We are forced to trust the very institutions who stole the land in the first place because we have not developed and maintained our own. – William A. Foster, IV
A grandfather in Wilcox County plants loblolly pine on forty acres in 1961, the year the trees will outlive him being the whole point. He tells his children the timber is not for cutting; it is for holding. When he dies without a will, the forty acres become the property of nine heirs, then, a generation later, of thirty-one. No bank will lend against a title held by thirty-one people who cannot agree to sign the same document. The family calls the county forester listed on the state’s directory, the only one covering their district, because there is no other option in the phone book and no other name anyone in the family has ever heard mentioned with trust. The advice that comes back is vague, the timeline uncertain, and there is no second opinion to check it against, no other firm to call, no one who looks like the family sitting across the table. The pines keep growing, undermanaged not for lack of care but for lack of anywhere safe to take that care. Forty years after planting, a timber company buys out the confused heirs for a fraction of the standing timber’s value, and the grandfather’s patient capital becomes someone else’s harvest.
That scene is not a story about one bad forester or one unlucky family. It is a story about what happens when an entire asset class has exactly zero Black-owned institutions capable of serving it; no brokerage, no financing arm, no forestry consultancy, no appraisal firm built by and accountable to the community whose land is on the table. For nearly every other category of wealth-building infrastructure, HBCU Standard has documented at least a partial institutional base: Black-owned banks and credit unions, Black-owned commercial real estate firms, Black-owned construction companies. In rural land and timberland specifically, a category increasingly discussed as an inflation hedge, a carbon-credit asset, and a durable multigenerational holding — that base does not exist. Not a small one. Not a regional one. None. And the absence does not simply mean missed opportunity. It means that every African American family holding rural land, and every one considering buying it, is doing so without the single thing that would let them tell the difference between good advice and bad: a trusted counterparty inside the industry with something to lose if it gets that advice wrong.
This is the predicament worth naming plainly. A family that already holds land has, in most of the rural South, exactly one state district forester assigned to their county, no competing Black-owned firm to call for a second opinion, and no institutional recourse if that forester’s guidance turns out to serve someone else’s interests rather than theirs. A family looking to buy timberland as an asset has no Black-owned equivalent of a firm like Hall and Hall, which does not simply broker land but finances it directly, offering loan programs ranging from low variable rates to full thirty-year fixed terms so a client can originate, appraise, and fund an acquisition inside a single relationship. That vertical integration is precisely what makes an institution durable across a timber rotation: the same firm that helps a client find and value a parcel can also lend against it, rather than sending the client back out to a separate lender with no connection to the land or the deal.
To understand why that absence matters, it helps to see what a firm like Hall and Hall actually does, because it bears almost no resemblance to the real estate transaction most readers know from buying a house. A residential agent lists a property, compares it against recent sales of similar homes nearby, and hands the buyer off to a conventional mortgage lender who underwrites based on the buyer’s income and an appraiser’s estimate of the house’s value alone. None of those tools transfer to timberland. Valuing a working forest requires an actual cruise of the standing timber; a forester physically walking the property to inventory species, age, volume per acre, and growth rate because the trees themselves are a separate, living asset with their own market price, layered on top of the bare land value, changing every year whether anyone touches it or not. Financing the purchase means underwriting against decades of projected harvest income, and often against secondary income like grazing or hunting leases, rather than a buyer’s fixed monthly paycheck, which is why Hall and Hall runs its own loan programs instead of referring clients to a bank teller. And the transaction itself carries considerations a residential closing never touches: mineral rights that may or may not convey with the surface, water rights in Western states, conservation easements that permanently restrict future use in exchange for tax benefits, access easements across neighboring land, and a formal management plan for what happens to the timber over the next thirty years, not just what happens at the closing table. A firm built to handle all of that under one roof, continuously, is a fundamentally different kind of institution than a residential brokerage that occasionally lists rural acreage on the side and it is exactly why calling a local real estate agent, however well-intentioned, is not a substitute for the thing that’s missing.
No Black-owned firm offers any piece of that stack, let alone all of it. A family that finds its way past appraisal and negotiation on its own still has to secure financing from an institution outside the community entirely often the very kind of lender whose historical record with Black landowners is the reason for caution in the first place.
That wariness is not paranoia. It has a documented record behind it. Pigford v. Glickman, settled in 1999 as one of the largest civil rights settlements in American history, established in federal court that the USDA had systematically discriminated against Black farmers in the allocation of farm loans and disaster assistance between 1981 and 1996 delaying and denying credit that white farmers received routinely, and for over a decade failing to functionally operate the very civil rights office meant to investigate complaints about it. Congress appropriated another $1.2 billion in 2010 for a second settlement, Pigford II, because so many farmers with legitimate claims had been unable to file the first time. This is not ancient history from the era of outright land theft after emancipation. It is a pattern of institutional behavior toward Black landowners that persisted into living memory, inside the very federal agency structure that state and district foresters, county extension offices, and agricultural lenders all sit within. A family that has watched that pattern play out in the district office, in the bank, sometimes in their own family’s dealings with a local forester has every reason to want a trusted, accountable alternative before signing anything. The absence of that alternative is the actual risk, not an inconvenience layered on top of one.
Layer the heirs’ property problem on top of that trust deficit and the predicament compounds rather than adds. Research out of the University of Georgia’s Warnell School of Forestry has documented how clouded title land passed down without a will, held as an undivided interest among a growing number of descendants locks families out of financing, cost-share programs, and professional forest management, because no lender or agency wants to deal with an ownership structure that any single heir could blow up with a partition sale. Resolving that title requires legal expertise most families cannot afford and most local firms are not built to provide with any particular care. Mavis Gragg’s organization HeirShares exists specifically to clear these legal pathways, and the Federation of Southern Cooperatives has run a Land Assistance Fund toward the same end for decades. But neither is a brokerage, a lender, or a forestry management firm. They can help a family reach clean title. They cannot then walk that family through financing a thinning operation, negotiating a fair timber sale, or acquiring a second parcel to expand the holding, the actual services a firm like Hall and Hall provides continuously to the families who already trust it. Clearing title without a trusted destination to route the resulting clean parcel toward simply relocates the risk rather than resolving it.
The scale of what’s been lost while this institutional vacuum sat unfilled is worth stating plainly, in the register this publication uses for these numbers rather than the multi-trillion projections other outlets reach for. In 1910, according to the National Forest Foundation, Black Americans owned 195 timber companies and comprised roughly a quarter of all employees in the forest products industry. By 1920, per the Land Trust Alliance, African American farmers controlled approximately 14 percent of the nation’s farmland; today that figure is under 1 percent, and total African American land ownership across every category; timberland, farmland, residential, everything has fallen from an estimated 15 to 16 million acres to under 2 million. Set that number against a single entry on the Land Report’s 2025 ranking of America’s largest private landowners: the Emmerson family, through Sierra Pacific Industries, holds 2.44 million acres of timberland in California, Oregon, and Washington alone more than the entirety of Black land ownership nationwide, across every category, combined. John Malone holds roughly 2.2 million acres across four states. The Reed family’s Green Diamond Resource Company, built from a Pacific Northwest logging operation started in 1897, holds about 2.1 million acres. Each of those holdings is the product of a century or more of uninterrupted institutional continuity: clean title passed down without interruption, financing relationships maintained across generations, professional forestry management retained continuously rather than improvised family by family. That continuity is precisely what heirs’ property and the absence of a trusted institutional counterparty have made structurally difficult for Black landowners to replicate, no matter how much care any individual family brings to the effort.
None of this argues that timberland is a bad asset for African American families to hold or acquire. It argues the opposite: that the fundamentals of the asset class; steady periodic cash flow from harvests, low correlation with equity markets, a growing carbon-credit revenue stream for standing forest, and a purchase price still within reach of pooled institutional capital make it exactly the kind of holding worth building durable infrastructure around. And the talent to staff that infrastructure is not the missing piece. Alabama A&M University, one of the nineteen 1890 land-grant HBCUs rather than one of the handful of flagship HBCUs (Howard, Morehouse, Spelman) usually invoked in this conversation, runs the only professionally accredited forestry degree at an HBCU and operates as a USDA Forest Service Center of Excellence. Southern University and A&M College in Baton Rouge, part of the only historically Black land-grant university system in the country, offers a bachelor’s, master’s, and Ph.D. in Urban Forestry through a program it describes as the most comprehensive of its kind in the nation. Tuskegee University runs combined forestry programs with Auburn, Iowa State, the University of Michigan, and Idaho State, sending its students on to finish accredited degrees at partner institutions. And a partnership dating to 1993 between the U.S. Forest Service and four HBCUs; Alabama A&M, Southern, Tuskegee, and Florida A&M has, according to the Forest Service’s own national diversity student programs manager, trained two-thirds of the Black foresters currently working inside the agency. That is not a thin pipeline. It is a substantial, decades-old talent base, producing credentialed foresters at meaningful scale, virtually none of whom currently have the option of being hired into a private Black-owned brokerage, appraisal, or land-management firm because no such firm exists to hire them. The gap in this asset class was never expertise. It is the institution that expertise would staff.
What the Wilcox County family needed in 1961, and what a family looking to buy its first parcel of timberland needs today, is the same thing: an institution built specifically to hold this asset class the way Sierra Pacific and Green Diamond hold theirs, financed the way Hall and Hall finances its own clients’ acquisitions, staffed by graduates of Alabama A&M, Southern, and Tuskegee who are accountable to the community whose trust the industry has not yet earned, and structured to move a family from clouded title through financing through active management without ever requiring them to extend blind faith to a district office or an outside lender with no history of earning it. Every piece of that institution’s eventual capability already exists somewhere, disconnected from the others; title-clearing organizations, a credentialed forestry pipeline, cooperative land trusts, community capital sitting in Black-owned banks and HBCU endowments. Coordinating those pieces into one accountable, professionally staffed, vertically financed institution is not a distant aspiration. It is the specific, buildable answer to a specific, well-documented predicament.
The grandfather who planted loblolly pine in 1961 was making an institutional bet without an institution to back it, trusting that the trees, the family, and eventually someone trustworthy to manage them, would all still be standing when the rotation came due. The trees held up their end. What failed was everything around them: the title no bank would recognize, the forester no one had reason to trust, the financing that had to be sought from strangers, the firm that never got built to stand between the family and the forced sale. Until African America has its own version of the institution that holds land the way Sierra Pacific and Green Diamond hold theirs and finances it the way Hall and Hall finances its own, every acre already owned and every acre still to be bought carries a risk no amount of individual caution can fully offset.
Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.
“It is disappointing that HBCUs and any African American institution for that matter have not figured out yet that the circulation of our social, economic, and political capital with each other at the institutional level is where the acute crisis of closing the wealth gap truly lies. Yet, we still chase colder ice.” – William A. Foster, IV
The percentage of PWI dollars that flow into African American owned businesses is likely limited to catering a social event. Beyond that, their dollar never even likely floats pass an African American business. However, HBCUs certainly cannot say the same. HBCU capital leaving the African American financial ecosystem looks like every dam on Earth broke at the same time.
Virginia Union University’s recent announcement of a partnership with Keller Williams Richmond West represents a familiar pattern in HBCU decision-making, one that undermines the very mission these institutions claim to champion. While VUU proudly touts this collaboration as “groundbreaking” and positions it as a pathway to “closing the racial wealth gap,” the partnership reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how wealth gaps are actually closed. The reality is stark: you cannot close a racial wealth gap by systematically excluding institutions from your own community from the economic opportunities your institution creates.
When HBCUs partner exclusively with non-Black institutions, they create what economists call a “leaky bucket” effect. The money, talent, and social capital generated by these historically Black institutions flow outward to other communities rather than circulating within the African American ecosystem. Every dollar spent with a non-Black vendor, every partnership signed with a non-Black firm, every opportunity directed away from Black-owned businesses represents wealth that could have been building generational prosperity in Black communities—but instead enriches other groups. This is where the fundamental disconnect lies: HBCUs understand the importance of encouraging individual African Americans to support Black-owned businesses, yet these same institutions fail to apply this principle at the institutional level where the real economic power resides.
The conversation about the circulation of the African American dollar has historically focused on individual consumer behavior. We’ve heard for decades about the need for Black consumers to shop at Black-owned stores, bank with Black-owned financial institutions, and hire Black-owned service providers. Studies have shown that a dollar circulates in Asian communities for approximately thirty days, in Jewish communities for around twenty days, in white communities for seventeen days, but in Black communities for only six hours before leaving. This abysmal circulation rate is correctly identified as a critical factor in the persistent wealth gap. But what these discussions almost always miss is that individual consumer behavior, while important, pales in comparison to institutional spending power.
When Virginia Union University signs a multiyear partnership with Keller Williams, it’s not spending a few hundred or even a few thousand dollars. Institutional partnerships involve hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in direct and indirect economic benefits—facility usage, marketing exposure, student referrals, commission opportunities, and brand association. A single institutional partnership can equal the spending power of hundreds or thousands of individual consumers. Yet HBCUs consistently fail to recognize that their institutional spending decisions have exponentially more impact on wealth circulation than any individual consumer choice their students or alumni might make.
VUU’s partnership with Keller Williams is particularly emblematic of this pattern. According to the announcement, this collaboration will create “the first Keller Williams Real Estate Hub on an HBCU campus in Virginia” and will be “designed to bridge education, entrepreneurship, and real estate into one powerful ecosystem.” The goals are admirable: career readiness, economic mobility, wealth-building opportunities through real estate education and professional pathways. The partnership is positioned as being co-led by members of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, with explicit language about sisterhood, brotherhood, and service in action. But here’s the question VUU administrators apparently didn’t ask: Why not create this “powerful ecosystem” with a Black-owned real estate company?
The assumption underlying most HBCU partnerships with non-Black firms seems to be that suitable Black-owned alternatives don’t exist. This assumption is demonstrably false. Black-owned real estate companies operate throughout the United States, including in Virginia and the Richmond area. These firms possess the expertise, resources, and commitment to serve HBCU students and alumni. United Real Estate Richmond, which describes itself as the largest Black-owned real estate firm in the Mid-Atlantic region, operates right in VUU’s backyard. CTI Real Estate is a Black-owned, woman-owned firm serving Virginia and Maryland. Nationally, companies like Braden Real Estate Group—a Black-owned Houston-based brokerage co-founded by Prairie View A&M University graduate Nicole Braden Handy—demonstrate the success of HBCU alumni in building substantial real estate businesses. H.J. Russell & Company, founded in 1952, stands as one of the largest minority-owned real estate firms in the United States. These Black-owned firms have proven track records of success, deep community connections, and explicit missions to build wealth in African American communities. These firms could provide the same—or better—opportunities that Keller Williams offers, with the added benefit of keeping wealth circulating in the Black community.
The difference would be transformative. A partnership with a Black-owned real estate firm would actually contribute to closing the wealth gap. It would demonstrate to students what Black excellence in business looks like. It would create mentorship opportunities with professionals who understand the unique challenges and opportunities facing Black Americans in real estate. It would ensure that the commissions, fees, and other economic benefits generated by the partnership stay within the African American economic ecosystem. Most importantly, it would model the institutional behavior necessary for true wealth accumulation—showing students that circulation of Black dollars must happen at every level, not just in their personal spending habits.
But to truly understand what institutional circulation looks like, consider this scenario: An African American real estate investment firm—owned by an HBCU alumnus and employing HBCU graduates as project managers, analysts, and development specialists—decides to develop a mixed-use building in Richmond. The firm uses Braden Real Estate Group to acquire the land. They secure financing from an African American bank like OneUnited Bank or Liberty Bank, supplemented by an investment syndicate of African American investors. The construction is handled by an African American-owned construction company like H.J. Russell & Company. When the transaction closes, it’s processed through Answer Title & Escrow LLC, the Black-owned title company founded by University of the District of Columbia alumna Donna Shuler. The property management contract goes to another Black-owned firm. The legal work is handled by Black attorneys. The accounting is done by a Black-owned firm.
This is what institutional circulation actually looks like. In this single development project, wealth circulates through multiple Black-owned institutions at every stage of the transaction. The bank earns interest income that it can then lend to other Black businesses and homeowners. The title company generates revenue that allows it to hire more staff and take on larger projects. The construction company builds its portfolio and capacity to compete for even bigger developments. The real estate investment firm creates returns for its Black investors and proves the viability of Black-owned development companies. The project managers and analysts gain experience that prepares them to start their own firms. Every single point in the transaction keeps wealth circulating within the African American economic ecosystem, building institutional capacity, creating jobs, generating returns, and proving that Black-owned institutions can handle sophisticated, large-scale projects.
Now contrast that with what happens when VUU partners with Keller Williams. Students may get training and even jobs as real estate agents, but the institutional wealth flows to Keller Williams—a non-Black company. The commissions generated by VUU-affiliated agents enrich Keller Williams’ franchise system. The brand association benefits Keller Williams’ reputation. The networking opportunities primarily connect students to Keller Williams’ existing (predominantly non-Black) networks. And when these students eventually facilitate property transactions, the ancillary services—financing, title work, legal services—typically flow to whatever institutions Keller Williams recommends, which are unlikely to be Black-owned.
The VUU-Keller Williams partnership might help individual Black students enter the real estate industry, but it does absolutely nothing to build the Black-owned institutional infrastructure necessary for true wealth building. In fact, it actively undermines that infrastructure by directing institutional resources and opportunities away from Black-owned firms. VUU essentially takes Black talent, students who could be building careers with Black-owned firms, and channels them into a non-Black institution, teaching them that Black institutions aren’t capable of providing the same opportunities.
This is the critical insight that HBCUs continue to miss: institutional circulation of capital is what builds lasting economic power. When individual Black consumers support Black businesses, they create important but limited impact. One person shopping at a Black-owned grocery store or banking with a Black-owned bank makes a difference, but a small one. When Black institutions support Black businesses, they create transformative, generational impact. An HBCU that partners with Black-owned banks, construction companies, real estate firms, technology providers, and service companies doesn’t just create individual transactions it builds an entire ecosystem of mutually reinforcing institutions that grow stronger together. This institutional ecosystem then has the power to compete with non-Black institutions, create opportunities at scale, and genuinely close wealth gaps.
Think about what would happen if every HBCU made a commitment to work exclusively with Black-owned institutions whenever viable alternatives exist. Imagine if all 101 HBCUs banked with Black-owned banks, used Black-owned construction companies for campus buildings, partnered with Black-owned real estate firms for student housing and community development, contracted with Black-owned technology companies for IT services, and hired Black-owned firms for legal, accounting, and consulting work. The combined institutional spending power of HBCUs would transform the Black business landscape. Black-owned banks would have hundreds of millions in deposits, allowing them to make larger loans and compete for more business. Black-owned construction companies would have steady revenue streams that would allow them to invest in equipment, hire skilled workers, and bid on larger projects. Black-owned real estate firms would have the institutional backing to compete for major developments. Black-owned technology companies would have the resources to innovate and scale.
But beyond the immediate economic impact, this institutional circulation would create something even more valuable: proof of concept. When Alabama State University chooses a Black-owned bank to handle a $125 million transaction, it proves that Black-owned financial institutions can handle sophisticated, large-scale deals. When VUU partners with a Black-owned real estate firm to create a campus-based real estate hub, it proves that Black-owned companies can deliver the same quality and scale as non-Black competitors. When HBCUs consistently work with Black-owned construction companies, law firms, accounting firms, and consulting companies, they build a track record of success that these firms can point to when competing for other major contracts. This institutional validation is precisely what Black-owned businesses need to break through the barriers that have historically excluded them from large-scale opportunities.
VUU’s partnership is not an isolated incident, it’s part of a troubling pattern. As HBCU Money has documented, only two HBCUs are believed to bank with Black-owned banks, meaning well over 90 percent of HBCUs do not bank with African American-owned financial institutions. This mirrors the broader pattern where over 90 percent of African Americans who attend college choose non-HBCUs, and in both cases, neither Black-owned banks nor HBCUs are able to fulfill their potential without the patronage and investment of those they were built to serve. Alabama State University’s $125 million decision to partner with a non-Black financial institution exemplifies what can be called “Island Mentality”—the failure of HBCUs to connect with and support the African American private sector. When Alabama State University had the opportunity to work with Black-owned banks and financial institutions, they chose to look elsewhere. Consider the irony: Howard University, African America’s flagship HBCU, partnered with PNC Bank, a Pittsburgh-based institution with over $550 billion in assets, more than 100 times the combined assets of all remaining Black-owned banks to create a $3.4 million annual entrepreneurship center. Meanwhile, Industrial Bank, a Black-owned institution with $723 million in assets, operates right in Howard’s backyard. PNC Bank’s executive team commanded $81 million in compensation in 2022 alone, while only one Black-owned bank in America has assets exceeding $1 billion. These decisions, like VUU’s partnership with Keller Williams, send a devastating message: even historically Black institutions don’t believe Black-owned businesses are worthy of their partnership.
The impact extends beyond symbolism. Every time an HBCU chooses a non-Black partner when Black alternatives exist, it represents lost revenue for Black-owned businesses that could have grown stronger, hired HBCU graduates, and created more opportunities. It represents missed networking opportunities for students who could have built relationships with Black business leaders. It represents weakened community ties that could have been strengthened through institutional support. It represents reduced political capital for the Black business community, which needs institutional backing to compete for larger contracts. And it perpetuates stereotypes about the capability and reliability of Black-owned businesses.
Let’s be clear about what “closing the wealth gap” actually requires. According to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, the median wealth of white families is approximately ten times greater than that of Black families. This gap didn’t emerge overnight, and it won’t close through symbolic gestures or partnerships that funnel Black talent and capital into non-Black institutions. Closing the wealth gap requires wealth creation within the Black community through business ownership and entrepreneurship. It requires wealth circulation that keeps dollars moving through Black-owned businesses before leaving the community. It requires wealth accumulation through strategic investments in Black-owned assets. And it requires wealth transfer across generations through education, mentorship, and institutional support.
When VUU partners with Keller Williams instead of a Black-owned real estate company, it fails on every single one of these requirements. The wealth created by student success in real estate will flow to Keller Williams and its predominantly non-Black agents. The circulation of capital will happen outside the Black community. The accumulation will benefit non-Black wealth holders. And the transfer of knowledge and opportunity will lack the cultural competency and community commitment that comes from working with Black-owned institutions. Most critically, VUU misses the opportunity to demonstrate to its students how institutional circulation of capital works, teaching them instead that even Black institutions should look outside their community for partnerships when it matters most.
The example of what institutional circulation could look like in real estate development isn’t theoretical it’s entirely possible right now with existing Black-owned institutions. When Donna Shuler founded Answer Title & Escrow LLC as a University of the District of Columbia alumna, she created exactly the kind of institutional capacity that makes the full-circle Black real estate ecosystem viable. As she explained in her interview with HBCU Money, title companies play a crucial role in every real estate transaction—they ensure clear ownership, coordinate closings, prepare legal documents, collect funds, and issue title insurance. Having a Black-owned title company means that millions of dollars in fees and service charges stay within the Black community rather than flowing out. Combined with Black-owned banks providing financing, Black-owned real estate firms handling acquisitions, Black-owned construction companies building the projects, and Black-owned development firms managing the entire process, you create a complete ecosystem where institutional wealth circulates multiple times before leaving the community.
This is what VUU could have created with its real estate initiative but chose not to. Instead of building an ecosystem where Black institutions strengthen each other, VUU created a pipeline that extracts Black talent and channels it into a non-Black institution. Students will learn real estate from Keller Williams, make connections through Keller Williams networks, and likely facilitate transactions that benefit Keller Williams and its associated service providers. The institutional wealth created by VUU’s endorsement and student pipeline flows entirely out of the Black community.
HBCUs often justify these partnerships by arguing that non-Black firms offer broader networks, more resources, or greater reach. This argument is both self-fulfilling and self-defeating. It’s self-fulfilling because when HBCUs consistently choose non-Black partners, they ensure that Black-owned businesses never gain the institutional backing needed to compete at scale. How can Black-owned real estate companies build the same networks as Keller Williams when HBCUs, the institutions that should be their natural partners, consistently choose their competitors? It’s self-defeating because it undermines the very purpose of HBCUs. These institutions were created because the existing educational ecosystem excluded Black Americans. They thrived by building their own networks, creating their own opportunities, and supporting each other. The suggestion that HBCUs now need to partner with non-Black institutions to succeed represents a fundamental abandonment of the HBCU mission and the institutional circulation principle that should guide their operations.
Imagine if VUU had instead announced a partnership with a coalition of Black-owned real estate companies. The announcement might have read: “Virginia Union University is proud to announce a groundbreaking partnership with Black-owned real estate firms across Virginia marking the creation of the first Black Real Estate Hub on an HBCU campus. This collaboration goes beyond sponsorship to create career readiness, economic mobility, and wealth-building opportunities for VUU students, alumni, and the Richmond community through real estate education, entrepreneurship, and professional pathways led by successful Black business owners including HBCU alumni. Students will learn not just how to sell houses, but how to build generational wealth through development, investment, and institutional deal-making within the Black business ecosystem. They will receive training from firms like United Real Estate Richmond, Braden Real Estate Group, and other Black-owned companies, with pathways to internships and employment that keep talent and capital circulating within the African American community. The initiative will explicitly connect students with Black-owned banks for financing education, Black-owned title companies for transaction processing, and Black-owned development firms for career opportunities in the full spectrum of real estate activities.”
Such a partnership would demonstrate commitment to the Black business community, create mentorship pipelines between Black students and Black business leaders, build economic power by concentrating resources in Black-owned institutions, establish replicable models for other HBCUs to follow, and generate authentic wealth-building that actually closes gaps rather than widening them. It would teach students the most important lesson about wealth building: that institutional circulation of capital within your community is what creates lasting prosperity, not individual success stories that extract value from the community.
Beyond economics, these partnership decisions carry enormous social and political implications. When HBCUs choose non-Black partners, they signal to their students, alumni, and communities that Black-owned businesses are insufficient, unreliable, or less capable. This message has devastating ripple effects. Students at HBCUs should graduate believing they can build successful businesses that serve their communities and compete at the highest levels. They should see their institutions modeling the behavior they’re encouraged to adopt. Instead, they witness their own universities choosing non-Black partners, learning an implicit lesson about the supposed superiority of non-Black institutions. They learn that while individual Black consumers should support Black businesses, institutions don’t have to follow the same principle. This creates a fundamental contradiction that undermines the economic empowerment message entirely.
Consider the message VUU sends with its Keller Williams partnership: “We’ll teach you to be real estate professionals, but we don’t believe Black-owned real estate companies are good enough to partner with us.” What are students supposed to take from that? That they should aspire to work for Black-owned firms, or that they should aim for the “real” opportunities at non-Black companies? That Black businesses can compete at the highest levels, or that even Black institutions don’t really believe that? The implicit message is devastating, and it’s reinforced every time an HBCU makes a major partnership announcement with a non-Black firm when Black alternatives exist.
This dynamic also weakens the political capital of the Black business community. When even HBCUs won’t support Black-owned businesses, it becomes nearly impossible for these firms to argue they deserve a seat at the table for major contracts, government partnerships, or policy decisions. If historically Black institutions don’t believe Black businesses are capable of handling significant partnerships, why would predominantly white institutions, corporations, or government agencies think differently? HBCUs, by failing to partner with Black-owned institutions, actively undermine the credibility and viability of the very businesses that could drive wealth creation in African American communities.
The solution isn’t complicated, though it requires courage and commitment. HBCUs must conduct systematic audits of all major partnerships and vendor relationships to identify where Black-owned alternatives exist. They must establish procurement policies that prioritize Black-owned businesses when quality and capability are equivalent. They should create development programs to help emerging Black-owned businesses build the capacity to serve as HBCU partners. They need to build collaborative networks connecting HBCUs with Black-owned banks, real estate firms, construction companies, technology providers, and other businesses. They must measure and report on the percentage of institutional spending directed to Black-owned businesses, creating transparency and accountability. And they need to educate all stakeholders—boards, administrators, faculty, students, and alumni—about why these partnerships matter for wealth gap closure and why institutional circulation of capital is the key to building lasting economic power.
Some will argue this approach is discriminatory or inefficient. This objection ignores history and reality. HBCUs exist because discrimination created the need for separate Black institutions. Having addressed educational exclusion by building their own colleges, it’s logical and necessary to address economic exclusion by building supportive business ecosystems. The focus on institutional circulation isn’t about excluding others; it’s about finally including Black-owned institutions in the economic opportunities that Black institutions create. It’s about recognizing that the same principle we apply to individual consumer behavior of circulate dollars in your community applies with exponentially greater impact at the institutional level.
The choice facing HBCUs is stark: continue operating as isolated islands that happen to serve Black students, or become integral parts of a thriving African American institutional ecosystem that builds collective power and prosperity. Virginia Union University’s partnership with Keller Williams, like Alabama State University’s financial decisions before it, represents the island mentality. These institutions take Black talent, Black energy, and Black resources, then channel them into non-Black institutions that have no structural commitment to Black community wealth-building. They preach to students about supporting Black businesses while their own institutional dollars flow to non-Black partners.
The real estate development scenario described earlier where an HBCU alumnus-owned development firm works with Braden Real Estate Group, Answer Title, a Black-owned bank, and a Black-owned construction company isn’t a fantasy. All of these institutions exist right now. The only thing preventing this kind of institutional circulation from becoming the norm rather than the exception is the willingness of HBCUs to make it a priority. When HBCUs choose to partner with Black-owned institutions, they don’t just create individual transactions they validate and strengthen an entire ecosystem of Black-owned businesses that can then compete for even larger opportunities.
True wealth gap closure requires HBCUs to fundamentally reimagine their role. They must see themselves not as individual institutions competing for resources and prestige, but as anchor institutions responsible for building and sustaining a broader African American economic ecosystem. This means prioritizing partnerships with Black-owned banks, real estate companies, construction firms, technology providers, and other businesses even when doing so requires more effort, more creativity, or more patience. It means recognizing that institutional circulation of capital is what transforms individual Black success stories into generational Black wealth accumulation. It means understanding that HBCUs have the power to create the very ecosystem they claim doesn’t exist by directing their substantial institutional resources to Black-owned businesses.
The question isn’t whether Black-owned alternatives exist. They do. The question is whether HBCU leaders have the vision, courage, and commitment to build an economic ecosystem that actually closes the wealth gap rather than simply talking about it. Until HBCUs make this fundamental shift, until they recognize that institutional circulation of capital is the key to wealth building and start directing their partnerships, contracts, and spending to Black-owned institutions these announcements about “groundbreaking partnerships” that close the wealth gap will remain what they are today: well-intentioned rhetoric that masks the continued extraction of Black wealth and talent for the benefit of other communities.
Individual African Americans can only do so much with their consumer dollars. The six-hour circulation rate in Black communities is a problem, but it’s a problem that individual behavior alone cannot solve. The real power lies at the institutional level. When an HBCU spends $10 million on a construction project with a Black-owned firm, that’s not the equivalent of 10,000 individual consumers each spending $1,000—it’s exponentially more powerful because institutional spending validates capacity, builds track records, creates jobs at scale, and proves viability in ways that individual transactions never can. But HBCUs, with their millions in institutional spending power, their influence over thousands of students and alumni, and their role as anchor institutions in Black communities, have the power to transform the economic landscape. They just need to recognize that the principle of dollar circulation they teach their students applies with even greater force to their own institutional behavior.
Until HBCUs start practicing institutional circulation of capital, until they recognize that every major partnership, every significant contract, and every spending decision is an opportunity to strengthen Black-owned institutions and build the ecosystem necessary for true wealth creation they will continue to be part of the problem rather than the solution to the wealth gap they claim to want to close. The infrastructure exists. The capable Black-owned businesses exist. The only thing missing is the institutional will to make Black economic ecosystem-building a priority over convenience, familiarity, or the perceived prestige of partnering with established non-Black firms. The choice is clear: HBCUs can continue channeling Black talent and capital out of the community, or they can finally commit to the institutional circulation that makes wealth gap closure actually possible.
Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.
HBCU Money 