposit product. The infrastructure to do this through a Black-owned bank already exists. HBCUs have simply chosen not to direct their communities toward it.

The alternative does not require building anything new. It requires redirecting what already moves. Payroll. Student fee processing. Operating accounts. Auxiliary enterprise banking. These are cash flows that exist at every HBCU right now, today, flowing through institutions with no ownership accountability to the African American community. Fort Valley State University in Georgia operates with Citizens Trust Bank and Carver State Bank in the same state. Edward Waters University in Jacksonville, Florida sits in a market with documented African American-owned financial institution presence. Bethune-Cookman University and Florida Memorial University operate in a Florida context where redirecting institutional banking relationships would register immediately and materially in the balance sheets of the African American-owned credit unions that are currently fighting to survive. None of this requires a capital campaign. It requires a decision.

Delaware State University sits in proximity to one of the most financially sophisticated African American communities on the East Coast and banks with institutions that have no structural accountability to that community. Cheyney University, the oldest HBCU in the country, founded in 1837, older than the Civil War, operates in Pennsylvania, a state with documented African American-owned financial institutions, without a formal banking relationship with a single one of them. These are not resource constraints. These are not governance complications. These are choices. Call them what they are.

This is not an indictment of Sunrise Banks. The Reiling family built a legitimate community development institution and its credentials are real. But good intentions held by people outside a community are not a substitute for ownership infrastructure inside it and this distinction should not have to be explained to the leadership of institutions that exist precisely because the African American community refused to accept the benevolence of outside institutions as a substitute for their own. The HBCU was the answer to that substitution. The HBCU Card reverses the logic entirely.

The pattern is not new and it is not subtle. African American institutions accept the role of distribution channel, brand partner, and program host for arrangements that deliver the primary economic value to someone else. The community benefit is always in the framing. It is often partially real. What it never builds is the ownership infrastructure that makes a community institutionally durable across generations. HBCU Money has documented this in research pipelines that route HBCU-generated intellectual capital into PWI commercialization structures. In philanthropic arrangements that deliver program dollars without governance rights. In workforce development partnerships that build human capital for employers with no reciprocal obligation to the communities supplying the talent. The HBCU Card is the same transaction in a different category. The African American community keeps accepting these terms. Its institutions keep modeling the acceptance. And then everyone wonders why the ecosystem does not compound.

HBCUs are not passive observers of the African American financial ecosystem. They are, or should be, its institutional anchors. A single HBCU redirecting its payroll, student financial services, and auxiliary enterprise banking to African American-owned institutions is a capitalization event for those institutions. Six doing it in coordination reshape the sector’s asset base. Twenty doing it is a structural transformation of African American financial infrastructure that no amount of philanthropic giving or federal grant-making has ever achieved. That is what is being traded away for transaction fee revenue from a prepaid card. Let that land.

The 205 African American-owned credit unions and 16 African American-owned banks — Liberty Bank and Trust, Citizens Trust Bank, Mechanics and Farmers Bank, Optus Bank, Industrial Bank, First Independence Bank, and the rest — are not waiting to be discovered. They are chartered, capitalized, and operational. They have been there. What they have not had is the institutional anchor relationships that HBCUs are positioned to provide and have repeatedly declined to provide. That is the record. It is not ambiguous.

The HBCU Card will keep finding takers. The path of least institutional resistance always does. What it will not build, what it cannot build, is the African American financial ecosystem that 150 years of HBCU existence should by now have helped to anchor. That ecosystem is being built, slowly and against the current, by institutions that have received none of the loyalty that their community’s flagship universities should be directing toward them. HBCUs were founded as an act of defiance against a system that refused to invest in Black institutional capacity. The HBCU Card is an act of surrender to the same logic, branded in school colors.

African America knows the statistic. It has been recited at every convocation, posted on every community Facebook page, cited in every financial literacy workshop for the last thirty years: a dollar circulates in the Jewish American community for an estimated 20 days, in Asian American communities for roughly 28 days, and exits the African American community in less than 6 hours. The room nods. The speaker moves on. And then the HBCU signs a deal with Sunrise Banks. This is the part that should produce institutional shame and does not. The circulation of the Black dollar has become African America’s most repeated and least practiced idea. It functions as a ritual, spoken to affirm shared values, set aside before the next institutional decision is made. And the institutional decisions are where the actual economy is built or surrendered. HBCUs are supposed to be different. They are the institutions African America built when it was not allowed to build them. They carry that founding act in their names. They commemorate it at every homecoming. And then Alabama State University hands a $125 million investment management contract to a European American-owned firm without a public accounting of whether a single African American-owned asset manager was seriously considered. And Howard University puts PNC’s name on a center for entrepreneurship. And HBCU after HBCU runs its student financial services through Wells Fargo or Bank of America while Liberty Bank, Citizens Trust, and Mechanics and Farmers Bank operate in the same states, serve the same communities, and wait for a relationship that does not come. “Buy Black” is the slogan. The institutional behavior is: accept the proposal from whoever shows up with the most polished deck. This cannot be fixed at the household level. Individual people buying Black cannot compensate for institutions that do not. When HBCUs alongside fraternities, sororities, churches, and every other pillar of African American institutional life model the extraction rather than the retention, the community internalizes the lesson being taught, not the slogan being chanted. The HBCU Card is not an isolated mistake. It is a current example of a durable institutional posture: perform solidarity, outsource the economics.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Banking & Credit Unions

Tagged african american financial institutions, African American wealth building, African American-owned banks, African American-owned credit unions, Arkansas A&M College Federal Credit Union, black banking, Black dollar circulation, Black institutional power, capital retention, community development financial institutions, Councill Federal Credit Union, Florida A&M University Federal Credit Union, HBCU banking, HBCU Card, hbcu credit unions, HBCU economics, hbcu financial strategy, HBCU institutional strategy, hbcu money, HBCU Standard, oneunited bank, prepaid card HBCU, Southern Teachers and Parents Federal Credit Union, Sunrise Banks, Virginia State University Federal Credit Union, Xavier University of Louisiana Federal Credit Union

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Editorial

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

Tag Archives: Black institutional power

Building Dynasties: What It Will Take for African American Families to Rise to Power

Can We Talk About More Than Sports? The Disappearance of the African American Male Intellectual

Invite Allies to the Potluck but Protect the Cookout

The HBCU Card? Why the Community’s Institutional Dollar Constantly Fails to Circulate at the HBCU’s Front Door

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

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Meta