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.

What began as a few encouraging words to Jacksonville Jaguars Head Coach Liam Coen has grown into a community message – and a way to help nurture the next generation of journalists.

Earlier this year, Jacksonville Editor Lynn Jones offered spontaneous encouragement, telling him to ‘keep your head up’ and ‘keep it going.’ The exchange quickly went viral, gaining national and international attention across television sports programs, podcasts, social media and online video platforms.

The Jacksonville Free Press turned the unexpected attention into an opportunity to give back, creating “Keep Your Head Up” T-shirts inspired by Jones’ words. Hundreds of shirts have since been sold, with proceeds benefiting the Jacksonville Free Press Journalism Fund, which supports efforts to nurture, encourage and develop future journalists.

For Hammock and Bolden, the words extend beyond football. They said the message also serves as a reminder to their families to remain positive and keep moving forward through life’s victories and setbacks.

The shirts have allowed a fleeting viral moment to produce a more lasting impact. Proceeds from sales are helping support a fund focused on creating opportunities for aspiring journalists and encouraging young people to learn the importance of storytelling, community news and documenting history.

Based on reporting by Jacksonville Free Press.

Affinia Healthcare and Employment Connection are teaming up to help patients find jobs, training or volunteer opportunities as new Medicaid work requirements approach.

Beginning Jan. 1, 2027, certain adults will have to meet work, education or community service requirements to keep their coverage. Some patients may qualify for exemptions.

Patients seeking assistance can call Affinia Healthcare at 314-814-8700 and ask about the partnership. Affinia’s outreach team can help connect them with Employment Connection.

The post Partnership helps patients prepare for Medicaid rules appeared first on St. Louis American.

Based on reporting by St. Louis American.

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.

By Carla Thomas

More than 75 people gathered at Youth UpRising in East Oakland on Friday, Sept. 18, for Coliseum 60, a celebration honoring six decades of sports, entertainment, employment and community memories connected to the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex.

Held 60 years to the day after the Coliseum opened, the event carried the theme, “One Community. One Legacy. One Future. Forward Together.”

The celebration opened with the national anthem performed by sisters Anese Jade, Amina Benjamin and Zaza Benjamin. Diamano Coura West African Dance Company contributed African dance and drumming, bringing movement, rhythm and cultural expression to the program.

A mini documentary highlighted the Coliseum’s sports history and its broader role as an entertainment destination. Archival material recalled performances by Prince and Tina Turner, along with memorable games featuring the Warriors, Oakland A’s and Raiders.

“The Coliseum 60 is about much more than celebrating a building or looking back at 60 years of history,” said event organizer Quixote Atkins of VillageGIVE.

“It’s about the people who made that history possible: the families, workers, athletes, artists, community leaders, fans and generations who gathered there and created memories together.”

A panel exploring that history featured author, historian and former Black Panther Party member Tareka Lewis; stagehand and union representative Keith Brown; and Ray Bobbitt, president of the African American Sports and Entertainment Group AASEG. Lewis described her family as fourth-generation Bay Area pioneers.

“My family and Black families who arrived even earlier helped build the Bay Area, grew businesses and established culture here,” Lewis said. “This should be taught in the public schools.”

Lewis recalled Oakland’s influence on sports, music and literature, from the Raiders’ beginnings at Laney College to stars such as The Pointer Sisters and Rickey Henderson who attended Oakland public schools. She also advocated for school museums, historical timelines, entrepreneurship training and investments benefiting corridors such as Bancroft Avenue and High Street.

Keith Brown, a member of Local 107 of the International Alliance of Theater and Stage Employees (IATSE) who began working at the Coliseum in 2011, remembered the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, the Ice Capades, baseball bat giveaways and Nelson Mandela’s 1990 appearance.

“The special events are amazing, but it’s the workers that make the memories real for everyone,” Brown said. “They make the magic happen at the Coliseum.”

The program recognized longtime workers, including beer-stand manager Robert Preston, who served for 40 years, and Kenyatta Gentry, who worked as a vendor for 24 years and used her earnings to purchase her first apartment. Union workers Jose Gonzales and Carmen Sandoval were also honored. Speakers emphasized that Coliseum employment provided generations of residents with union wages and benefits.

Dr. Denise Saddler, the superintendent of the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) was also honored. Saddler shared her family’s history of working at the Coliseum. 

District 7 Oakland City Councilmember Ken Houston discussed the complex ownership arrangements involving the city, county and private interests.

“This was the most complex deal of its kind in the country,” Houston said.

Prior to moving from the East Coast, Alameda County Supervisor and Coliseum Joint Powers Authority Chair Nate Miley recalled learning about Oakland through its three professional sports teams. As an elected official and public servant, Miley fought hard to keep the Golden State Warriors, Oakland As, and the Raiders, but he is hopeful for the future.

“The story is not over for the Coliseum,” Miley said. “We’re entering a new chapter.”

Bobbitt said the departure of three teams had once seemed unimaginable, but he maintained that Oakland’s future remains bright.

“Oakland is a cultural superpower worldwide,” Bobbitt said. “We’re going to write the future where we participate and drive the redevelopment.”

Bobbitt highlighted AASEG’s four-year partnership with Castlemont High School’s architecture program, which engages students in reimagining and creating redevelopment concepts for the Coliseum property. “The youth will always move us forward. They are the future.”

In closing, Atkins said, “September 18 is the celebration, but what we build together afterward is the legacy.”

By Ken Epstein

County’s letter counters critics who offer Doomsday scenarios for Oakland schools

The Oakland Unified School District, under the leadership of a new board majority and new superintendent, recently submitted a budget to the county “that is a materially stronger submission than the district has filed in recent years, (which) reflects difficult and deliberate work,” according to a letter to the district from Supt. Alysse Castro of the Alameda County Office of Education.

While OUSD still must make more budget cuts in the next two years, the district is on the road to financial health, according to a Sept. 15 letter from Castro to the district.

Under the California Education Code, Alameda County and other county offices of education (COEs) have the legal responsibility to review, approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove local school district annual budgets and interim financial reports.

“The Alameda County Office of Education wants to acknowledge that the district has submitted a budget that shows a positive fund balance, meets the state minimum reserve for economic uncertainty in each year of the multiyear project and is accompanied by a board-adopted commitment to close the remaining structural challenges,” the letter said.

“After two decades of state receivership and significant changes in OUSD’s budgeting practices,” it is understandable that there may be “considerable confusion” in the public about the district’s current financial condition, according to the letter.

However, the district’s current fiscal position and practices are “materially” better than prior years, though they “do not yet eliminate underlying structural challenges,” the letter continued.

Castro also commended the board and staff for working to get their financial house in order.

“There are three essential parts to addressing a structural deficit: staff must identify and bring

forward hard choices; the governing board must make those choices; and staff must follow

through and implement them,” she wrote.

“All three appear to be happening in OUSD, and that represents meaningful progress,” she wrote. “The district has made significant reductions to ongoing expenditures, increased its use of available restricted resources, and adopted a plan to address the remaining gap.”

According to the County, the district already has approved budget cuts of about $30 million in the current year. Additional reductions of about $30 million will be necessary next year, and another $11 million the following year.

These cuts are necessary, the county says, because “the district is still operating at a structural

deficit, meaning spending more every year than it brings in.” 

In a statement released earlier this month, the district announced it had “finished the year with $170.1 million in its General Fund and an unrestricted reserve of $32.3 million, finishing $16.4 million ahead of what the district projected in March.”

The budget reflects progress toward putting the district in a stronger financial position to better serve students and families, said district leaders, while also acknowledging the need for significant reductions across the board.

“This turnaround happened because our board was willing to make difficult decisions rather than pass them along, and because our staff did the work,” said Supt. Dr. Denise Saddler. “None of this came easily, and there is more ahead of us. What these closed books show is that the direction is right.”

In October 2025, the board directed staff to prepare budget scenarios totaling $100 million in adjustments. In December, presented with a choice between borrowing to bridge the gap and making the reductions directly, the board chose the latter, the district statement said. As part of the reduction plan, the board approved cuts to more than 400 certificated and classified positions, along with a retirement incentive that converted some layoffs into voluntary departures.

“Closing our books is not the same as finishing the work, and we are not stopping here,” said Tara Gard,deputy superintendent of Business and Operations. “We will continue with the actions in our Financial Stabilization Plan because of where they lead.”

In a statement released on social media, Oakland Education Association (OEA) President

Kampala Taiz-Rancifer strongly criticized those who allege the district is collapsing and supported members of the school board majority who are working hard to stabilize the district’s finances while minimizing disruption for schools and employees.

Jennifer Brouhard (D2) and Valarie Bachelor (D6), who are running for reelection, “are moving the district toward a ‘materially stronger’ financial position than we’ve seen in recent years—all while investing in school sites and the employees who serve Oakland students,” she wrote.

“For years, we’ve heard billionaire-backed board members say they had to make ‘tough choices’ to balance the budget,” she continued. “Those choices almost always caused disruption and instability for our schools and communities. This is a different approach: financial stability alongside investments in students, schools, and workers. All in the effort to improve student outcomes.”

“The real hard work is tuning out the rage bait, the chaos agents, the attacks on unions and workers, and ignoring the loud corporate profiteers—and staying focused on what matters: improving outcomes for students while creating stable teaching and learning conditions,” said Taiz-Rancifer.

“Let’s not go backward into the days of manufactured panic.”