Founded by Ayana Parsons, Arian Simone and Keshia Knight Pulliam in 2019, the Fearless Fund is a unique venture capital firm built by Black women focused on investing in businesses led by women of color. The fund aims to advocate for equity and belonging for women of color in the marketplace by offering grants as a tool for advancement; it is a game changer in the racial wealth equity divide.
According to the organization, only 0.39% of venture capital funding went to women of color in 2022. This has clear implications on the accessibility of robust resources for historically marginalized groups, and lends to the argument behind the racial wealth equity gap.
As a part of its mission, the Fearless Fund has collaborated with a variety of sponsors, partners and investors to share resources that will assist with the business aspirations of its portfolio companies; it has built a robust network of investors and sponsors to support its mission of empowering Black women-owned businesses.
They have partnered with a diverse range of organizations, to include Ally, Bank of America, Carta, Costco, Equity Alliance, Fifth Third Bank, Florida A&M University, General Mills, Invest Atlanta, Insight Partners, JP Morgan Chase, LISC, Mastercard, PayPal, The JumpFund, Wellington Management, Nike, and Salesforce. Additionally, the fund has secured sponsorships from companies such as Bumble, Close the Gap, Coca-Cola, Facebook, Honest, Microsoft, Mielle Organics, Porsche, Simple Truth, Spanx, Steve Madden, UrbanSkinRX, Shea Moisture, Tory Burch, UPS, and Walmart.
Compared to other funding programs, the Fearless Fund has proven more effective economically, politically, culturally and socially as it champions leveling a playing field that was never set up for them to win. To date, they have awarded 346 grants totaling $3 million to over 32,000 women of color who applied. Additionally, the fund has built $10 million in capital, provided 1,000 hours of mentorship, and delivered 500 hours of business education.
Sounds like economic progress for those who have been historically left out, right? To the dismay of those invested in the Fearless Fund, last year, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, an anti-affirmative action group of conservatives led by Edward Blum (who also supported the end of Affirmative Action in college admissions) launched a lawsuit against the Fearless Fund on the grounds of discrimination. The lawsuit states that the Fearless Fund violates section 1981 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, a law which was intended to protect formerly enslaved people from economic exclusion during Reconstruction.
In 2024, as there still exists a pronounced racial wealth gap, the 1866 Civil Rights Act has been weaponized against Black women who aimed to build a prosperity base for other women of color. The case won in a 2-1 ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Miami, led by two conservative judges and one liberal judge. Blum claimed that the program is discriminatory and polarizing. As a result, the Strivers Grant Fund, which offered up to $20,000 to help its clients who were venturing into entrepreneurship, was suspended, a devastating blow to the progress that has been made.
The legal team for the Fearless Fund filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, asking the court to uphold a previous ruling and reinstate the grant program. They presented arguments to a three-judge appeals panel in Miami. Additionally, they successfully opposed a request by the AAER to halt the grant awards process, arguing that the program qualified as protected free speech under the First Amendment. Despite this, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit blocked the grant program, finding it to be “racially exclusionary” and “substantially likely” to violate federal anti-discrimination laws, and the case is presently tied up in litigation.
The question of why the Fearless Fund exists is what’s not being asked. Is it the lack of accessibility to venture capital funding due to proximity to power? Is it due to a deficit in lack of balanced selection? Is it prejudice? Is it inadequate exposure?
Strangely, if one reflects on American history, discrimination never mattered more to the ruling class, the status quo, if you will, until the moment it was realized that they could lose what has been hoarded and safeguarded for generations.
According to digitalundvided, an advocacy group, only 1% of venture capital funding goes to Black or Hispanic women owned businesses. There is a notable history of exclusion in this industry. Despite this, the sudden concern about balance and fairness has never sounded the alarm the way it has against the founders of the Fearless Fund.
If fairness was ever a leading motivation, a program like the Fearless Fund wouldn’t even be necessary. Make no mistake in understanding that in 2024, there is still a gaping disparity in the marketplace for historically marginalized groups, even in the realization that economic prosperity is the road that leads to social empowerment. There is an undoing of programs that recognize this inequity by people who have historically had the advantage, and the finish line has been moved, again.
But economic bullying against Blacks is nothing new, except in many accounts of our collective struggle, the word bullying can be replaced by the word terror. It is the story of Black Wallstreet in Tulsa Oklahoma, which was met by destruction when the Black community began to thrive. It is the story of how Jim Crow emerged to avenge Black progress just 12 years after Reconstruction. It is the story of Rosewood, Florida, where a town that showed just how self-reliant Blacks could be, was sabotaged by a racist mob. The game has not changed, just the strategies and the players have.
Simone, in the midst of the legal battle that threatens the Fearless Fund, remains fearless herself as she fights for the principles of DEI in business, in an area where Black women are grossly under-represented. She continues to enter every room as a bold advocate, not tip-toeing or whispering, but standing on the principles of fairness, equity and access. This case and its implications speak to the larger politics of policies that affect entrepreneurs who are trying to enter into industries that are dominated by a ruling class, a class that aims to fortify its position.