Black voters have been among the Democratic Party’s most dependable supporters for generations. But loyalty and trust are not the same thing.

With less than a month to go before the midterm elections, Black voters and political strategists say years of inconsistent engagement and unmet expectations have left some voters questioning whether the party has earned their continued support. The challenge now is bigger than winning votes. It’s convincing distrustful voters that staying politically engaged is worth it.

Communications strategist Ashley Etienne argues that Democrats have spent years taking one of their most reliable voting blocs for granted, creating a widening trust gap that threatens the party’s long-term prospects in Texas and nationally.

“Trust is the currency of persuasion,” she said. “We’re seeing distrust at an all-time high, especially with Black voters … distrust of the media, institutions, the Democratic Party, self-agreement. Campaigns don’t lose because they fail to talk to voters. They lose because they fail to listen.”

Etienne, who served as a senior adviser to Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden and communications director for Vice President Kamala Harris, said repairing that relationship requires something considerably more difficult than another campaign advertisement. It requires listening.

Black support remains strong, but not absolute

Recent polling suggests Democrats continue to hold a substantial advantage among Black voters heading into November, but that support isn’t universal.

A July 2026 Pew Research Center survey found 68% of Black registered voters said they would support the Democratic candidate for U.S. House in their district, compared with 8% who favored the Republican. Another 25% said they were either unsure or would support another candidate.

That uncertainty follows some erosion in Democratic support among Black voters in the 2024 presidential election. A Pew analysis of validated voters found 83% of Black voters supported Kamala Harris in 2024, compared with 92% who supported Joe Biden in 2020.

Pew found that shift was driven less by individual voters switching from one party to another than by differences in who turned out to vote.

The findings don’t suggest Black voters have abandoned Democrats. They do raise questions about whether longstanding party loyalty is enough to guarantee participation.

“We’ve been making that same argument decade after decade,” Etienne said. “Those are becoming less persuasive arguments.”

Why is trust disappearing?

The distrust isn’t necessarily about one candidate or one election. For some Black voters, frustration comes from feeling heavily courted during election season without seeing enough progress afterward on the issues affecting their daily lives.

Housing costs remain a concern. So do education, economic opportunity, neighborhood investment, and the cost of everyday necessities.

That creates a difficult dynamic for campaigns: Asking voters to participate in a political system that some believe has not delivered enough for them.

It also raises a separate question. What happens when frustration with political parties becomes disengagement from the political process altogether?

What happens when voters stay home?

The answer can become particularly consequential in local elections, where races can be decided by hundreds of votes rather than thousands.

Harris County Democratic Party Chair Traci Gibson has pointed to several 2024 judicial races decided by narrow margins. District judge candidate Elaine Palmer lost by 304 votes, while Jeralynn Manor lost by 647 votes.

Gibson also warned about voters who begin Harris County’s lengthy ballot but don’t finish it.

“If you go into these polls and you vote for the first five people and then you leave, that’s how we get Elaine Palmer losing by about 300 votes,” Gibson said.

The larger issue extends beyond any candidate or political party. Judges are elected. School boards make decisions affecting students and families. City and county officials determine how public dollars are spent. State lawmakers decide which bills become state law.

Those decisions are made regardless of how many eligible voters participate.

For voters distrustful of political parties or government institutions, political participation also doesn’t have to mean unquestioning loyalty to either party.

Voters can research candidates individually, compare their positions, attend or watch candidate forums and examine an incumbent’s record against previous campaign promises. They can also learn what the often-overlooked offices farther down the ballot actually control.

In that sense, distrust can become a reason for greater scrutiny rather than disengagement.

Candidates have work to do, too

Responsibility for rebuilding participation doesn’t fall solely on voters.

At a recent Third Ward town hall hosted by state Rep. Jolanda “Jo” Jones, Harris County Precinct 7 Constable James “Smokie” Phillips and Houston Black American Democrats, voters and political strategists called for more sustained campaign engagement.

“Investment drives outcomes. If you don’t invest in it, it doesn’t work,” Etienne said.

She argued that campaigns spend heavily on polling, consultants and advertising while directing too little money toward Black-led political infrastructure and organizations with established relationships in Black communities.

Shamier Bouie, chair of Houston Black American Democrats, said organizing cannot begin a few months before Election Day.

“It’s all about year-round organizing, and increased investment in Black voter outreach … more funding for Black-led organizations that have relationships, infrastructure, and experience in effectively engaging Black communities,” Bouie said.

The question of investment also surfaced in July when Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico pledged $25 million toward Black voter outreach. Some voters wanted specifics about where and how that money would be spent.

“We still need our kids, we still need our schools equitably funded,” said Augie Cahee, vice president of marketing web delivery at JPMorgan Chase & Co. “So, we want to know what you’re going to do with the money. Don’t stand up and tell me $25 million and you don’t have a plan.”

The exchange illustrated the larger trust problem: Voters aren’t simply asking candidates to talk to them. They want to know what happens after the conversation.

From distrust to accountability

Karla West, a precinct chair for downtown’s Precinct 16, said responsibility ultimately belongs on both sides.

“We fell asleep at the wheel,” West said of voter turnout.

But she also challenged political leaders.

“The Democratic Party did not say what they would do for you,” West said. “We haven’t heard a plan for years. I’m sick of it. We have to have strategies, we have to have plans, we have to have a mechanism in place for people to feel they are heard.”

Defender Reporter Tannistha Sinha contributed to this report.

Based on reporting by Houston Defender.

For generations, the conversation about Black wealth has focused on what we do not have: not enough savings, not enough access to capital, not enough homeownership and not enough inherited wealth. Those realities matter, and the disparities behind them are real but there is another question worth asking: What are we doing with the wealth we already have?

That question deserves more attention because one of the greatest barriers to homeownership is often not the ability to make a monthly mortgage payment. It is the ability to get through the front door the down payment, closing costs and cash required to purchase a property in the first place. For many Black families, that initial hurdle can delay homeownership for years, even when someone has a stable career, good income, reasonable credit and the financial capacity to sustain a mortgage.

Yet in some families, part of the solution may already be sitting within the family itself.

Across Black America, there are parents, grandparents, sisters, brother, aunt and uncles who may not consider themselves wealthy but who own something extraordinarily valuable equity. They purchased homes decades ago, made mortgage payments month after month, raised families in those homes, maintained them through recessions and difficult economic periods and, over time, watched those properties appreciate. A house purchased for $50,000 or $75,000 may today be worth $250,000, $300,000 or considerably more.

That difference represents more than appreciation on a financial statement. It represents years of work and sacrifice converted into an asset and therein lies a tremendous opportunity.

A gift of equity allows a homeowner, typically in a transaction involving family, to sell a property for less than its appraised market value and transfer some of the difference to the buyer as equity. Subject to the requirements of the mortgage program, that equity can potentially be used toward the buyer’s down payment and, in some circumstances, closing costs.

Example. Suppose a mother owns a home that appraises for $300,000. She wants to sell it to her daughter for $240,000. The $60,000 difference between the appraised value and the sales price can potentially become a gift of equity. The mother does not have to withdraw $60,000 from a bank account and hand it to her daughter. The wealth is already there it has been accumulating inside the property.

That is what makes this strategy so important to understand. We frequently talk about the difficulty of saving a down payment without asking whether a family may already possess an asset capable of helping overcome that barrier. A son or daughter could spend another five or ten years attempting to save enough money to purchase a home while a parent or grandparent is sitting on substantial equity accumulated over several decades.

The family has wealth it simply may not be liquid.

A gift of equity can create a bridge between those two realities. The previous generation may have spent 30 years building equity so that the next generation does not have to begin at zero. That is one of the deeper meanings of generational wealth. It is not simply about leaving something behind after we die. It is about understanding whether the assets one generation has built can improve the economic starting position of the generation that follows.

For Black families, that distinction is especially important we have spent generations fighting for access to property and the opportunity to own it. As more Black families acquire homes and build equity, the conversation must eventually expand beyond the question of how we create more first-generation homeowners. We must also ask how the ownership already achieved by one generation can help create ownership in the next.

This requires us to think differently about inheritance. We often imagine inheritance as an event that occurs at the end of someone’s life, when assets pass through a will, trust or estate. But property gives families another possibility. Under the right circumstances, real estate can be used to transfer economic opportunities while parents and grandparents are still alive to participate in the process and see what the asset they spent decades building can do for the next generation.

A parent may not have $100,000 sitting in a savings account that does not mean the parent has nothing substantial to give. The family home may be the largest asset that person owns, and this points to a distinction that is essential to any serious conversation about wealth income is what we earn; wealth is what we own.

A family can have relatively modest income and still possess meaningful wealth because a home purchased decades earlier has appreciated while its mortgage has steadily been paid down. This matters for Black America because the racial wealth gap cannot be understood solely as a question of wages and income. It is also a question of ownership, assets and whether those assets successfully move from one generation to another.

Return to the mother with the $300,000 home. She could sell the property on the open market, receive the proceeds and allow the house to leave the family. There is nothing inherently wrong with that decision. She earned that equity, and her own financial security must matter. But suppose her circumstances allow another choice. She sells the property to her daughter for $240,000 and provides $60,000 through a gift of equity.

Her daughter may now be able to purchase a home she otherwise could not have acquired because she lacked sufficient cash. More importantly, she does not necessarily begin her ownership journey at zero. She enters it with equity. If she manages the property responsibly, makes the mortgage payments, maintains the home and allows time and amortization to work, the economic value accumulated by one generation has the potential to continue growing in another.

The mother has therefore transferred more than a house she has transferred a financial head start.

That is when property becomes more than shelter it becomes capital.

None of this means that a gift of equity eliminates financial responsibility or the normal requirements of obtaining a mortgage. The buyer still has to qualify. A lender will evaluate credit, income, debt and the ability to repay the loan. The property generally must be appraised, title requirements must be satisfied and the transaction must comply with the rules of the mortgage program.

There is documentation as well. A lender will generally require a gift-of-equity letter identifying the parties, their relationship, the amount of the gift and confirmation that repayment is not expected. That final requirement matters because a gift cannot secretly be another loan. If a parent provides $50,000 in equity but expects the child to repay the $50,000 later, it is not a true gift for mortgage purposes.

The larger issue, however, is not the paperwork. It is what happens to Black-owned property over time. For much of American history, Black families faced enormous barriers to acquiring property in the first place. Redlining, restrictive covenants, discriminatory lending and unequal access to mortgage credit limited where Black Americans could purchase homes and whether they could obtain the financing necessary to do so. Against that history, when a Black family has managed to acquire property, pay for it, preserve it and accumulate substantial equity over decades, we should understand what has been created.

It is not simply a house it is an asset, and assets require strategy.

Before a family property is simply listed for sale, there should be a deeper conversation around the kitchen table. What is the property actually worth? How much equity has accumulated? Is there someone in the next generation who wants the home and is financially capable of maintaining it? Could that person qualify for financing? Could a gift of equity help make the transaction possible? And perhaps most importantly, what do we want this asset to accomplish for our family?

Generational wealth rarely happens by accident. Someone has to think beyond today’s transaction and understand that the equity accumulated over 20, 30 or 40 years represents stored economic power.

A gift of equity will not be appropriate for every family, and it is certainly not a solution by itself to the racial wealth gap. But it illustrates a much larger principle. We should not spend all of our time discussing the wealth Black America has yet to build while overlooking the wealth that millions of Black families have already spent generations creating.

That is what it means to turn ownership into legacy.

Property is Power. And when property passes from one generation to the next with knowledge, planning and purpose, that power can outlive us.

Property is Power! is a movement to promote home and community ownership. Studies indicate homeownership leads to higher graduation rates, family wealth, and community involvement.

Based on reporting by Michigan Chronicle.

In August Wilson’s “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” Ma Rainey fights to control what happens to her music once she enters the recording studio. Today, musicians are confronting a new question: What happens when artificial intelligence can profit from the identity attached to their music?

Round House Theatre’s production of “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” which runs through Oct. 18 in Bethesda, Maryland, brings an older struggle over artistic control to the stage. Set during a recording session in 1920s Chicago, Wilson’s play follows Ma and her band as conflicts over art, money and control expose the imbalance between the musicians creating the work and the people conducting the business around it. That same question of who can profit from an artist’s value is now being tested in a very different setting nearly a century later.

Musicians Jason Isbell, David Lowery, Guy Forsyth and Eduardo Calle filed a class-action lawsuit on Aug. 31 against AI music company Suno. They allege that the company commercially exploits artists through an AI system capable of generating music imitating artists’ identities and styles without permission. Suno disputes the allegations.

The U.S. Copyright Office has also studied AI-generated digital replicas and recommended federal legislation to address gaps in protections against unauthorized replicas of a person’s voice or appearance. Its broader AI inquiry received more than 10,000 public comments.

For Nicole Michelle Haskins, who portrays Ma Rainey in the Round House production, the struggle over power begins with understanding Ma as more than a demanding recording star.

“She is the only advocate she has,” Haskins said. “The choices presented to her are to surrender or fight. Ma chooses to fight.”

Haskins said Ma enters the recording studio knowing the value that she brings, even as the people around her repeatedly challenge her decisions. She exercises her leverage and pushes back when others attempt to dictate how the session will proceed.

The real Gertrude “Ma” Rainey was one of the earliest Black women to record blues commercially. Between 1923 and 1928, she made more than 100 recordings for Paramount Records, according to the Smithsonian.

One surviving agreement shows how at least part of that business worked. A Dec. 12, 1923, royalty agreement for “Walking Blues,” signed by Rainey and composer Lovie Austin, provided them two cents for each printed piano copy sold in the United States and Canada. They were also entitled to one-fourth of the royalties the publisher received from mechanical reproductions, minus a 10% collection cost.

For Haskins, portraying a character negotiating those relationships does not feel entirely removed from being an artist today.

“The life that I live as an artist is not that dissimilar from the world that August Wilson has written,” Haskins said.

The technology surrounding artists, however, has changed dramatically.

The scale of AI-generated music has grown quickly. In July, streaming service Deezer said it was receiving about 90,000 fully AI-generated tracks a day, more than half of its daily uploads. Those tracks accounted for less than 3% of all streams.

The lawsuit against Suno is not primarily a traditional copyright case about whether an AI-generated song copied a particular recording. Instead, the musicians rely largely on state right-of-publicity laws, which concern the commercial use of a person’s identity.

According to the complaint, users can enter musicians’ names and use them as a retrieval key for AI-generated music drawing on characteristics associated with those artists. The plaintiffs argue that an output does not have to copy a specific song or perfectly reproduce an artist’s voice for the artist’s commercial identity to be exploited.

Suno disputes that characterization of its technology. The company has said it does not use artists’ names as training metadata and does not permit users to prompt its system for specific artists. Suno says references to artists are filtered and redirected toward descriptions of musical characteristics. Its own prompting guide, for example, encourages users to describe features such as tempo, vocals and instrumentation, using phrases like “bright pop track,” “110 BPM,” “female vocals” and a “big synth hook.”

The Suno dispute centers on more than ownership of a particular song or recording. It raises the question of whether an artist’s name, likeness and other identifying characteristics can be used commercially to generate new music without permission.

Haskins resists describing that underlying conflict as merely contemporary.

“I don’t think they feel contemporary,” Haskins said of Ma’s concerns. “I think they feel worldly.”

For Haskins, AI is one setting for a larger struggle over who has power over creative work. She said the problem of Black people being separated from control of things they created has existed far longer than the technology now raising those questions. The Library of Congress notes that early record companies sometimes used white performers to record music associated with Black artists rather than hire the Black performers themselves, while Black musicians remained rare on early commercial recordings.

“It just hasn’t stopped happening,” she said.

That interpretation shapes the way Haskins portrays Ma’s fight for control. She pointed to a brief moment in the second act when Ma’s manager attempts to steer her toward a different song. Ma refuses and proceeds with the recording she intends to make.

Haskins said the moment stands out precisely because Ma does not need a dramatic confrontation to establish who has the final say.

“She’s not demanding control. She’s not asserting control,” Haskins said. “She is simply positioning herself in correct order.”

La Tetra Metts-Owens is a reporter forHUNewsService.com. She covers Prince George’s County and theater.

Based on reporting by Howard University News Service.

As the father of a young daughter with autism, I have learned that getting your child to school is not always as simple as putting them on the bus and waiting for them to come home.

When your child has an Individualized Education Program, you pay attention to things other parents may never have to think about.

Who is working with my child today? Does this person understand her needs? What happens if her routine suddenly changes? If something goes wrong and she cannot fully explain it to me, who will be able to tell me what happened?

Those questions do not stop at the schoolhouse door. They follow our children onto the school bus.

That is why one of the simplest pieces of advice I can give another parent of a child with an IEP is this: Get to know your child’s bus driver and attendant.

Learn their names. Introduce yourself. Say good morning. Ask how your child is doing on the ride.

Those few minutes can matter more than we realize.

For some children with disabilities, consistency is incredibly important. The same bus, the same driver, the same seat and the same routine can provide a sense of comfort before the school day even begins.

Then one morning, something changes.

The bus is late. There is a substitute driver. The route changes. The bus does not arrive when expected.

For many families, that is an inconvenience. For some of our children, it can change the entire morning.

As parents, we also know that our children may not always come home and tell us exactly what happened during the ride. That makes the adults who interact with them even more important.

A bus driver may notice that your child suddenly does not want to get on the bus. An attendant may notice that your child seems upset at the same point along the route every day.

They may notice a change in behavior, a problem with another student, or simply that something seems different.

That information can be valuable to a parent.

But relationships work both ways.

Parents can also help transportation staff understand our children. You do not have to share every detail of your child’s disability or educational record. But appropriate information about communication, behavior, safety or transitions can help the adults responsible for transporting your child better understand how to support them.

And when a transportation problem occurs, you are no longer starting the conversation with a complete stranger.

That does not mean parents should be responsible for fixing school transportation. We shouldn’t.

School systems remain responsible for providing required transportation services, including services identified in a student’s IEP. When buses are repeatedly late, accommodations are not being followed or transportation problems interfere with a child’s education, parents should document those concerns and raise them with the appropriate school and transportation officials.

Building a relationship with a driver should complement accountability, not replace it.

That distinction is important.

As a father navigating special education, I have learned that advocacy is not only about what happens during an IEP meeting.

Advocacy happens in the hallway. It happens at pickup. It happens through an email to a teacher. And sometimes it happens at the bus stop at 7 o’clock in the morning.

Our children’s educational experience begins before they enter the classroom and continues after they leave it.

Think about the person behind the wheel.

For some children, their bus driver is the first school employee they see every morning and the last one they see every afternoon.

That person is part of your child’s school experience.

So tomorrow morning, if you haven’t already, introduce yourself.

Learn the driver’s name.

Let them learn your child’s name — and, when appropriate, a little about what helps your child succeed.

It won’t prevent every late bus, substitute driver or transportation problem.

But if there is one thing I continue to learn as both a father and an advocate, it is that relationships matter.

And for children with IEPs, one more adult who knows, understands, and cares about your child can make a difference.

Based on reporting by Washington Informer.

By Adam Shapiro

Kristen Amundson has devoted her professional life to supporting students and parents throughout the education system. Previously, she authored “81 Questions for Parents” and “Unfinished Learning: Parents, Schools, and COVID School Closures.”

Amundson, the former president and CEO of the National Association of State Boards of Education, is now turning her attention to grandparents. Her new book is titled “The Grandparent Effect: Helping Children Thrive Through Love, Support, and Connection,” and is published by Bloomsbury.

Amundson explains that grandparents have become increasingly important in children’s lives due to longer lifespans and changing family dynamics. Originally, grandparents were important for children’s survival, particularly at a time when families were large and mothers needed extra caregiving support. Because mothers often turned to their mothers for this help, the positive impact on children was often called the “Grandmother Effect.”

Today, many more grandfathers are involved with their grandchildren. Amundson prefers to talk about the “Grandparent Effect” and notes that these caregivers also support reading and writing, boost confidence, and encourage grandchildren’s interests. She notes that those involved grandparents experience health benefits themselves (“if you have to get on the ground with an infant and take a child to the park, you are moving around and that’s good exercise!”).

The book provides an overview of how the role of grandparents has evolved over time, explaining that until the 19th century grandparents often lived close to their grandchildren and worked together on farms. She describes how the Industrial Revolution led to families splitting up, with children moving to cities for factory work while grandparents remained on farms, resulting in grandparents becoming poorer over time.

“There are many examples of how grandparents have adapted during recent challenges, including providing support during the pandemic through in-person care when possible or using technology like FaceTime and Zoom when physically distant, and taking on roles like ‘granny nannies’ to help with childcare and education needs,” she says.

Amundson tells the story of a grandmother who took the time to become certified in dyslexia training and taught her family members, including her granddaughter and grandson.

But with these added roles come some possible hiccups along the way. She emphasizes that grandparents need to remember they are no longer in charge like they were with their own children, and parents have the right to set rules that grandparents should respect. Amundson illustrates this point with examples about discipline and food choices, noting that grandparents should follow the parents’ guidelines rather than overruling them (except for maybe allowing an extra cookie).

“I know of a situation where grandparents crossing boundaries affected family dynamics when they took their grandchild to the emergency room without involving the parents, which later led to a temporary timeout for the grandparents.”

Amundson’s book also includes examples of ways grandparents advocate for the next generation, such as Texas grandmothers who speak out on state legislation.

Other grandparents participate in a self-help group supporting custodial grandparents who care for children whose parents are dealing with substance use issues or are incarcerated. The group provides practical support including educational seminars, college application assistance, and simple activities like Halloween decorations to help children feel included.

Amundson’s book is a valuable and enjoyable resource for grandparents who are navigating the excitement and joy of their senior status in the 21st century.

When I play poker and go all-in, I may be holding pocket aces. Other times, I’m bluffing. Either way, all of my chips go into the pot. In poker, going all-in doesn’t require certainty. It requires commitment. And the same is true when it comes to artificial intelligence.

For Black Americans, this particular bet is crucial. We have too few voices in the rooms where AI is being shaped and too much at stake in what happens next. Black workers, students and entrepreneurs are already being affected by AI. So this isn’t just somebody else’s technology debate. It’s ours, too.

AI could cure cancer. AI could kill us. That is the extraordinary range of possibilities now being debated by some of the very people building the technology.

And some of the risks are becoming less theoretical. OpenAI recently disclosed six instances of unexpected or concerning model behavior during training or evaluation, including models taking unauthorized actions, concealing information and finding ways around constraints. A recent brief from the U.N.’s Independent International Scientific Panel on AI described a separate OpenAI-Hugging Face incident as one of the clearest real-world warnings yet of a possible path toward losing human control over advanced AI agents.

But development is hardly slowing down. In fact, it’s clearly going all-in.

President Donald Trump has framed AI largely as a competition America cannot afford to lose, saying, “Whoever wins AI wins.” He recently announced plans to create an “AI Force” and appoint an AI “czar,” while promising not to “hinder or stifle” the growth of the AI industry. And Anthropic reports that Claude now leads 26% of the company’s AI research and development work and collaborates on more than 90% of it.

Vast sums of money, extraordinary computing power and some of the smartest people on the planet are being committed to making these systems more powerful.

If that is the bet we are making, then responsibility deserves the same commitment.

There are signs that at least some in the industry recognize that. Anthropic recently announced a partnership with Accenture to embed independent evaluators inside its frontier AI development process, with each company expecting to invest at least $1 billion over five years.

That is closer to the balance we need. Development does not necessarily have to stop for responsibility to accelerate.

Responsibility starts with safety: keeping increasingly powerful systems under human control, protecting privacy and cybersecurity, and guarding against misuse.

But responsible AI has to mean more than preventing some future catastrophe.

It means preparing workers whose jobs may change or disappear. It means making sure algorithms don’t reproduce discrimination in hiring, lending, health care and education. It means helping schools decide when students should learn without AI, about AI and with AI.

And it means making sure people who will live with the consequences have a meaningful role in shaping them.

That includes Black folks.

I’m not an AI expert, a tech billionaire or a politician. I’m a Chicago educator who has spent most of my adult life preparing students, almost all of them Black and from low-income communities, for an unpredictable future. That makes this debate especially urgent to me.

And our young people aren’t waiting for adults to figure it out. About six in 10 Black teenagers are already using AI chatbots for schoolwork. Yet federal data show that about 60% of schools serving mostly students of color provide AI training to at least some teachers, compared with 75% of predominantly white schools.

The economic stakes are significant, too. McKinsey estimates that 24% of Black workers are in occupations with greater than 75% automation potential, compared with 20% of White workers. Black people make up about 12% of the U.S. workforce but only 8% of workers in tech jobs and just 3% of technology executives in the C-suite.

So Black people are not watching this transformation from the sidelines. We are using the technology, our children are learning with it, and we are working in occupations that could be significantly changed by it. What we don’t have are nearly enough seats at the tables where the biggest decisions are being made.

That lack of representation was visible recently. At a major Washington gathering calling for action on AI safety, almost none of the people onstage were Black.

Black voices aren’t absent, however. Sen. Cory Booker called for a special session of Congress on AI, saying the technology’s rapidly evolving risks and opportunities require urgent attention. Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke has pushed for greater accountability when AI is used to make consequential decisions in employment, housing, credit, education and other areas. And the NAACP is challenging the expansion of AI data centers over concerns including pollution, water and energy use, utility costs and insufficient community input.

Those questions are now playing out here in Chicago, where Mayor Brandon Johnson has proposed a one-year moratorium on new or expanded data centers while the city develops regulations addressing their effects on energy, water, pollution and residents’ quality of life.

Those concerns illustrate why inclusion must be part of what we mean by responsible AI. Responsible AI cannot mean only preventing AI from someday escaping human control. It also has to mean making sure the AI we are deploying today does not deepen inequities we already know too well.

The Gates Foundation’s new Goalkeepers report emphasizes that AI could become a powerful equalizer or deepen existing inequalities. The foundation is putting its money where its mouth is, committing at least $1 billion over two years to expand access to AI and help ensure its benefits reach people who might otherwise be left behind.

Bill Gates writes that the people with the greatest needs often have the least power to determine where innovation and investment go.

That sounds eerily familiar.

Black Americans know from experience that national progress does not guarantee racial equality. The United States has grown richer, stronger and more technologically advanced while Black people have too often been denied an equal opportunity to share in that progress.

We should not repeat that pattern with AI.

Going all-in cannot mean committing everything to making the technology more powerful and then hoping safety, opportunity and equity somehow catch up.

Going all-in means going all-in on responsibility, too.

All-in on technical safety. All-in on privacy. All-in on preparing workers. All-in on helping schools and students navigate the technology wisely. All-in on preventing old biases from becoming automated ones. And all-in on making sure Black students, workers, professionals and entrepreneurs can help shape AI and benefit from it rather than simply absorb its disruptions.

The AI industry is already going all-in on development. Black people should insist that responsibility includes us, too.

We don’t know how our country’s gamble on AI will turn out. But Black people need a seat at the table so we can play our hand.

The post Responsible AI Development Requires a Seat at the Table for Black America appeared first on Chicago Defender.

Based on reporting by Chicago Defender.