‘Our moment to evolve': A nonprofit that launched after George Floyd is now navigating a DEI backlash
:
But racism wasn't the only crisis gripping the country in those days. There was also COVID-19. And when the face
masks started to come off in 2022, McCreary saw how society was ready, even eager, to move on from both Floyd and the pandemic.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
It was a familiar, vicious, cycle for Black America — progress, followed by painful setbacks. There was emancipation, then Jim Crow laws; the Civil Rights Act, then a generation of men jailed in the War on Drugs; equal opportunity laws, then a Supreme Court striking down affirmative action in college admissions.
Advertisement
Shellee Mendes, a mother of three, raised her sign during the March Like A Mother for Black Lives rally in Boston on June 27, 2020.
Craig F. Walker/Globe Staff
And now America has gone from electing its first Black president to having a White House that is openly dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The New Commonwealth Fund hasn't been immune to the sea change. The group is shifting how it raises money, depending less on corporations and more on individuals. And just after the November election, the nonprofit removed the 'Racial Equity and Social Justice' part of its name from its website.
Advertisement
McCreary made this decision after counterparts around the country began receiving physical threats because of their work. She worried about the safety of her staff and people at other local organizations they work alongside. She wanted to set an example of how
the organization could stay committed to racial equity while also practicing self-preservation.
'What we haven't done is we haven't changed our mission,' she said.
From its headquarters in an industrial part of Roxbury,
NCF provides about $3 million a year to nonprofits that are
lifting communities of color, whether it be through justice reform or the arts. Since its launch, NCF has given out 448 grants to more than 250 organizations in Massachusetts, over $16.3 million in all.
And even as the very idea of eliminating racial inequities feels under attack, the five-year anniversary of Floyd's death came at a time when organizations like NCF see their work as more essential than ever.
'How do we convince folks that this is the work for the long haul?' McCreary pondered. 'This is not a moment. This has to be a movement.'
At first, Damian Wilmot wasn't as shaken by Floyd's murder as he had been by the
Martin was the unarmed Black teen shot and killed in Florida by a neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, who thought he looked suspicious. His death was the worst nightmare for every Black parent of a teenager.
Advertisement
'I sort of saw my son in him,' said Wilmot.
But when Floyd was killed, it was Wilmot's children doing the worrying. Floyd, who was killed by a white Minneapolis police while handcuffed, was 46 years old, and well over 6 feet tall.
A mural dedicated to, from left, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Trayvon Martin and Ahmaud Arbery behind the Power Circle Barbershop in Tampa.
Octavio Jones/For The Washington Post
Wilmot, with a similar build, had just turned 50 at the time. His children saw Floyd in him.
'Daddy, it's not safe for you,' his son and daughter warned.
Floyd's murder sparked discussions for Wilmot, both at home and at work as an executive at Vertex
Pharmaceuticals, about what can be done to make sure no Black person dies like that again in police custody.
'Every company was making these proclamations about supporting social justice and doing something, but candidly I didn't think anyone really knew exactly what to do,' recalled Wilmot, who today serves as board chair of NCF.
Vertex, like so many other corporations and organizations, issued a public statement vowing to fight racism and committed
But Wilmot and other Black leaders in Boston wanted to do more. They called each other daily, and soon a group was regularly convening by Zoom. They felt a need to talk, to organize, and to use their hard-won collective power to do something they could call their own.
It was a
Advertisement
A June 2020 photo of some of the founders of the New Commonwealth Fund. From left to right, Rodney Pratt, Malia Lazu, Damon Hart, Pamela Everhart, Quincy Miller, and Dr. Myechia Minter-Jordan.
Suzanne Kreiter
The prospect of starting their own nonprofit to end systemic racism was energizing. 'We all agreed, yes, but let's do it together ... and let's lead this,' Wilmot recalled.
The money began to pour in, with initial commitments of $20 million, which has grown into about $45 million today.
From the get-go, NCF wanted to disburse the money to grassroots organizations in sums that would be transformative for them.
One of the first
recipients was
Today, Elevated Thought has 17 full-time staffers, with new programs and a budget three times as large as it once was.
Marquis Victor, founder and executive of Elevated Thought, poses for a portrait in the visual arts apprenticeship space at his Lawrence nonprofit.
Danielle Parhizkaran
Similarly, NCF has been critical to supporting emerging nonprofits like
'We've had a really, really successful start as an organization, and NCF is one of the anchors of why that was possible,' said Ariel Childs, executive director of Vital CxNs, which so far has received about $667,000 from NCF.
NCF's launch generated national headlines and inspired Black leaders in other cities to start similar foundations, such as the
Advertisement
It didn't happen overnight, and NCF saw today's challenges coming. McCreary engaged four law firms to review the nonprofit's grant-making processes and assess whether they could withstand legal challenge, especially after the activist who sued Harvard to overturn affirmative action in college admissions began targeting organizations engaged in racial equity work. NCF's lawyers concluded its work would pass legal muster because its mission is focused on eliminating racial inequities, but not at the exclusion of other groups.
Makeeba McCreary, president of the New Commonwealth Fund.
Jonathan Wiggs/Globe Staff
For Eastern Bank's Miller, an NCF founder and board member, the legal threats underscore why the organization matters more than ever. He's confident
it can weather the backlash against DEI — with a staff of 12 and millions of dollars committed. But smaller nonprofits focused on racial justice work don't have that luxury and could use NCF's help. Corporate support has slowed to a trickle, and there's only so much private money to go around, even as the needs keep growing.
'The work in 2025 is more important than the work in 2020,' Miller said. 'I don't even think it's close.'
If anything, he views this moment as a chance to adapt.
'We have to evolve and change to keep supporting this work just like companies during COVID had to evolve and change,' Miller added. 'This is our moment to evolve.'
Shirley Leung is a Business columnist. She can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
4 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Congress Is Surrendering Its Last Real Power
This hasn't been a good year for Congressional authority. Consider Congress' craven vote to claw back some $9 billion of funding it had previously allocated for foreign aid and public broadcasting. That quiet move tells you a lot about how institutional power works in Washington — especially given some of the bigger headlines of the last seven months. First, President Donald Trump took unilateral steps to shutter government departments like the US Agency for International Development and the Department of Education, entities created by Congress to perform important government functions. Then the Supreme Court effectively blessed Trump's actions, which lower courts had treated as unconstitutional and unlawful executive usurpations of legislative authority. Now, the rescission vote — a response to the demands of the Trump administration, which had made clear it wasn't going to spend those funds no matter what — looks like a white flag of surrender.
San Francisco Chronicle
5 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
No, California is not guaranteed to remain an abortion haven
The sudden closure of five Planned Parenthood clinics in Northern California last week reveals a sad, stark truth: California is not the national 'haven' for abortion rights that it has aspired to be since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. No state could be under Republican rule in Washington, or while federal law trumps state law, the Supreme Court majority opposes abortion rights and clinics are reliant on federal money to survive. There are few options to fix this problem, even in California, the world's fourth-largest economy. The state barely covered its budget deficit this year, and it has holes to fill as federal funds for public universities, education, transportation and other sectors were slashed in the recently passed budget. Plus, the state needs federal dollars to help rebuild Los Angeles after the devastating wildfires there earlier this year. Ten million Americans are expected to lose their health insurance because of nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Meanwhile, the wealthiest Americans will receive a disproportionate share of the tax cuts funded by those reductions, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. 'It's an illustration of the limits on what any state can do (on abortion access) if the federal government is hostile,' said Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at UC Davis and leading scholar on abortion rights. 'It's more of a reminder that there isn't really a real sanctuary. California has limited power over a lot of this.' It is the latest example of how California is in the political crosshairs of what President Donald Trump's former top adviser Steve Bannon famously described as his 'muzzle velocity' philosophy of launching a lot of disruptive policies and spurious attacks simultaneously. California is withering under the incoming fire. The people hurt most by the closure of those clinics will be the poorest Californians, as 80% of the people who used services at those clinics were Medicaid recipients, according to Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, the umbrella organization for the shuttered clinics. Planned Parenthood doesn't just provide abortion services. The majority of people go to Planned Parenthood clinics for contraceptive services, sexually transmitted infection testing, pregnancy testing and gynecological services. One in 10 (11%) female Medicaid beneficiaries ages 15 to 49 who received family planning services went to a Planned Parenthood clinic in 2021, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. California has the highest percentage (29%) of Medicaid recipients in the country who go there for health care. This wasn't the way it was supposed to go. California was supposed to be a haven for abortion rights after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Shortly after the decision, Gov. Gavin Newsom joined the governors of Washington and Oregon to create what he called 'the West Coast offensive. A road map for other states to stand up for women.' A diverse coalition of abortion rights advocates formed the California Future of Abortion Council. It proposed more than 50 recommendations for policymakers to improve abortion access in the state. In the year after the decision, Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature created more than a dozen new laws and invested more than $200 million to increase access across the state. In November 2022, 67% of California voters supported a ballot measure enshrining abortion rights in the state Constitution. Newsom spent $100,000 from his campaign coffers to plant billboards in seven states with some of the nation's most restrictive laws: 'Need an abortion?' reads one billboard. 'California is here to help.' 'What you do in California sets the standard for everyone else,' Mini Timmaraju, national president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said at a 2022 fundraiser for Proposition 1 in San Francisco that Hillary Clinton attended. 'I want to take that package of legislation and this proposition and see it copied nationwide.' Ultimately, all those California laws and all that state funding weren't enough to keep the Mar Monte clinics open. They never could be as long as there isn't the national right to an abortion that Roe provided and as long as women's health clinics are reliant on federal funds to remain open. Planned Parenthood estimates that 200 clinics nationwide could close. To meet this reality, California needs a new 'West Coast offensive.' It needs to draw up a new 'road map for other states to stand up for women.' It would be best if clinics were funded privately, insulating them from partisan federal cuts. But that is harder now. California is the state with the most millionaires and billionaires. Now is the time for wealthy individuals and foundations to stand up and backfill these losses so clinics can continue to provide access to women's health care. But will those individuals step forward? Or will they be cowed like the wealthy law firms and Ivy League universities that have bowed to Trump's intimidation? Even if they do step up, is there enough private money in California to keep federally funded women's health clinics open until Democrats regain control of at least one lever of power in Washington and can curb his fascistic policies? That possibility looks bleak. For starters, it would probably require hundreds of millions of dollars, said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, former NARAL Pro-Choice California director who is now vice president of public affairs at Essential Access Health. 'I think the honest answer is, we don't know yet. We're talking about a huge hole.' Theresa Cheng, a professor of emergency medicine at UCSF and a member of the school's Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, said it will be difficult for the private sector to patch up all the new holes punctured in the social safety net by the Trump administration. 'That's going to be really difficult because the Trump administration has cut so broadly in so many social systems,' said Cheng, who is in touch with private donors through her work with several nonprofit organizations. 'Food insecurity. Homelessness. Immigration. There are a lot of needs out there now.' Relying on private donations isn't going to help clinics across California's chasm of wealth inequality, Ziegler said. 'If you're depending partly on individual donors, that's going to look very different in Beverly Hills or Marin County than it is in Gilroy or other areas where there are few people to give private donations,' Ziegler said. Until political change happens in Washington, Cheng urged Californians to 'stay stalwart in protecting reproductive health. So much of this will have to be settled out in the courts. That will at least buy us some more time.'
CNN
5 hours ago
- CNN
Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship could have taken effect this weekend. Lower courts are continuing to block it
Donald Trump Supreme Court Trump legal casesFacebookTweetLink Follow A Supreme Court decision last month limiting the use of nationwide injunctions appeared to pave the way for President Donald Trump to begin enforcing his plan to end birthright citizenship on Sunday — until lower courts stalled the effort. The president could have begun enforcement if lower courts had significantly modified a series of injunctions ahead of a 30-day deadline given by the justices. But that hasn't happened. In fact, lower court judges have gone in a different direction, preventing Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship from taking effect now — and possibly ever — through three new adverse rulings. And more lower court decisions against the administration may be coming. A federal judge in New Hampshire earlier this month blocked Trump's order nationwide via a class action lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. Such lawsuits are one of the ways the Supreme Court suggested challengers could try to jam up enforcement of the policy for those who would be impacted by it. The Justice Department has not appealed that ruling from US District Judge Joseph LaPlante, who was appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush. The administration was further stymied last week, after a federal appeals court decided that a nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle earlier this year against Trump's order did not represent a judicial overreach that needed to be curbed in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. The Supreme Court ordered lower courts that issued or kept intact such broad injunctions to reconsider those rulings to see whether they comply with the justices' decision that such injunctions may not be needed to provide litigants with the 'complete relief' they're seeking. 'We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the states complete relief,' the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 decision in a case brought by several Democratic-led states against Trump's order. The administration has not yet appealed that ruling. The 9th Circuit's decision may soon bring the birthright issue back before the Supreme Court, since the appeals court had also reviewed the merits of the executive order and found that it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's June 27 decision did not address the legality of the policy, only the use of nationwide injunctions. Yet another blow came on Friday, when US District Judge Leo Sorokin decided that his earlier nationwide injunction against the birthright policy could not be narrowed in a way that would 'feasibly and adequately protect' against the harms that more than a dozen Democratic state attorneys general, the District of Columbia and several cities said would befall them if the policy could be enforced, even partially. In that ruling, Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, repeated his conclusion that Trump's order 'is unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute.' It's not clear whether, absent those three rulings this month, the policy could have taken effect this weekend. In court, attorneys for the administration have avoided providing specifics when speaking about what would happen once the 30-day pause from the Supreme Court is lifted. 'It's an unusual situation, what the Supreme Court did,' DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton said earlier this month to Sorokin. It's possible Trump may never be able to fully implement his order. Every lower court in the US to scrutinize the policy has found it unconstitutional. Signed by Trump on January 20, the executive order, titled 'PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP,' said that the federal government will not 'issue documents recognizing United States citizenship' to any children born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully, or were in the states lawfully, but temporarily. But courts have roundly concluded that Trump's policy violates the Constitution's 14th Amendment, an 1898 Supreme Court case known as United States v. Wong Kim Ark and years of practice by previous presidents. Whether the administration decides to file appeals in the cases challenging the executive order is no small matter: Legal experts have long said the government's decision to take the issue to the Supreme Court only on the technical question of whether courts went too far in blocking his policy nationwide represented a vehicle to undermine the power of lower courts sifting through a bevy of litigation over Trump's actions. 'The Trump administration was very purposeful and strategic in their decision to go to the Supreme Court on the question of what remedy can people get when they challenge executive actions, as opposed to the merits of this particular executive order,' said Jessica Levinson, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School. More adverse rulings for Trump's birthright order could be on the horizon. A federal judge in Maryland, Deborah Boardman, who blocked Trump's order nationwide said earlier this month that she was prepared to do so again after the plaintiffs in that challenge refiled their case as a class-action lawsuit. But first, a Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court would have to put the litigation back in her hands. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to craft guidance on how the federal government would carry out Trump's birthright policy, but no details have emerged on what that guidance looks like. 'The agencies are right now working on public guidance to explain how the President's executive order is going to be implemented,' Hamilton told Sorokin last month, in response to the judge's question about what's been done behind the scenes.
