Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

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

Fulcrum Roundtable: June Rewind
stainless steel road sign
Photo by Miko Guziuk on Unsplash

Fulcrum Roundtable: June Rewind

Welcome to the Fulcrum Roundtable, formerly known as Democracy in Action, where you will find insights and discussions with Fulcrum's collaborators on some of the most talked-about topics.

Consistent with the Fulcrum's mission, this program aims to share diverse perspectives to broaden our readers' viewpoints.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Promise in the Making: Thirty-Five Years of the ADA

Americans with Disabilities Act ADA and glasses.

Getty Images

A Promise in the Making: Thirty-Five Years of the ADA

One July morning in 1990, a crowd gathered on the White House lawn, some in wheelchairs, others holding signs, many with tears in their eyes. President George H.W. Bush lifted his pen and signed his name to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—the most sweeping civil rights law for people with disabilities in the nation's history. It was a moment three decades in the making: a rare convergence of activism, outrage, and legislative will. The ADA's promise was simple—no longer would disability mean exclusion from public life—but its implications were anything but.

Thirty-five years later, the ADA remains a landmark, a legal bulwark against discrimination, and a symbol of hard-won visibility for a community that has been too often relegated to the margins. Yet, like every civil rights law, the ADA's story is more complex than a single signature or a morning in Washington. Its passage and its legacy have always been about more than ramps and regulations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Illinois Camp Gives Underrepresented Kids an Opportunity To Explore New Pathways

Kuumba Family Festival at Evanston Township High School

Illinois Camp Gives Underrepresented Kids an Opportunity To Explore New Pathways

Summer camps in Evanston, Illinois — a quiet suburb just north of Chicago — usually consist of an array of different sports, educational programs, and even learning how to sail. But one thing is obviously apparent throughout the city’s camps: they’re almost all white.

Despite Black or African American families making up nearly 16% of Evanston’s population, Black kids are massively underrepresented throughout the city's summer camps.

Keep ReadingShow less
Students in a classroom.​

Today, Hispanic-Serving Institutions enroll 64 percent of all Latino college students.

Getty Images, andresr

Tennessee’s Attack on Federal Support for Hispanic-Serving Colleges Hurts Us All

The Tennessee Attorney General has partnered with a conservative legal nonprofit to sue the U.S. Department of Education over programming that supports Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), colleges, and universities where at least 25% of the undergraduate full-time equivalent student enrollment is Hispanic. On its face, this action claims to oppose “discriminatory” federal funding. In reality, it is part of a broader and deeply troubling trend: a coordinated effort to dismantle educational opportunity for communities of color under the guise of anti-DEI rhetoric.

As a scholar of educational policy and leadership in higher education, I believe we must confront policies that narrow access and undermine equity in education for those who have been historically underserved. What is happening in Tennessee is not just a misguided action—it’s a self-inflicted wound that will harm the state's economic future and deepen historical inequality.

Keep ReadingShow less