Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Race-based philanthropy has been very effective, but the Supreme Court may end the practice

Opinion

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will decide whether a grant program for Black female entrepreneurs constitutes racial discrimination.

commons.wikimedia.org

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" (Abingdon Press, 2017) and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

The Supreme Court is currently examining a case of importance, one that brings race-based philanthropy into question. The case in question involves the Fearless Fund, an Atlanta-based organization led by Black women dedicated to combating the underfunding of venture capital by providing grants, tools and mentorship to women of color.

The American Alliance for Equal Rights, in representation of anti-affirmative interest, has taken legal action against the Fearless Fund. AAER alleges the Fearless Fund’s grant program for Black female entrepreneurs constitutes racial discrimination. In response, the Council on Foundations and Independent Sector has filed a joint amicus brief supporting the Fearless Foundation. The council is urging the court to dismiss the lawsuit and uphold the First Amendment right to donate to charitable causes that align with individual values, including efforts to support historically marginalized groups.


The opposing argument contends that race-based philanthropy infringes on the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It is a claim seeking to promote a more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities, asserting that race-based practices perpetuate racial divisions and undermine the goal of a color-blind society.

However, the Council on Foundations and Independent Sector asserts that race-based giving is not only constitutional but also essential for addressing historic and systemic racial disparities. It argues that race-neutral strategies fail to address the specific challenges that communities of color face due to systemic racism. Moreover, the Fearless Fund’s supporting parties emphasize that race-based granting aims to level the playing field by providing targeted support to individuals and communities that have been systematically marginalized and disadvantaged.

As a program developer, I've had the unique opportunity to design and advocate for initiatives tailored to empower and uplift communities of color. This work has instilled within me a deep appreciation for the critical importance of race-focused funding. Our society's disparities are evident to those who operate at the nexus of philanthropy and social justice. We've personally witnessed the transformative power that targeted funding can have in redressing these disparities. This transformative potential hangs in the balance with the court's ruling, which has the power to either validate or undermine the practices we've championed – hence the gravity of this case.

Initiatives led by national entities like the Ford Foundation could face mission-altering changes depending on the decision. Ford serves as a sterling example of the efficacy and potential impact of race-focused funding. With a staggering commitment of $330 million over 2020 and 2021, the foundation has shown an unwavering commitment to racial justice. These ambitious efforts underscore the potential of focused funding to address racial disparities nationally.

Another example of the imperative for targeted granting and resource allocation is the Harlem Children's Zone, known for its innovative initiatives promoting racial equity and economic security in New York’s Harlem neighborhood. It has secured significant funding, including a $26 million commitment from The Audacious Project dedicated to addressing the needs of Black communities.

In my executive role with Bridge Alliance, I've partnered with community and private foundations to establish an equity fund. This fund prioritizes BIPOC+ communities and supports uniquely diverse regional and national leaders. Our work involves making strategic decisions about resource allocation, a role that could be significantly impacted by new legal restrictions on race-focused grants. However, we also acknowledge that the court's ruling may compel the field to devise more nuanced and innovative strategies to achieve our goals while working within the legal framework.

Lastly, I know intimately the life-changing impact of race-focused philanthropic efforts. Such grantmaking often provides access to education, opportunities and resources that would otherwise remain out of reach, addressing systemic inequalities in our society. It is important to remember these funds and strategic practices directing their disbursement hold transformative potential for individuals and communities of color.

The Supreme Court’s consideration of this matter is not merely about legal technicalities but the future of racial equity and the effectualness of focused funding. The court's ruling will undoubtedly send ripples through the philanthropic landscape, potentially redefining the strategies and means employed to achieve racial equity. Irrespective of one's stance on the issue, the conversations sparked by this filing underscore the pressing need for continued addressing of racial disparities in our society.

Read More

DEI Dilemma? Start Building Community within Your Organization

Team of male and female entrepreneurs working on computers at office

Getty Images

DEI Dilemma? Start Building Community within Your Organization

Amid the pushback to DEI, an essential truth often gets lost: You have agency over how you approach building diversity, equity, and inclusion into your organization.

No executive order or unhinged rant can change that.

Keep ReadingShow less
White Books and Curriculum Damage Black Children

The rise of book bans and erasure of Black history from classrooms emotionally and systematically harms Black children. It's critical that we urge educators to represent Black experiences and stories in class.

Getty Images, Klaus Vedfelt

White Books and Curriculum Damage Black Children

When my son, Jonathan, was born, one of the first children’s books I bought was "So Much" by Trish Cooke. I was captivated by its joyful depiction of a Black family loving their baby boy. I read it to him often, wanting him to know that he was deeply loved, seen, and valued. In an era when politicians are banning books, sanitizing curricula, and policing the teaching of Black history, the idea of affirming Black children’s identities is miscast as divisive and wrong. Forty-two states have proposed or passed legislation restricting how race and history can be taught, including Black history. PEN America reported that nearly 16,000 books (many featuring Black stories) were banned from schools within the last three years across 43 states. These prohibitive policies and bans are presented as protecting the ‘feelings’ of White children, while at the same time ignoring and invalidating the feelings of Black children who live daily with the pain of erasure, distortion, and disregard in schools.

When I hear and see the ongoing devaluation of Black children in schools and public life, I, and other Black parents, recognize this pain firsthand. For instance, recently, my teenage granddaughter, Jaliyah, texted me, asking to visit the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C., because she had heard that the President planned to close it. For what felt like the millionth time, my heart broke with the understanding that too many people fail to rally on behalf of Black children. Jaliyah’s question revealed what so many Black children intuitively understand—that their histories, their feelings, and their futures are often treated as expendable.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

equity, inclusion, diversity

AI generated

Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

Even before Trump’s actions against DEI, many in the academic community and elsewhere felt for some time that DEI had taken an unintended turn.

What was meant to provide support—in jobs, education, grants, and other ways—to those groups who historically and currently have suffered from discrimination became for others a sign of exclusion because all attention was placed on how these groups were faring, with little attention to others. Those left out were assumed not to need any help, but that was mistaken. They did need help and are angry.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people in business attire walking into an office.

Dr. Valentina Greco reflects on how accent bias, internalized gatekeeping, and hidden prejudices shape academia—and how true change begins by confronting our own discomfort.

Getty Images, Marco VDM

How Do We Become the Gatekeepers?

“Do you have a moment?”

I turned and saw my senior colleague, Paul (not his real name), a mentor and sponsor, at my office door.

Keep ReadingShow less