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

Barbershops Are Helping Black Boys See Themselves as Readers

One of the barbershops participating in the Barbershop Books program.

Photo courtesy of Alvin Irby

Barbershops Are Helping Black Boys See Themselves as Readers

Barbershop Books, an organization whose award‑winning literacy programs celebrate, amplify, and affirm the interests of Black boys while inspiring kids to read for fun, has spent more than a decade transforming everyday community spaces into joyful reading hubs. That mission was on full display this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, when the organization partnered with a neighborhood barbershop in the Bronx—Flava In Ya Hair—to offer free haircuts and free children’s books to local families.

As families examined stacks of Dog Man, Fly Guy, Captain Underpants, and Diary of a Wimpy Kid, barbershop owner Patrick shared that growing up, reading was associated with negative school experiences and used as a punishment at home. “Go in your room and read!” he said.

Keep ReadingShow less
We Can’t Let Hegseth Win His War on Women

We Can’t Let Hegseth Win His War on Women

When Hegseth ordered all top brass to assemble in Quantico in September, he declared women could either meet male standards for combat roles or get cut. Strong message, except the military was already doing that, so Hegseth was either oblivious or ignoring decades of history. Confusion aside, it reaffirmed a goal Hegseth has made clear since his Fox News days, when he said, “I'm straight up saying we should not have women in combat roles.” Now, as of January 6th, the Pentagon is planning a six-month review of women in ground combat jobs. It may come as no surprise, but this thinly veiled anti-woman agenda has no tactical security advantage.

When integrating women into combat roles was brought to Congress in 1993, a summary of findings submitted that, “although logical, such a policy would [erode] the civilizing notion that men should protect . . . women.” Archaic notions of the patriarchy almost outweighed logic; instead, luckily, as combat roles have become available to them, more and more women are now serving, increasing military readiness. As it turns out, women are highly effective in combat. Khris Fuhr, a West Point graduate who worked on gender integration at Army Forces Command, calls this new review "a solution for a problem that doesn't exist." She says an Army study between 2018 to 2023 showed women didn’t just perform well in ground combat units but sometimes scored even better than their male counterparts.

Keep ReadingShow less
Women holding signs to defend diversity at Havard

Harvard students joined in a rally protesting the Supreme Courts ruling against affirmative action in 2023.

Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Diversity Has Become a Dirty Word. It Doesn’t Have to Be.

I have an identical twin sister. Although our faces can unlock each other’s iPhones, even the two of us are not exactly the same. If identical twins can differ, wouldn’t most people be different too? Why is diversity considered a bad word?

Like me, my twin sister is in computing, yet we are unique in many ways. She works in industry, while I am in academia. She’s allergic to guinea pigs, while I had pet guinea pigs (yep, that’s how she found out). Even our voices aren’t the same. As a kid, I was definitely the chattier one, while she loved taking walks together in silence (which, of course, drove me crazy).

Keep ReadingShow less
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