Tag Archives: hbcu alumni

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

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.

HBCUs Can Fill the Void: How America’s Retreat from Polar Research Creates an Unprecedented Opportunity for Black Academic Leadership

“When I’m asked about the relevance to Black people of what I do, I take that as an affront. It presupposes that Black people have never been involved in exploring the heavens, but this is not so. Ancient African empires – Mali, Songhai, Egypt – had scientists, astronomers. The fact is that space and its resources belong to us, not to any one group.” – Mae Jemison

The United States government’s recent decision to withdraw its only research vessel from Antarctica represents more than a logistical setback for American science it signals a historic opportunity for Historically Black Colleges and Universities to claim leadership in one of the world’s most critical research frontiers.

When scientists like Alison Murray learned their Antarctic diving research would be indefinitely postponed due to the vessel withdrawal, it exposed a troubling reality: America is ceding scientific leadership in polar regions at precisely the moment when climate research has become existentially urgent. Yet within this crisis lies an opening that forward-thinking HBCU leaders and initiatives like the proposed HBCU Exploration Institute (HEI) should seize immediately.

The withdrawal of U.S. research capabilities from Antarctica isn’t happening in isolation. It reflects broader federal retreat from exploratory science across multiple domains from deep-sea mapping to atmospheric research to space exploration. As scientists told The Washington Post, building a replacement vessel could take years, leaving a generation of young researchers without access to critical field sites and diminishing American influence on a continent where geopolitical and scientific stakes are rising rapidly.

Currently, only a handful of nations operate dedicated Antarctic vessels capable of navigating the continent’s treacherous ice-choked waters. As America pulls back, countries including China, Russia, and even smaller nations are expanding their polar research fleets and infrastructure. This isn’t merely about scientific prestige it’s about who shapes climate policy, who controls access to research sites, who sets international standards for environmental stewardship, and ultimately, who benefits from discoveries made in these frontier regions.

For HBCUs, this federal abandonment creates a three-fold opportunity: to fill genuine research gaps with immediate societal value, to establish institutional leadership in high-stakes scientific domains, and to fundamentally reframe the narrative about who leads exploration and discovery in the 21st century.

The HBCU Exploration Institute concept outlined in its founding business plan isn’t simply about participating in exploration it’s about transforming who controls the means of discovery. The proposed organization would operate research vessels, aircraft, field stations, and space payloads governed and staffed by HBCU talent, creating a parallel infrastructure to traditional federal research systems. This model offers several strategic advantages in the current moment. First, HBCUs can move with greater institutional agility than large federal bureaucracies. While government agencies debate budget allocations and political appointees shift priorities with each administration, a Pan-African, HBCU-led exploration organization could secure diverse funding streams—from philanthropic foundations to international partnerships to corporate sponsors—that insulate research from political winds.

HBCUs bring essential perspectives to exploration science that mainstream institutions have historically marginalized. The concept of “exploration power” examining whose data is gathered, who gathers it, and who benefits is central to HEI’s mission. This isn’t abstract ethics; it’s practical strategy. Research conducted in partnership with African and Caribbean institutions, for example, can build diplomatic relationships and shared intellectual property frameworks that strengthen both African American and African Diaspora scientific capacity. The HBCU network represents untapped human capital. Talented Black students and faculty have faced persistent barriers to entry in traditional exploration fields, from oceanography to aerospace. An HBCU-led initiative could create direct pipelines from undergraduate research to polar expeditions to faculty positions, bypassing gatekeeping mechanisms that have kept exploration science predominantly white and economically privileged.

Perhaps most significantly, launching an HBCU exploration initiative at this moment positions these institutions as leaders not just in American higher education, but within the global African diaspora’s intellectual ecosystem. African and Caribbean nations are rapidly expanding their own scientific capabilities. The African Union Space Agency, launched in recent years, coordinates satellite programs and space research across the continent. Caribbean nations are investing in climate resilience research essential to their survival. Yet many of these institutions lack the infrastructure, funding, and international partnerships that even modestly-resourced American HBCUs can access.

An HBCU Exploration Institute operating polar icebreakers, conducting deep-sea research, and launching satellite payloads wouldn’t just advance American science it would establish HBCUs as anchor institutions for Pan-African scientific collaboration. Imagine Howard University leading joint oceanographic research with the University of Ghana, or Spelman College coordinating atmospheric monitoring stations across the Caribbean. The reputational gains would be transformative. This matters for recruitment, fundraising, and influence. Prospective students choosing between HBCUs v. PWIs would see real HBCU ships, real HBCU expeditions, and real HBCU career pathways into exploration science. Donors and foundations seeking to support climate research and diversity initiatives simultaneously would find a natural home. And HBCU presidents would have new platforms for thought leadership on issues from climate power to space policy to scientific diplomacy.

Here’s an uncomfortable truth: this initiative will only succeed if HBCU alumni associations mobilize with the same intensity, pride, and financial commitment they bring to homecoming football games and basketball tournaments. Every fall, HBCU alumni pour millions into athletics for season tickets, tailgate sponsorships, facility upgrades, coaching staff salaries. Alumni associations organize elaborate events, coordinate donor campaigns, and celebrate athletic achievements with genuine institutional pride. The Battle of the Real HU generates more alumni engagement and media attention than most academic programs receive in a decade. That energy, that organizational capacity, that willingness to invest must now be redirected toward exploration science with the same fervor.

Imagine if Howard University’s alumni association launched a “Name a Research Station” campaign with the same production value as a homecoming concert. Picture Spelman graduates organizing Antarctic expedition watch parties with the same enthusiasm as NCAA tournament viewing events. Envision FAMU’s National Alumni Association creating an “Explorers Circle” giving society that receives the same social prestige as premium athletic booster clubs. This isn’t criticism of HBCU athletics culture it’s a call to expand that culture to encompass scientific exploration. The infrastructure already exists. Alumni associations know how to run capital campaigns, coordinate reunion giving, leverage social networks, and create moments of collective pride. These skills transfer directly to funding research vessels and field stations.

The proposed HBCU Exploration Institute requires $102 million over three years. That sounds daunting until you consider that HBCU athletic programs collectively generate hundreds of millions annually, most of it from student fees. A coordinated campaign across major HBCU alumni networks—Howard, Spelman, Morehouse, Hampton, Tuskegee, FAMU, North Carolina A&T, Southern, Jackson State, Prairie View A&M—could realistically raise $25-30 million in year one if alumni leadership treats this with athletic-level urgency. Some institutions have already demonstrated this model. When North Carolina A&T needed to upgrade its engineering facilities, alumni responded with major gifts because they understood engineering excellence as core to institutional identity. Spelman’s alumni have funded science facilities and research programs. But these efforts have remained institution-specific and episodic. What’s needed now is collective, sustained mobilization.

Alumni associations must take several concrete actions immediately. First, every major HBCU alumni organization should establish an Exploration Science Committee with the same organizational status as athletic support committees. These groups would coordinate giving campaigns, identify potential major donors from alumni ranks, and create visibility for exploration research. Second, alumni homecoming and reunion events must begin celebrating scientific exploration with the same pageantry as athletics. Feature returning researchers presenting expedition findings. Honor alumni working in climate science, oceanography, and aerospace with the same recognition as athletic hall of fame inductees. Create traditions around scientific achievement that become part of institutional identity.

Third, alumni networks must leverage their professional positions to open doors. HBCU graduates work throughout corporate America, foundation leadership, and government agencies. An organized alumni effort could secure corporate sponsorships, foundation meetings, and federal partnership discussions that individual institutions struggle to access. When Hampton alumni at NASA advocate for HBCU partnerships, or Spelman graduates at the Mellon Foundation champion exploration science grants, institutional barriers dissolve. Fourth, alumni giving must be restructured to prioritize exploration infrastructure. Many alumni give to scholarship funds or general operating budgets, which is valuable but doesn’t build transformative capacity. Alumni associations should create specific endowments for vessel operations, expedition funding, and fellowship programs—tangible assets that generate sustained visibility and research output.

The cultural shift required is significant but not unprecedented. HBCU alumni already understand institutional pride, collective identity, and the power of coordinated action. They’ve built that culture around athletics because athletics has been positioned as central to HBCU identity and excellence. Exploration science must now be positioned the same way. This means changing the narrative from “HBCUs need better STEM programs” to “HBCUs will lead humanity’s next era of discovery.” It means alumni bragging about their school’s Antarctic expedition with the same pride they show for conference championships. It means young alumni seeing paths to exploration careers at their alma maters, not just at mainstream institutions.

The financial model becomes achievable when viewed through this lens. If each of the top 20 HBCU alumni associations committed to raising just $5 million over three years for exploration science—less than many spend on athletic facility upgrades—the startup capital is secured. Add foundation grants and federal partnerships, and the budget is covered. But more than money, alumni provide legitimacy, momentum, and accountability. When alumni demand progress on exploration science initiatives with the same intensity they demand winning seasons, institutional leadership responds. When alumni celebrate research expeditions with the same enthusiasm as rivalry games, prospective students take notice. When alumni networks coordinate giving and advocacy, transformation becomes possible.

The HEI business plan proposes a $102 million startup budget over three years to acquire vessels, establish field stations, fund expeditions, and build fellowship programs. That’s substantial, but it’s also achievable given current philanthropic interest in both climate research and HBCU development. The Bezos Earth Fund has committed billions to climate research. The Mellon Foundation has prioritized HBCU infrastructure investment. NASA and NOAA, despite federal constraints, actively seek diverse institutional partnerships. A well-organized HBCU consortium could secure multi-year commitments from these sources, particularly by framing the initiative as addressing federal research gaps.

The immediate focus should be marine research, where the vessel shortage is acute. Acquiring or leasing even one ocean-capable research ship—potentially a refitted commercial vessel—would allow HBCUs to begin Antarctic and Arctic research within two years rather than waiting for federal capacity to rebuild. Partnering with international research programs could offset operational costs while building the diplomatic relationships that strengthen HBCU global standing. Field stations in strategic locations like the Gulf Coast, Alaska, Ghana, the U.S. Virgin Islands would serve multiple functions: research platforms, student training sites, and hubs for international collaboration. These don’t require massive funding; even modest facilities become transformative when they provide HBCU students access to environments and equipment unavailable on their home campuses.

The fellowship and expedition programs are equally critical. Summer research academies focusing on polar, marine, and aerospace exploration would create immediate visibility and impact. Graduate fellowships with guaranteed expedition participation would attract top-tier students who might otherwise choose mainstream programs. Faculty sabbaticals at international field sites would bring research capacity and publications that elevate institutional rankings.

Predictable objections will emerge: HBCUs lack the expertise, the infrastructure, the established research networks. But these arguments mistake historical exclusion for inherent incapacity. HBCUs have produced astronauts, oceanographers, and polar scientists they’ve simply done so while their parent institutions received minimal support for exploration science infrastructure. Moreover, the proposed model explicitly builds on existing strengths. Many HBCUs have robust Earth science, environmental science, and physics programs that lack only field research opportunities. The institute wouldn’t create scientific capacity from nothing; it would provide the ships, stations, and funding to activate capacity that already exists but remains underutilized. The real risk isn’t that HBCUs might fail at exploration science it’s that by not trying, they’ll watch other institutions and nations claim leadership in domains that will define 21st-century research prestige and funding.

Federal withdrawal from Antarctic research won’t reverse quickly. Budget constraints, political dysfunction, and competing priorities mean the vessel gap could persist for a decade or more. That timeline perfectly matches the HEI five-year development plan, which envisions operational vessels and field stations by year three and landmark research publications by year four. HBCUs face a choice. They can wait for federal capacity to rebuild, competing for scarce berths on research vessels if and when they return to service. Or they can recognize this moment as the opportunity it is: a chance to build independent exploration infrastructure, establish diaspora research leadership, and fundamentally shift the narrative about who belongs in humanity’s most ambitious scientific endeavors.

But this choice isn’t just for presidents and administrators it’s for the millions of HBCU alumni whose collective power remains largely untapped for scientific advancement. The same alumni networks that fill stadiums, fund athletic scholarships, and travel across the country for homecoming games must now channel that organizational capacity toward building research fleets and exploration programs. The motto proposed for the HBCU Exploration Institute is “To Discover, To Lead, To Belong.” That sequence matters. Discovery creates the intellectual foundation. Leadership transforms institutions and influences policy. But belonging establishing permanent presence in exploration science requires infrastructure, commitment, and the willingness to act when opportunities emerge.

America’s retreat from Antarctica isn’t just a setback for researchers like Alison Murray. It’s an invitation for institutions that have been systematically excluded from exploration science to step forward and claim the leadership role they’ve always been capable of holding. The question is whether HBCU leaders and, crucially, whether HBCU alumni will recognize this moment and seize it before it passes. The energy, pride, and resources are already there mobilized. Now they must be redirected toward putting HBCU names on research vessels sailing to Antarctica, field stations conducting climate research, and satellite payloads orbiting Earth. That’s a legacy worth more than any championship trophy.

HBCU B-Schools’ Leadership Still Embarrassingly Lacking In HBCU Alumni

The most difficult thing in life is to know yourself. — Thales

By any reasonable historical standard, Warren Buffett’s rejection by Benjamin Graham is more than a quaint anecdote; it is a powerful parable about institutional loyalty and long-term economic strategy. Graham, the father of value investing, turned away the future Oracle of Omaha not because Buffett was unqualified—far from it—but because he had a principle. Graham hired exclusively European American Jews at a time when Wall Street’s doors were locked tight against them. It was his quiet resistance to systemic exclusion and a way to build a parallel institution that could compete and thrive. Graham wasn’t interested in assimilation; he was focused on insulation, independence, and empowerment. The same cannot be said about the leadership structure of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), particularly their business schools.

A decade has passed since a comprehensive review was last undertaken on the leadership of HBCU business schools. One would hope that the intervening years would have ushered in a renaissance of internal cultivation—an era where HBCU alumni, steeped in the culture, history, and mission of these institutions, took the reins of their business schools. That hope remains, for the most part, unrealized. Instead, many HBCU B-schools continue to be led by individuals who are not products of these institutions, and in many cases, are fundamentally disconnected from the unique economic and cultural needs of the African American community.

The appointment of deans and senior faculty from predominantly white institutions (PWIs) is often lauded as a move toward “excellence” or “best practices.” The coded language of meritocracy is a familiar refrain—best person for the job, regardless of background. But this belief, as commonly practiced within HBCUs, is a convenient myth. It sidesteps the structural disadvantages HBCU graduates face in academia and business, and reinforces a dependency on external validation and leadership.

The consequence? A business education ecosystem within HBCUs that remains divorced from the very communities these schools are intended to serve. There is no pipeline, no incubator of internal talent, no clear strategy to empower HBCU alumni to lead, govern, and shape the next generation of Black business leadership.

Institutional Amnesia

In failing to privilege their own alumni in leadership selection, HBCU B-schools suffer from what might be called institutional amnesia. There is little effort to study and replicate the success of institutions that have prioritized internal development. Jewish, Catholic, and even Mormon institutions have all built robust networks by leveraging internal cultural capital and aligning institutional leadership with community objectives. HBCUs, by contrast, often appear to suffer from an inferiority complex that manifests in a relentless pursuit of PWI credentials as a proxy for excellence.

Even when HBCU alumni are in the pipeline, they are frequently passed over in favor of candidates whose resumes boast affiliations with Ivy League or flagship public institutions. The irony is rich and troubling: HBCUs, which claim to be dedicated to the uplift of African Americans, routinely reject their own in favor of the very systems that have historically excluded them.

The Data Tells the Story

Of the 85 accredited HBCU business schools and departments (based on the latest available data), fewer than 20% are led by HBCU alumni. Of that number, fewer than half have received their undergraduate and graduate education at an HBCU, further diluting the institutional knowledge that could be reinvested back into the system.

By contrast, 75% of business school deans and department chairs at Ivy League universities hold at least one degree from an Ivy League institution. This underscores the importance these institutions place on continuity, network loyalty, and internal cultural capital.

Lack of a Succession Strategy

The dearth of HBCU alumni in leadership roles is not merely a matter of optics—it is a strategic failure. The absence of a deliberate succession plan, where institutions identify, mentor, and elevate their own talent, weakens the intellectual and operational spine of HBCU B-schools. When young Black scholars and students do not see themselves reflected in positions of power within their own institutions, the implicit message is that their ascent must take place elsewhere.

Anecdotes abound of promising scholars who, having been educated and initially employed at HBCUs, eventually decamp to PWIs for better pay, prestige, or professional development. When those same scholars become leaders elsewhere, their institutional loyalty rarely circles back. The brain drain becomes self-perpetuating.

Cultural Incongruence and Strategic Drift

Leadership from outside HBCUs is not inherently problematic. However, leadership that does not understand or prioritize the mission-specific challenges and opportunities of HBCUs can lead to strategic drift. The market-driven nature of business education already pushes HBCUs to chase prestige metrics that are often defined by PWI standards—AACSB accreditation, international rankings, publication quotas. Yet these metrics seldom align with the needs of the African American community.

Who is building a curriculum around cooperative economics? Who is training students to start, fund, and grow businesses in historically Black neighborhoods? Who is leading research on Black entrepreneurship, Black banking, and financial exclusion? These priorities require not just academic competence but cultural commitment—something often missing in leadership that has not been formed within HBCUs.

The Cost of Outsourcing Leadership

The preference for external hires is also an expensive habit. Recruitment searches for deans can cost upwards of $250,000 when executive search firms are engaged. The revolving door of short-term leadership appointments, another consequence of weak institutional loyalty, creates instability in fundraising, student recruitment, and faculty morale.

Moreover, the indirect costs are enormous. When leadership lacks vision rooted in the mission of HBCUs, partnerships are misaligned, fundraising strategies are tone-deaf, and entrepreneurial ecosystems are underdeveloped. Business schools are economic engines, and the failure to connect them authentically to the community they serve is a missed opportunity of staggering proportions.

What Would Graham Do?

The story of Benjamin Graham and Warren Buffett is not merely about individual relationships; it is a case study in institutional integrity. Graham’s commitment to his community was not performative. It was strategic, values-driven, and unapologetically intentional. He understood that talent alone was insufficient. It had to be nurtured, protected, and positioned within the community’s own institutions.

African American leaders in education, particularly those responsible for HBCUs, must ask themselves: what kind of ecosystem are we building? Do we merely seek validation from the same institutions that denied us access for generations? Or are we committed to the difficult, often thankless work of institution-building?

The answer may well determine the fate of HBCUs in the 21st century.

A Call to Action

First, HBCU business schools must create formal succession pipelines for leadership from within their own alumni networks. This includes mentoring programs, leadership fellowships, and internal promotion tracks that incentivize long-term engagement.

Second, boards of trustees and presidential leadership must reexamine hiring criteria. Cultural alignment and mission understanding must be weighted as heavily as academic credentials.

Third, HBCUs should begin benchmarking themselves not against Harvard or Wharton but against institutions that have successfully used internal leadership to drive community outcomes. The benchmarks for success must be redefined to reflect mission, not mimicry.

Finally, alumni must hold their institutions accountable. Donations should come with expectations for institutional integrity. If alumni are good enough to fund these schools, they are certainly good enough to lead them.

HBCU B-schools sit at the intersection of education, economics, and cultural preservation. Their leadership must reflect that complexity. The time for apologetic hiring practices and external validation is over. It is time for HBCUs to know themselves—and to trust themselves enough to lead from within.

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

“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.

HBCU LOVE: Top Ten HBCU States With Highest African American Marriage Rate

Why is HBCU Money talking about marriage? We thought this was a site about money. Well, there are many economists and community developers that agree that one of the most fundamental ingredients to wealth building is marriage. It allows for scaling of capital towards savings and investment, reduction of expenses, and an ability to provide familial stability. Unfortunately, like our median income and wealth, there is no group less likely to actually get married than African Americans. The hurdles to African American marriage are deep and complicated and the solutions to them potentially even more deep and complicated. All that said, anything that leads to higher marriage rates between African Americans can only add to the community’s ability to actually stabilize and empower itself socially, economically, and politically. We of course acknowledge that marriages come in all forms, but the most important form is a healthy, happy, and loving marriage.

National African American Marriage Rate – 29.7%

  1. Virginia – 34.0%
  2. Maryland – 33.2%
  3. Delaware & Texas – 32.8%
  4. Florida & North Carolina – 31.3%
  5. Georgia – 30.9%
  6. Oklahoma – 30.0%
  7. Arkansas – 29.8%
  8. California – 29.7%
  9. Alabama & South Carolina – 29.4%
  10. Mississippi – 28.9%

The question then becomes how can HBCUs, their alumni, and other support organizations encourage more marriage among African Americans at HBCUs? This becomes vital for HBCU’s future because it could be suggested that a couple who both went to HBCUs would be more likely to send their child to an HBCU. Whereas a couple with only one HBCU parent present or no HBCU parents present is far less likely. To encourage coupling as part of an HBCU’s development strategy would by no means be simple given the ratio of women to men on HBCU campuses these days. Simply put, there are not enough men for women to choose from in the heterosexual relationships. And unless more data is collected on LGBTQ HBCU students, there may not be a viable quantity there for them either. This is why it would be important if this was to be considered that a network of HBCU development offices strategize together and increase the probability of matchmaking.

Tracking the statistics on HBCU marriage and family would also be immensely valuable information. An opportunity that certainly presents itself for further research by Hampton University’s National Center on African American Marriage and Parenting. Very little data is actually known on HBCU marriages and families.

Ultimately, HBCUs and their alumni though who can encourage more marriage among HBCU students/graduates must do so through ensuring those relationships are healthy. This means that there must be more mental and physical health development, financial literacy, and relationship etiquette taught. With seven of the ten HBCU states exceeding the national average for African American marriage the ingredients are certainly there for this seed to grow, but it indeed must be watered if we truly plan to see more marriage and healthier marriage which we know can also be one of the key tenets to community formation and building.

Source: U.S. Census