Tag Archives: black philanthropy

When Rivalries Do Nothing: What 50 Cent and T.I. Could Learn from Rockefeller and Carnegie

Posted on February 23, 2026 by | 1 comment

As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do. – Andrew Carnegie

In the late 19th century, two men stood at the pinnacle of American industry and despised each other. John D. Rockefeller, the oil baron who had quietly and methodically assembled Standard Oil into a monopoly, and Andrew Carnegie, the steel magnate who built his empire on the sweat and ingenuity of immigrant labor, were the defining rivals of the Gilded Age. They competed for wealth, for prestige, for the title of richest man in America — and then, crucially, they competed for something else entirely: legacy.

What that competition produced is almost too vast to comprehend.

Andrew Carnegie funded 2,509 libraries between 1883 and 1929, with 1,681 built in the United States alone. Over 26 primary organizations — including Carnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Hall, the Carnegie Institution for Science, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — were established directly by him. Over 2,500 institutions and buildings worldwide bear his name. Pittsburgh, where his steel empire was born, holds the highest concentration, but the Carnegie name stretches across every state and dozens of countries. The Carnegie Corporation of New York, still active today, continues to fund education and democracy initiatives well into the 21st century.

The Rockefeller legacy is no less staggering. Dozens of major institutions bear his family’s name: Rockefeller University, The Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Center in the heart of Manhattan. His name is on halls at Cornell and Vassar, on a chapel at the University of Chicago, on an archive center that preserves the history of American philanthropy itself. And then there is the commercial legacy — when the Supreme Court broke up Standard Oil in 1911 into 34 companies, those companies eventually consolidated into what we now call ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Marathon Petroleum, and ConocoPhillips. That group of Standard Oil descendants today carries a combined market capitalization of approximately $1.3 trillion. The wealth Rockefeller created never stopped compounding. It simply changed form.

But here is what makes the Rockefeller legacy particularly resonant for this publication and this community: Morehouse College bears the name of Rockefeller’s former pastor, John Morehouse. Spelman College — the oldest historically Black college for women in the United States — bears the maiden name of Rockefeller’s wife, Laura Spelman. John D. Rockefeller was among Spelman’s earliest and most significant funders, contributing to the institution that would go on to educate generations of Black women who shaped American life. The man whose name is synonymous with monopoly capitalism was also, in a meaningful way, a patron of Black higher education at a moment when almost no one else was willing to be.

And the Rockefeller Foundation’s Form 990, publicly available through ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer, tells the ongoing story in hard numbers: total assets of $6.23 billion, net assets of $5.39 billion, and $440 million in charitable disbursements in 2023 alone — while the endowment principal remained largely intact. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, similarly available for public examination, reports total assets of $602 million and net assets of $559 million as of its most recent filing, up from $238 million in net assets just a decade ago. These institutions are still growing. They are still filing 990s. They are still deploying capital into the world more than a century after the men who created them drew their last breath.

A prior HBCU Money analysis of African American philanthropic institutions laid bare exactly why this distinction between revenue and investment income is the difference between activity and power. The King Center in Atlanta — one of the strongest African American legacy nonprofits in the country — earned $788,000 in investment income in 2022. The Ford Foundation generated $1.2 billion in investment income that same year. The Rockefeller Foundation generated $120 million. The Ford Foundation ran a $520 million deficit that year while the King Center ran a $1.28 million surplus — and Ford is the stronger institution by an almost incomprehensible margin. Ford can choose to run half a billion dollars in the red because its endowment is so vast that the deficit barely registers against the principal. The King Center’s surplus is a sign of precarity, not strength: it means the institution spent the year clinging to solvency rather than deploying capital into the world.

And then there is the Steward Family Foundation, anchored by David Steward — the wealthiest African American man in the country. In 2023 it reported $12.5 million in revenue. It held $22,000 in assets. It generated $29,000 in investment income. The wealthiest Black man in America has structured his primary philanthropic vehicle to distribute money annually and accumulate nothing — a pass-through, not a perpetual institution. His foundation will not be filing a 990 in a hundred years. It is not designed to. That is not a critique of David Steward’s generosity. It is a description of the architecture of Black philanthropy at its current upper limit: generous in the moment, invisible across generations.

That is what it looks like when a rivalry is pointed at something beyond ego.

Now enter Clifford Joseph Harris Jr. and Curtis James Jackson III, better known to the world as T.I. and 50 Cent.

The beef between these two hip-hop heavyweights has been simmering for years, recently reignited and escalating into a public spectacle that has captured the attention of the culture. T.I.’s son, King Harris, has leaped into the fray on his father’s behalf. Social media has lit up. Shots have been fired — verbal ones, though given the histories of both men, the word carries particular weight. The culture watches, chooses sides, and amplifies the conflict.

And what does it produce? Absolutely nothing of value to the African American community.

That is not an overstatement. It is the most precise accounting available.

This beef will not lead to a competition over who can build the largest endowment at an HBCU. It will not culminate in 50 Cent funding a new research center at Howard University while T.I. answers by endowing a chair at Morehouse — the school that, let us not forget, already carries the indirect legacy of a man who built an oil monopoly. It will not inspire either man to deposit millions into African American-owned banks, institutions that are chronically undercapitalized and desperately in need of the kind of support that Black wealth could provide if it were directed with intention. It will not produce a dollar for African American early childhood education programs. It will not fund K-12 institutions in the underserved communities both men came from. It will not build a single research facility dedicated to attacking the health disparities — hypertension, diabetes, maternal mortality, cancer survival rates — that continue to devastate Black America at disproportionate rates.

It will do nothing. It will generate content. It will generate clout. It will generate revenue for platforms that profit from conflict. It will generate nothing else.

The Medgar and Myrlie Evers Institute — honoring the NAACP field secretary who was assassinated in his own driveway in 1963 and the woman who spent thirty years pursuing his killer to justice — reported just $107,000 in total revenue in 2023 and earned nothing in investment income. Nothing. The institution charged with preserving the legacy of one of the most consequential civil rights martyrs in American history is running on the institutional equivalent of fumes. The Martin and Coretta King Center in Atlanta, the steward of Dr. King’s legacy and one of the most visited civil rights landmarks in the country, earned $788,000 in investment income in 2022 against an endowment that remains a fraction of what the institution’s mission demands. The Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial and Educational Center in New York — preserving the legacy of a man who came from the same streets, the same circumstances, the same defiance of a system designed to destroy him that both T.I. and 50 Cent have built careers channeling — generated $1,500 in investment income on $1.4 million in total revenue. Fifteen hundred dollars. Two men who have each earned more than that in the time it takes to read this sentence have not made these institutions whole.

This is the specific, named, documented cost of Black celebrity beef. Not an abstraction. Not a metaphor. Three institutions. Three legacies. Three sets of numbers that should make every wealthy Black American in this country uncomfortable.

This is not an indictment of either man as human beings. Both T.I. and 50 Cent have done genuine good in their communities at various points in their careers. Both are extraordinarily successful businessmen who built empires from circumstances that did not favor them. The fact that they arrived at wealth and influence from the bottom of American society makes their success stories genuinely remarkable. That is precisely why the waste of it is so tragic.

Consider the arithmetic of Carnegie’s library program alone. Two thousand five hundred libraries. Built over 46 years. In communities across the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and beyond. Free public libraries, at a time when access to books was a privilege of the wealthy. Carnegie gave away approximately $350 million during his lifetime — roughly $6 billion in today’s dollars — and the institutions he funded are still operating, still serving the public, still bearing his name. The competition between Carnegie and Rockefeller over who could give more, who could build more, who could leave the more lasting mark did not diminish either man’s wealth in any meaningful sense. It simply ensured that their names — and more importantly, the institutions those names represent — would outlast them by centuries.

There is a version of the T.I. and 50 Cent rivalry that could be genuinely historic. Imagine if these two men, instead of trading barbs online, announced a ten-year competition — tracked publicly, adjudicated by the community — over who could deploy their wealth most effectively for Black institutional development. Imagine 50 Cent challenging T.I. to match him dollar for dollar in deposits to Black-owned banks. Imagine T.I. responding by pledging to fund early childhood education centers in Atlanta and daring 50 to do the same in New York. Imagine the cultural energy that currently flows into this beef redirected into a genuine rivalry over who could build more, endow more, fund more, create more for a community that gave both of them everything they needed to become who they are.

The HBCU endowment gap is the starkest measure of the opportunity being squandered — and the universities that Rockefeller and Carnegie personally founded make the disparity almost impossible to look at directly.

Rockefeller founded the University of Chicago. As of June 30, 2025, its endowment stood at $10.9 billion, having returned 10.2% on investments in a single fiscal year. Carnegie founded Carnegie Mellon University. Its endowment reached $3.48 billion as of that same date, with a 10.9% net investment return for the year. Together, those two universities — founded by two men who were rivals — hold endowments exceeding $14 billion.

The combined endowments of all 100 HBCUs do not reach $6 billion. Two universities, founded by two rivals more than a century ago, hold nearly three times the endowment wealth of every HBCU in America combined.

Read that again. Two schools. Three times the endowment of one hundred.

That is not a funding gap. That is a structural chasm, built over generations, that determines whose scholars get paid, whose research gets funded, whose students graduate without debt, and whose institutions survive economic downturns without crisis. The University of Chicago and Carnegie Mellon will never face an existential budget crisis. They will never have to choose between keeping the lights on and retaining faculty. Their endowments generate enough annual return to fund operations, scholarships, and research without ever touching the principal. Meanwhile, HBCUs operate on margins that would make most community colleges uncomfortable, sustained by the dedication of their communities and the faith that the work matters — because the money has never matched the mission.

That is not a condemnation of HBCUs. It is a condemnation of the conditions under which they have been forced to operate, and an indictment of the Black wealth that has not yet organized itself to close that gap. The model for what organized private wealth can do exists and is documented in publicly filed 990s and university endowment reports. The only missing ingredient is the will to compete for something that matters.

The research funding gap is, if anything, even more consequential than the endowment gap — because research is where the future is written.

According to the National Science Foundation’s Higher Education Research and Development survey, the top 20 predominantly white institutions combined spend $36.5 billion annually on research and development. The top 20 HBCUs combined spend $712 million. That is not a gap. That is a ratio of more than 51 to 1. And to make the disparity even more concrete: 52 individual PWIs each spend more on R&D by themselves than all 20 of the top HBCU research institutions combined. Fifty-two schools. Each one, alone, outspending the entire upper tier of Black higher education research.

This is where the consequences of underfunding stop being abstract. Research funding determines who gets to ask the questions that shape medicine, technology, public policy, and economic development. It determines whose communities get studied, whose health outcomes get investigated, whose diseases get treated, whose neighborhoods get the infrastructure investments that flow from university-anchored economic development. When HBCUs are systematically excluded from this resource base, the African American community is not simply being denied prestige. It is being denied the scientific and institutional capacity to solve its own problems on its own terms.

The $35.8 billion annual research gap between the top 20 PWIs and the top 20 HBCUs is the price the African American community pays, every single year, for the failure to build research endowments at Black institutions. It is a recurring tax on Black intellectual capacity, levied not by law but by the absence of the kind of sustained private philanthropic investment that Rockefeller directed toward the University of Chicago and Carnegie directed toward Carnegie Mellon. Those institutions now have the endowments to fund research independence for generations. HBCUs are still waiting for someone to care enough to start.

The health dimension of this research gap is where the stakes become most personal. Black Americans die younger, suffer more chronically, and receive worse care at nearly every point of contact with the American medical system. Maternal mortality, hypertension, diabetes, cancer survival rates — the disparities are not mysteries. They are the predictable output of a research infrastructure that has never been adequately funded to study, understand, and treat Black patients on their own terms, in their own communities, with their own trust. The research capacity to change that exists at HBCUs and affiliated medical schools — institutions with the community relationships and patient access that predominantly white research universities have spent decades failing to build. But research capacity without research funding is just potential. Private endowments directed at HBCU medical research would save lives in ways that are measurable, documentable, and permanent. That is not a metaphor. It is a clinical fact.

African American-owned banks need the same intentional capital. Black-owned financial institutions are among the most important and most neglected infrastructure in the African American community. They survive on thin margins in the communities that need them most, while billions of dollars of Black wealth sit in institutions that have never demonstrated meaningful commitment to Black economic development. A public competition between two of the most influential men in Black popular culture over who could move more capital into Black banks would do more for Black economic infrastructure than a decade of policy advocacy.

None of this will happen because of the current beef between T.I. and 50 Cent. The cultural energy, the attention, the platform — all of it is being spent on a conflict that produces nothing, files no 990, builds no endowment, funds no scholar, saves no life.

Carnegie built 2,509 libraries. Rockefeller’s philanthropic descendants are still disbursing hundreds of millions of dollars annually, more than a century after his death, at institutions that carry his family’s name — including two HBCUs that bear the names of his pastor and his wife. The companies that descended from his oil trust are worth $1.3 trillion today. The two universities those rivals founded — the University of Chicago and Carnegie Mellon — together hold $14 billion in endowments and anchor research enterprises that collectively dwarf the entire HBCU research sector. Fifty-two individual predominantly white institutions each spend more on research annually than every top HBCU combined. The legacy of that Gilded Age rivalry is written in stone and endowment and laboratory and policy across the American landscape, in ways that will persist for another century at minimum.

What will the legacy of this beef be? Nothing. A few viral moments. A news cycle. A cultural footnote.

The competition that actually matters — the one that could put Black institutions on financial footing that no future political administration could threaten, that could fund the scholars and researchers and early childhood programs and community banks that the African American community has been building toward for generations — that competition has not yet begun.

It could begin tomorrow. The Medgar and Myrlie Evers Institute needs an endowment. The Martin and Coretta King Center needs an endowment. The Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial and Educational Center needs an endowment. Dozens of HBCUs need endowments. Scores of African American nonprofits are running on annual donations and faith while the institutions that honor the people who bled and died for the freedom that made Black celebrity possible in the first place operate on budgets that would embarrass a mid-size law firm. A rivalry over who could change that — who could move first, who could give more, who could build something that files a 990 a hundred years from now — would be worth watching. It would be worth celebrating. It would be worth the cultural energy that is currently being fed into nothing.

It is waiting for two men, or any two men, to decide that legacy is more interesting than drama.

The 990 filings are ready to be written. The institutions are ready to be named. Morehouse and Spelman proved more than a century ago that an industrialist’s rivalry could, when channeled correctly, leave Black institutions standing long after the industrialist was gone.

The only question now is who in this generation is willing to compete for something that will still matter when they are gone.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

1 Comment

Posted in Editorial

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

Russell Wilson and Ciara Wilson: The Quiet Matchmakers Reshaping Black Love and Its Implications for African American Institutions

Posted on February 13, 2026 by | Leave a comment

Love is or it ain’t. Thin love ain’t love at all. – Toni Morrison, Beloved

When Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver DK Metcalf proposed to Grammy-nominated singer Normani in March 2025, everyone saw the romance. But few understood the deeper significance. Three years earlier, Russell Wilson and Ciara had orchestrated the introduction at a party where Ciara made sure Normani attended. “They was playing cupid, but it worked,” Normani later said. “If you could trust a couple [to set you up], that would be the couple.”

Four months later in July 2025, when NBA star Donovan Mitchell proposed to singer Coco Jones, the Wilsons were once again celebrating behind the scenes. Russell had helped plan the proposal, working with luxury event planners to create the perfect moment.

Two high-profile engagements. One couple quietly orchestrating connections. But this isn’t just celebrity matchmaking—it’s something more profound. Russell and Ciara Wilson are modeling what intentional Black love looks like, and the ripple effects could fundamentally reshape African American institutional capacity at a moment when our community desperately needs it.

What makes the Wilsons’ matchmaking significant isn’t the celebrity of the couples they bring together—it’s the deliberateness of it. They’re not hoping love happens. They’re creating the conditions for it. They’re investing three years of relationship before an engagement. They’re using their social capital to bridge different professional spheres, connecting successful Black professionals across industries who might never meet organically despite moving in similar circles.

This kind of intentionality around Black love has historical resonance. During the segregation era and Jim Crow, when every institution worked to keep Black families separated and destabilized, our communities survived by being deliberate about connection. Churches served as matchmakers. Family networks facilitated introductions. HBCUs became spaces where Black professionals met their future spouses. The community understood that strong marriages weren’t just about individual happiness—they were about survival and institutional building.

The data reveals something striking: marriage rates for Black adults were higher than for white adults in every U.S. Census from 1890 to 1940—the height of overt racism and segregation. Even in 1960, the marriage rate for Black adults was 61%, and two-thirds of Black children lived in two-parent households. Today, only 31% of Black Americans are married, and half have never been married at all.

What changed wasn’t racism—that existed then and persists now. What changed was the infrastructure of intentionality around Black love. The systems that deliberately brought people together, that supported young marriages, that made partnership formation a community priority—those eroded while the obstacles remained.

Understanding what the Wilsons are doing requires understanding what Black families have survived—and what continues to threaten our ability to build generational wealth and institutional power through stable partnerships.

The historical attacks on Black family formation were systematic and devastating. During segregation, redlining prevented Black families from buying homes in appreciating neighborhoods, which meant that even when Black couples married and saved, their wealth accumulated at a fraction of the rate of white families. Housing policies created by the federal government in the 1930s explicitly designated Black neighborhoods as too risky for mortgage lending, forcing Black families into predatory contracts that often ended in eviction.

But perhaps no threat has been more insidious than the systematic devaluation of Black women as romantic partners. Research consistently shows that Black women face unique marginalization in the dating market. Studies reveal that Black women receive the lowest desirability ratings on dating platforms from men of all races, with one 2014 OKCupid analysis finding Black women rated as “least attractive” compared to women of other races. These aren’t just numbers—they reflect deep-seated stereotypes that paint Black women as too masculine, too strong, too independent, too angry to be desirable partners.

The roots of these stereotypes trace directly to slavery, when Black femininity was deliberately contrasted against white femininity to justify Black women’s oppression and exploitation. When Black women assertively advocate for themselves, society—including some Black men—uses labels like “loud,” “angry,” and “emasculating” to question their worthiness for romantic relationships. The myth persists despite Black women’s clear desire for marriage and partnership.

This devaluation creates a devastating cycle. Black men face their own pressures and internalized racism, sometimes leading them to view relationships outside the Black community as aspirational—an “upgrade” that signals status and success. The data bears this out: among Black newlyweds with bachelor’s degrees, men are more than twice as likely as women to marry outside their race (30% versus 13%). Some Black men internalize colorism and Eurocentric beauty standards, further narrowing the pool of Black women they consider desirable partners.

When successful Black men choose partners outside the community without understanding the implications, they dilute the very networks and institutional capacity the Black community needs to build generational power. They reduce the already constrained supply of partners for Black women who, despite facing the most challenging dating environment of any demographic, remain the group most committed to intra-racial partnership. This isn’t about policing individual choice—it’s about recognizing that individual choices, aggregated across thousands of successful Black professionals, have community-level consequences for institutional sustainability.

When the Great Migration brought millions of Black families north seeking better opportunities, they found wages increasing but housing wealth eroding. Segregated housing markets meant Black families paid higher rents for deteriorating properties while watching their neighborhoods decline in value. The very act of Black families moving into a neighborhood triggered white flight, which collapsed property values. Homes that should have been vehicles for wealth accumulation became wealth traps.

Then came the deliberate destruction. The Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 obliterated what was known as “Black Wall Street”—a thriving district where Black families owned land, operated businesses, and built wealth estimated at over $200 million in today’s dollars. Hundreds died, thousands were left homeless, and laws were passed to prevent survivors from rebuilding. This wasn’t unique. Chicago saw approximately 1,000 Black homes and businesses burned during the Red Summer of 1919. Across the country, thriving Black communities were systematically destroyed through racial violence that governments failed to prevent and often actively supported.

The wealth that did accumulate often couldn’t be transferred. Without access to estate planning services and facing discriminatory legal systems, many Black families lost property through “heirs property” designations that left land ownership unclear and prevented descendants from accessing the wealth their grandparents had built.

Today’s threats are more subtle but no less destructive. Mass incarceration has removed hundreds of thousands of Black men from their communities, destroying the gender balance needed for relationship formation. The student debt crisis hits Black families hardest—Black graduates owe an average of $25,000 more than their white peers—making the economic foundation for marriage more precarious. The wealth gap means young Black couples can’t fall back on family wealth during rough patches the way white couples can. Geographic dispersion means young Black professionals leave the high-marriage-rate states where HBCU ecosystems once facilitated connections, moving to cities where they’re isolated from institutional support networks.

But perhaps most damaging is the loss of cultural infrastructure around Black love. The deliberate community matchmaking of previous generations has largely disappeared. The social pressure and support for marriage has weakened. Dating apps have replaced friend introductions, optimizing for superficial attraction rather than shared values and compatible life goals. Young Black professionals, especially those who’ve left HBCU networks, often lack access to communities of Black peers navigating similar life stages.

The Wilsons understand something crucial: strong Black marriages aren’t just about personal fulfillment. They’re about building institutional capacity. When they facilitate a marriage between DK Metcalf and Normani, they’re not just creating a happy couple—they’re multiplying resources that could flow to Black institutions.

Consider the mathematics of it. Married couples don’t just have double the income of single individuals—they accumulate wealth exponentially faster. Black married couples have a median net worth of $131,000 compared to just $29,000 for single Black individuals. This isn’t because marriage magically creates money. It’s because marriage allows for coordinated financial strategy, shared expenses, combined networks, and the ability to take risks one income couldn’t support.

But the real multiplier effect extends beyond individual household wealth. Strong Black marriages create:

Coordinated Philanthropic Power: A married couple decides together where to direct resources. They create family foundations. They develop multi-year giving strategies to institutions they both value. They leverage their combined networks to recruit other donors. They become major benefactors rather than occasional contributors.

Intergenerational Institutional Commitment: Children from stable two-parent households inherit not just wealth but institutional loyalty. A child whose parents both attended HBCUs, both support Black cultural institutions, both invest in Black businesses—that child grows up with institutional commitment encoded in their identity. They become the next generation of supporters, leaders, and advocates.

Professional Network Effects: When two successful Black professionals marry, their networks merge. Different industries intersect, creating unexpected opportunities. Professional connections multiply. These network overlaps create opportunities for institutional partnerships, corporate sponsorships, business ventures, and talent pipelines that wouldn’t exist otherwise.

Resilience and Risk-Taking: Married couples can take risks single individuals cannot. They can invest in Black startups, fund untested ventures, support experimental programs, and make long-term commitments to institutions precisely because they have a partner sharing the risk. This risk-taking capacity is essential for institutional innovation and growth.

Cultural Modeling and Social Capital: Visible successful Black marriages change cultural narratives. They make marriage aspirational. They demonstrate what’s possible. They create social pressure in the positive sense—the expectation that successful Black professionals will find partners, build families, and invest in community. This cultural shift has compound effects across generations.

The geographic data supports this institutional impact. Seven of the top ten states with highest Black marriage rates—Virginia (34.0%), Maryland (33.2%), Texas and Delaware (32.8%), Florida and North Carolina (31.3%), and Georgia (30.9%)—are HBCU states. These states have thriving Black middle classes, strong African American institutions, and robust professional networks. The marriage rates aren’t coincidental—they’re evidence of how institutional ecosystems and family stability reinforce each other.

What the Wilsons are doing works because they understand marriage formation as network building. They’re not running a dating service. They’re curating a community of successful Black professionals who share values, understand each other’s pressures, and can build partnerships that transcend individual achievement.

Research shows people are still most likely to meet long-term partners through friends, family, or work rather than dating apps. The Wilsons are leveraging this truth at scale. Every couple they help create becomes a new node in an expanding network. Metcalf and Normani will introduce their single friends to each other. Mitchell and Jones will facilitate connections within their circles. The Wilsons’ nine-year marriage serves as the model and proof of concept.

This creates self-reinforcing cycles. Strong marriages produce stable families. Those families invest in institutions. Those institutions create spaces where the next generation forms relationships. Those relationships produce more strong marriages. The cycle builds momentum.

This is how communities accumulate power—not through individual success stories but through interconnected networks of families committed to collective advancement. During segregation, Black communities maintained this infrastructure deliberately because they had to. We knew that isolated success meant nothing if it couldn’t be transferred to the next generation or scaled across the community.

The Wilsons are reviving this model for the contemporary moment, when Black professionals are more economically successful than ever but often isolated from the institutional networks that would allow that success to compound.

Imagine if what the Wilsons are doing at the celebrity level was replicated across every tier of Black professional achievement. Imagine if young Black doctors, lawyers, engineers, educators, entrepreneurs were part of deliberate matchmaking networks that facilitated connections based on shared values and institutional commitment.

The compound effects would be staggering:

Economic Impact: Thousands of additional stable Black marriages would translate to billions in accumulated wealth. That wealth, properly channeled, could recapitalize Black institutions that have operated on shoestring budgets for generations. HBCUs could build endowments rivaling elite white institutions. Black hospitals could expand. Community development financial institutions could scale their lending. Black cultural institutions could thrive rather than merely survive.

Political Power: Married couples are more likely to vote, more likely to engage in civic life, more likely to serve on boards and run for office. A generation of politically engaged Black couples could fundamentally shift electoral dynamics and policy priorities in states with large Black populations.

Professional Advancement: The network effects of thousands of strategic Black marriages would create unprecedented opportunities for collaboration. Black entrepreneurs would have access to capital through their spouses’ networks. Black professionals would have insider information about opportunities through their partners’ connections. The “old boys network” that has excluded Black professionals for generations could be matched by networks of Black couples leveraging their combined social capital.

Cultural Renaissance: Stable Black families create the conditions for cultural production. Artists need economic security to take creative risks. Writers need time to develop their craft. Musicians need resources to experiment. When Black creative professionals have partners who can provide economic stability, the entire community benefits from their artistic output.

Institutional Sustainability: Perhaps most critically, networks of strong Black marriages ensure institutional continuity. When couples commit to supporting institutions together, those institutions can plan decades into the future. They can launch ambitious programs knowing they have committed donors. They can weather economic downturns because their supporter base is stable. They can dream bigger because their foundation is stronger.

But recognizing what’s possible raises uncomfortable questions about what’s missing. If the Wilsons can facilitate life-changing connections within celebrity circles, why doesn’t similar infrastructure exist for the thousands of Black professionals outside those circles? If marriage rates for Black adults were higher during Jim Crow than today, what infrastructure did we lose—and how do we rebuild it?

These questions don’t have simple answers, but they demand serious consideration:

How do we recreate the deliberate matchmaking infrastructure that sustained Black communities during segregation, adapted for contemporary circumstances? Church networks and family connections can’t carry the full weight when young Black professionals are geographically dispersed and disconnected from traditional institutions.

What would institutional investment in Black relationship formation look like? HBCUs, Black Greek organizations, professional associations, cultural institutions—these entities have the trust and access to facilitate connections. But do they recognize this as part of their mission? Do they allocate resources to it? Do they measure success by families formed, not just events hosted?

How do we address the structural barriers that make marriage economically precarious for young Black professionals? Student debt, wage gaps, wealth inequality, housing costs—these aren’t relationship problems, but they make relationship formation dramatically harder for Black Americans than for white Americans with similar educational attainment.

What role does media and culture play in shaping expectations around Black love? When the dominant narratives about Black relationships emphasize dysfunction and failure, when successful Black marriages are invisible, when young Black people grow up without models of healthy partnerships—this creates self-fulfilling prophecies that perpetuate the marriage gap.

How do we balance individual freedom and choice with community needs for strong families and institutions? Nobody should be pressured into marriage. But if the community loses the infrastructure that facilitates healthy relationship formation, individual freedom becomes isolation by default.

The Wilsons have shown what’s possible. Their intentional matchmaking, their sustained investment in couples’ success, their willingness to leverage their social capital for others’ benefit—this is the model. But celebrity circles can only accommodate so many couples. The question is how to scale this intentionality across the Black professional class.

The answer must be institutional, because only institutions can sustain infrastructure across generations. Individual matchmakers burn out. Informal networks fragment. But institutions—if properly designed and resourced—can maintain systems indefinitely.

What might institutional investment in Black love infrastructure look like?

HBCU Alumni Networks as Matchmaking Ecosystems: Alumni associations in major cities could host quarterly events specifically designed to facilitate connections among young Black professionals. Not awkward singles mixers, but sophisticated networking events, community service projects, cultural experiences where relationships form organically among people with shared backgrounds and values. Success could be measured not just by attendance but by marriages facilitated and families formed.

Black Professional Associations as Relationship Hubs: Organizations for Black lawyers, doctors, engineers, educators, entrepreneurs could recognize relationship facilitation as core to their mission. When successful Black professionals marry, their combined professional power benefits the entire community. These associations could create structured mentorship that pairs young professionals not just for career guidance but for life partnership modeling.

Technology Platforms Designed for Black Love: Dating apps optimize for engagement and superficial attraction. What if technology was designed specifically to facilitate meaningful connections among Black professionals committed to community building? Platforms that prioritize shared values, institutional loyalty, life goals, and cultural understanding over swipe-right dynamics.

Financial Incentives for Family Formation: What if institutions offered tangible support for young Black couples? Grants for couples pursuing marriage counseling. Low-interest loans for home purchases for alumni couples. Scholarships for children of HBCU alumni couples. These investments would pay dividends in institutional loyalty that compounds across generations.

Cultural Campaigns Celebrating Black Love: Media campaigns showcasing successful Black marriages, particularly among professionals committed to community advancement. Not aspirational fantasy but realistic portrayals of how successful couples navigate challenges, support each other’s growth, and invest in institutions. Make Black love visible, aspirational, and achievable.

Research Infrastructure: We lack basic data on what makes Black marriages successful. Which combinations of backgrounds, values, and life circumstances predict long-term partnership success? What interventions effectively support young Black couples through early marriage challenges? Hampton University’s National Center on African American Marriage and Parenting represents a start, but we need comprehensive research infrastructure that can inform evidence-based programming.

The answers won’t come from any single intervention but from a ecosystem of institutional support that makes Black love not just possible but probable. That makes stable marriages not just aspirational but expected. That makes family formation not just personal but communal.

Russell and Ciara Wilson didn’t set out to solve the Black marriage crisis or to transform African American institutional capacity. They’re simply two people who understand the value of healthy relationships and want to share that blessing with their friends.

But their efforts reveal what’s missing and what’s possible. They show that when influential people commit to facilitating connections within Black professional circles, life-changing partnerships form. They demonstrate that intentionality around Black love produces results that individual effort alone cannot achieve. They prove that building strong Black marriages is institution-building at its most fundamental level.

The viral social media pleas asking the Wilsons to expand their matchmaking aren’t just jokes. They reflect a genuine hunger for what the Wilsons provide—thoughtful facilitation of connections among Black professionals who share values and aspirations. They reveal the absence of infrastructure that our grandparents’ generation took for granted because it was built into the fabric of Black community life.

The declining marriage rate among African Americans isn’t inevitable. It’s the result of infrastructure collapse that can be reversed through deliberate institutional investment. The opportunity is to recognize that facilitating Black love isn’t tangential to institutional missions—it’s foundational to building the networks of stable families that will sustain Black institutions for generations.

Seven of the ten states with highest Black marriage rates are HBCU states, which means the foundation still exists. The communities are still present. The institutions still stand. What’s needed is leadership willing to acknowledge that the work of building Black institutional power begins with building Black families. That the work of building Black families requires intentional infrastructure. That the work of building that infrastructure is everyone’s responsibility who claims commitment to Black advancement.

The Wilsons are showing us what’s possible when two people commit to intentionally building Black love within their circles of influence. The question for the rest of us—for institutions, for leaders, for anyone with social capital and community commitment—is whether we’ll do the same within our own spheres. Whether we’ll recognize matchmaking as institution-building. Whether we’ll invest in the infrastructure that makes Black love not just possible but inevitable.

The fire is there. The Wilsons are fanning the flames. The question is whether the rest of us will add fuel until it becomes a blaze that lights the way for generations to come.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Lifestyle

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

Give Black App: A Digital Gatekeeper For African American Philanthropy & Institutional Capital

Posted on September 12, 2025 by | Leave a comment

“We must invest in ourselves. Without our own institutions, we will always be at the mercy of others.” – Mary McLeod Bethune

In the long arc of African American economic life, a recurring pattern emerges: the institutions most critical to our survival are consistently starved of capital, while the broader society thrives off of our labor, culture, and creativity. From Reconstruction-era mutual aid societies to the undercapitalized HBCUs of today, the struggle has never been whether African Americans are generous, but whether that generosity is systematically directed into institutions that can build durable power.

The Give Black App, founded by David C. Hughes, Alexus Hall, and Fran Harris, positions itself at this inflection point. It is not simply an app but a digital strategy—one attempting to reshape the flow of African American philanthropy and donations by curating, centralizing, and amplifying support for Black-led institutions.

The Context of Underfunding

African American nonprofits receive disproportionately less funding compared to their White counterparts. A 2020 Bridgespan study found that unrestricted net assets of White-led nonprofits were 76% larger than those of Black-led nonprofits, while revenues were 24% higher. These disparities compound over time. For HBCUs, the story is even starker: the endowments of all 100+ HBCUs combined is less than 1/10th of Harvard University’s alone.

Despite African America’s estimated $1.8 trillion in annual buying power, only a fraction is captured by its own institutions. Much of African American giving remains individual-to-individual or church-centered, providing immediate relief but not the kind of long-term institutional scaffolding needed to compete with White or global capital. Platforms like Give Black attempt to redirect that generosity into a framework where dollars reinforce permanence.

Building the Infrastructure of Giving

Give Black’s strength lies in infrastructure, a word often overlooked in philanthropy. The app operates as a digital gatekeeper, cataloguing Black-led nonprofits and enabling donors—whether individuals, alumni associations, or grassroots organizations—to find and fund them with ease.

This may seem simple, but its implications are profound. In an environment where discoverability is one of the greatest barriers for Black-led organizations, Give Black centralizes attention. For the countless nonprofits that lack robust marketing budgets, development officers, or national visibility, the app provides a seat at the table they would otherwise be denied.

The team itself reflects intentional design. Hughes, a Morehouse and Prairie View alumnus, carries the academic gravitas to engage institutions; Hall, with a background in cybersecurity and software sales, grounds the platform’s technical operations; Harris, a lifelong advocate of Black love and economic empowerment, provides the cultural grounding and marketing voice. Alongside them stand directors rooted in community engagement, finance, athletics, and science. Together, they represent a cross-section of African American life that mirrors the very community the app seeks to serve.

Philanthropy Meets Technology

Unlike GoFundMe or Benevity, which serve broad audiences, Give Black narrows its focus: African American-led institutions. This specificity is both its greatest strength and its potential vulnerability. By making African American philanthropy visible and trackable, the app attempts to normalize institutional giving within the community itself.

African American donors, long used to personal giving—funeral funds, tuition help, emergency assistance—are now asked to see their dollars not just as charity but as investment. An app that allows for transparency, accountability, and impact measurement may finally bridge the gap between intent and sustained institutional support.

Technology also democratizes giving. Younger generations, accustomed to digital wallets and mobile donations, are unlikely to write checks or mail contributions. By existing where they already transact, Give Black normalizes philanthropy as part of daily life. With proper marketing, it could serve as a digital equivalent of the collection plate—except one that sends dollars to Black think tanks, schools, health clinics, and endowment foundations rather than solely to Sunday offerings.

The Role of Fran Harris

Much of the initial confusion about Give Black’s leadership arises from Fran Harris’s name. She openly jokes about it—she is not the Fran Harris who was a WNBA champion or Shark Tank winner, though many assume otherwise. Instead, she distinguishes herself as someone whose “entire life has been about Black love and economic empowerment.”

That distinction matters. Whereas celebrity often drives visibility in African American philanthropy, Harris positions herself not as a star but as a steward of a broader vision. Her work focuses on the storytelling and cultural marketing needed to align African American giving with institutional capital. In a sense, her humor in addressing the name confusion underscores the seriousness of her actual role: grounding the app’s message in authenticity rather than celebrity.

The Gaps in the Strategy

Despite its promise, Give Black faces hurdles. First, fundraising expertise at the highest level appears limited within the core team. Major philanthropy is an industry of its own, requiring seasoned development officers capable of cultivating seven- and eight-figure gifts. Without this, Give Black risks becoming a platform for small-dollar giving—important, but insufficient for closing institutional capital gaps.

Second, technological depth must match ambition. While Hall’s cybersecurity background provides operational credibility, scaling a fintech-style platform requires CTO-level leadership. Issues of compliance, data integrity, and user trust are not optional—they are the foundation of sustainability.

Third, policy and compliance matter. Donations intersect with financial regulations, nonprofit law, and IRS oversight. To become the definitive gateway for Black giving, Give Black must not only build a sleek front end but also a back-end architecture that can withstand regulatory scrutiny and instill donor confidence.

Where the Opportunities Lie

The greatest opportunities for Give Black lie in institutional self-reliance.

One clear pathway is through alumni networks. HBCU alumni giving rates remain in the single digits, compared to 20–30% at elite PWIs. If Give Black positioned itself as the official conduit for alumni donations, it could help double or triple those rates over time. That alone would shift millions into endowments and operating budgets across the HBCU ecosystem.

Another opportunity lies in membership-based organizations—from professional networks to civic associations. Instead of dues going solely toward programming, portions could be funneled into long-term institutional giving through Give Black, creating a culture of collective philanthropy.

The Pan-African Diaspora represents yet another opening. African and Caribbean communities abroad are increasingly connected digitally. Give Black could expand to become a Pan-African philanthropic bridge, enabling solidarity between African Americans and global Black communities. Diaspora donors, often seeking trustworthy channels for giving, could find in Give Black a centralized, transparent platform.

Finally, the most transformative opportunity is to integrate endowment-building features directly into the app. Too much African American giving is trapped in the cycle of operating expenses. By redirecting portions of donations into permanent capital funds, Give Black could help institutions create reserves that outlast political climates and economic downturns.

Lessons from History

The urgency of Give Black’s mission must be seen against history. During the early 20th century, White-controlled philanthropy dictated the survival of many HBCUs. Institutions like Hampton and Tuskegee often relied on Northern industrialists whose donations came with ideological strings attached. The absence of African American-controlled philanthropic infrastructure meant dependency—and dependency always meant vulnerability.

Today, African American institutions still operate under the shadow of that dependency. Foundation funding remains racially skewed, and government support is often politically weaponized. Give Black, by offering a decentralized and community-driven alternative, challenges that cycle.

But history also warns: movements that lack discipline or scale are easily absorbed or ignored. Just as the Negro Leagues produced baseball talent but lacked the capital to maintain independence, so too can African American philanthropy generate excitement but fail to sustain institutional life if it is not channeled strategically.

The Verdict

Give Black App is not merely a digital donation tool. It is a test case: can African America leverage technology to redirect its wealth into its own institutions? The team’s composition, heavy in HBCU roots, marketing authenticity, and community engagement, suggests it understands both the stakes and the culture.

Still, the app must avoid the trap of becoming a feel-good project without measurable institutional outcomes. Its long-term success will be determined by whether it can:

  1. Secure partnerships with HBCUs, alumni associations, and membership-based organizations.
  2. Develop deep fundraising and compliance infrastructure.
  3. Normalize institutional giving across African American households.

If it does, Give Black could evolve into a cornerstone of African American institutional development—a kind of digital Freedman’s Bureau, redistributing not charity but power.

For African America, the stakes could not be higher. In an era where White nonprofits sit on multibillion-dollar endowments, while Black nonprofits scrape for survival, the question is not whether we are generous. It is whether our generosity is building the kind of institutions that ensure survival for centuries, not just survival for today.

Give Black, if scaled with vision and discipline, may finally provide the infrastructure to answer that question with a resounding yes.

Leave a comment

Posted in Philanthropy

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

Starting a Philanthropy Club: A Collective Approach to African American Giving

Posted on December 16, 2024 by | 1 comment

“I have found that among its other benefits, giving liberates the soul of the giver.” – Dr. Maya Angelou. 

If you’ve been considering joining or starting an philanthropy club with your family, friends, or fellow HBCU alumni but are unsure if it’s the right move, you’ve come to the right place. The answer is it is absolutely the right move.

A few facts regarding African American organizations and nonprofits:

Philanthropy clubs can be a powerful tool for leveraging African American philanthropy from like-minded individuals. They not only enhance your financial literacy and knowledge about African American and African Diaspora organizations but also empower you to make informed philanthropic decisions. By pooling your resources with your family, you can collectively grow your impact African American nonprofits finances and outreach, fostering a sense of confidence and control over institutional development and empowerment.

Keep reading as we discuss why you might want to start an investment club and the steps you’ll need to take.

Why You’ll Want to Start a Philanthropy Club?

One of the biggest reasons to start an philanthropy club is that they want to learn and share ideas with people who share their values. It makes sense to start a philanthropy club with family, friends, or HBCU alumni because, most of the time, your values are well-aligned. Yes, you may have different opinions, but your values are generally on the same page.

Philanthropy clubs can be a great way to learn about African American causes, organizations, and nonprofits. Because some members may be more seasoned donors, givers, or active in the nonprofit space, they can share their knowledge on certain topics.

Philanthropy clubs are a great way to magnify small donations by each member into a large donation by a focused collective. the increase the impact associated with investing. However, with the rise in so many commission-free brokers, the fees for making a high volume of trades aren’t as big of a deal.

How to Start an Investment Club

If you’re ready to get your philanthropy club with family, friends, or HBCU alumni off the ground, you’ll want to follow these steps to ensure success:

1. Find and Organize Members

Finding members for a philanthropy club is generally one of the most challenging steps. However, it’s a little easier if you’re looking to start one with your family, friends, or HBCU alumni. Either way, ensuring the fit is correct before jumping in is crucial.

A solid philanthropy club should have at least 5 people but no more than 15 or 20. You must have enough ideas, but too many can make things more difficult. Each person will be required to identify a cause, organization, or nonprofit. Then, each month, a different member will present their cause, organization, or nonprofit to the group.

Before extending an invitation to different anyone, ask yourself a few questions. These will help you see if it will be a good fit.

  • Do you trust the person you’re thinking of inviting to be consistent and involved?
  • Will they bring research and ideas to the meetings?
  • Are they organized?
  • Are they going to pay the monthly donation on time?

2. Determine Your Goals

Once you have your members set, you must agree on your goals. Most clubs’ goals will be making donations and learning from others. But how are you going to get to that point?

It’s important to take some time to understand each member’s philanthropic approach. Are they willing to take on more risk or prefer to be more conservative? Do you want to stick with only well known organizations, or are members interested in startup organizations as well? Do they only want to give to domestic organizations? Or are they willing to give to African Diaspora nonprofits working in Haiti, Jamaica, UK, or Africa?

Developing a plan of attack and ensuring that each member is on the same page will be vital to success.

3. Decide How You Want To Give

Deciding on if you want to setup a legal structure for your philanthropy club is important because potentially over time, your club can setup an endowment that invest donors money and that can grow into a significant and sustainable amount of money. Having the necessary legal protections is going to be important. If your philanthropy club decides to actually invest its donations into investments that will grow over time so that the club has larger and more sustainable sums to give is important to think about.

The other option is to simply give everyone the option to donate on their own once the cause, organization, or nonprofit is decided upon. This route relies on the honor system or some type of peer accountability towards giving.

Each philanthropy club must do what works best for them and also realize that the club is allowed to evolve over time.

The Bottom Line

Philanthropy clubs are a great way to pool your donor funds and learn from other members. Just be sure that you join a group where everyone is willing to listen to ideas and pull their own weight within the club.

1 Comment

Posted in Philanthropy

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

5 Ways Black Men Can Invest In Black Boys

Posted on May 29, 2023 by | Leave a comment

“It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.” – Frederick Douglas

The statistics and data around Black boys/men is and has been alarming for decades. As African Americans in the post-Civil Rights era began to abandon our own institutions arguably nobody has suffered as a result more than Black boys. In almost every category of substance Black boys/men trail and trail significantly against the overall society and within our own community. The consequences of this is seen in the struggles of our communities, institutions, and families. Where are the Black men is a question that is asked so often in spaces that in many ways it has become redundant. Unfortunately, the answer is they were lost as Black boys never to be seen from again in many ways. To become substantive members of our community, families, and institutions requires education, training, mentorship, and so much more. The reality on the ground is that there is very little in the way of organizations or resources that provides enough of that. While Black women have taken upon themselves to create, support, and fund initiatives that support the development and growth of Black girls, Black men have not done the same for Black boys. Conversations between Black men about how they can help Black boys tends to seemingly 99 percent revolve around sports as an answer. Black boys and sports has become a catch all for all things that ail Black boys and yet the outcomes suggest that is a failed investment. The question now is what going forward can Black men do to holistically develop and improve the outcomes of Black boys. Take responsibility and accountability for them. The time for deflecting blame is a broken record in many instances and while there are external forces at work constantly against African American men and our boys, we would be remiss not to as men deal with the protection and providing for them within our control.

  1. Pre-K-5 Investment Is Imperative. African American boys get lost and they get lost early. The majority of any investment made into African American boys needs to be made in early childhood development. This is where boys develop cultural identity, mental health fundamentals, educational confidence, and more. Any conversations that we have about Black boys needs to be heavily weighted on reaching them as early as possible and as often as possible. The foundation of anything being built will always be the most important part of that structure.
  2. Donating To African American Organizations That Specifically Support Black Boys. The easiest thing any of us can do is make sure the organizations that are trying to help our boys have the resources they need to not only fulfill their mission, but to excel at their mission and to exceed their missions expectations. For African American organizations who receive less than 2 percent of all national funding into NPOs, this is a mountainous hurdle. African American men can simply make sure they are active donors if they can afford to be and anything is better than nothing as the old saying goes. African American men can do this individually, but the stronger pathway would be as a collective. Two friends or twenty friends of African American men giving together is powerful for accountability towards giving, conversations about giving, strategic pathways to giving, and of course more capital towards giving.
  3. Create More Organizations That Support Black Boys. Simply put, there just are not many African American organizations that are targeted towards developing Black boys. Arguably, that is because African American men have not created them. This is where inevitably Black boys get funneled into sports and nothing else. Largely because that is what is available. Organizations that solely focus on and encourage Black boys to develop themselves educationally, mentally, artistically, and more are largely absent and in need of existence on the nonprofit landscape. African American men have to take the responsibility of identifying, cultivating, and developing areas where Black boys need development and creating organizations around them. To be clear, we are not talking about organizations where it is boys of color or side initiatives, but actual organizations being created where Black boys are the focus, period.
  4. Subsidizing Black Boys Supplemental Education. Black boys throughout K-12 do not get nearly enough supplemental education. The basic nature of supplemental education is everything that happens outside of a child’s classroom that makes them stronger in the classroom at its essence. Providing Black boys and their families assistance with tutoring costs, trips to museums, art galleries, academic camps, therapy, etc.
  5. Give Your TIME and Be PRESENT. This is free. For whatever reason, African American men are plain and simply absent in activities for Black boys beyond sports. From Boy Scouts, tutors, mentors, and civic engagement in general, African American men are just missing for reasons that are frustratingly hard to understand.

What are we up against? Here are just a few reasons African American men need to be at the forefront of the needs of African American boys.

  • The 2019 National Assessment of Education Progress data also highlighted that only 6% of 12th-grade Black males were reading at the proficient level and only 1% were reading at the advanced level.
  • In 2021, 76% of Black boys finished high school compared to 93% of Asian boys.
  • According to the National Center for Education Statistics, only 36% of Black male students completed a bachelor’s degree within six years (52% of Latino male students completed theirs within the same time. White males graduated at a rate of 63% in six years.)
  • U.S. Census reports African American boys 17 and under comprise over 40% of the African American males in poverty.
  • Of the 12.3 million African American men over the age of 25, almost 50% have only a high school diploma or less according to the U.S. Census.

There is a war going on against African American boys and African American men are leaving them to fight for themselves. Our boys are more than their physicality. They are thinkers, they are astronauts, teachers, gardeners, and so much more, but like a flower they too must be nourished and care for by us. African American men can not leave African American boys to experience the gauntlet of life too many of us have already lived.

Leave a comment

Posted in Philanthropy

Tagged , , , , , , ,