The Social Justice Fund Pulls Back on Race Talk, But Grantmaking Doesn't Change Much
From "racial gaps" and "BIPOC communities" to "systemic inequities" and "Brooklyn communities." Others in the philanthropic world have made more dramatic adjustments.
This is part of a series on the Joe and Clara Tsai Foundation’s Social Justice Fund, established in 2020 by the billionaire couple who own most of Brooklyn Sports & Entertainment, which includes the Brooklyn Nets, New York Liberty, and the Barclays Center operating company.1
The Social Justice Fund, as I wrote, now claims that Clara Wu Tsai was the sole founder, omitting her husband Joe Tsai, the source of the couple’s wealth. It even became part of a communications protocol.
That’s not the only “retcon,” or retroactive continuity, in which the past is rewritten to serve a new reality.
The Social Justice Fund, announced not long after the police murder of George Floyd in 2020 prompted racial justice protests, also has quietly cut down on explicit mention of race, without announcement or explanation.
The shift seems strategic, from more forceful, if not fully focused, “racial justice” to more strategic “economic mobility” aimed at the under-resourced, which still can target Black Brooklyn. It’s likely a better fit with the Tsais’ business background, and also appears race-neutral, helping avoid scrutiny.
They’re not alone, adjusting their rhetoric, if not their actual performance, in response to a changing national climate.
So too has the NBA Foundation, funded by the owners of the 30 NBA franchises and also launched after the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. It’s shifted its mission from “[f]urthering economic empowerment in the Black community” to “driv[ing] economic opportunity for under-resourced youth”.
Adjusting the mission
From the start, the Social Justice Fund’s homepage proclaimed, as Our Mission, “To Support Equitable Growth and Belonging for BIPOC Communities in Brooklyn.” That persisted, though, at least until Nov. 12, 2024.
At some point, but no later than Dec. 24, 2024, the Our Mission language changed: “To Support Equitable Growth and Belonging for Communities in Brooklyn.”
I submitted my analysis to the Social Justice Fund, citing the broader climate of pullback on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). “I recognize this is a sensitive area,” I wrote, “but would rather hear your explanation than have to speculate.” No response.
The change may be more rhetorical than actual.
At an interview last April at the Smart Cities Expo 2025, Social Justice Fund Executive Director Gregg Bishop observed, “In 2020, a number of organizations made a number of promises, and literally we are now in a period where those promises are broken. I think, for the leadership, for Clara, and for Joe, we are still committed to diversity. Diversity is not a bad word.”
The Social Justice Fund, however, is not necessarily pursuing diversity, at least as defined as “ensur[ing] representation among qualified persons across race” and other characteristics, “so that institutions reflect the communities they serve.”
Rather, it’s pursuing equity, defined as “dismantl[ing] the barriers that disproportionately harm marginalized communities” and inclusion, defined as ensuring that “those historically excluded can fully participate.” Or, perhaps, a version of reparations.
What’s the reason?
Is that a quiet accommodation to the second Trump administration, which has prompted corporate and philanthropic commitment retreat from DEI? If so, the Social Justice Fund wouldn’t be alone, given that numerous foundations—as described further below—adjusted their rhetoric.
As David Callahan wrote in The Nation last Nov. 17, “Since late January [2025], leaders at liberal foundations and donor networks have been preparing for a legal assault by federal agencies.”
Is it an acknowledgment that some activist language, circa 2020, was overbroad or overwrought? Perhaps.
Does it represent a major change in the Social Justice Fund’s work? Not necessarily, though there’s been some evolution.
While the SJF’s ambit has broadened somewhat, most of the programs and people funded still reflect the plan announced in 2020, to #BackBlackBK, as stated in the post on X/Twitter below.
While #BackBlackBK still appears in the Twitter/X bio of the Joe and Clara Tsai Foundation, the hashtag has not been used since June 17, 2021.
If it’s more strategic accommodation than a functional change, it’s a way to deflect scrutiny and potential legal challenge.
After all, a focus on supporting “economic mobility within communities” invokes both class and race, since communities are often coded by the latter.
It also reflects what scholars like Yale Law School’s Justin Driver consider legally defensible preferences, such as for those in “low-opportunity” neighborhoods.
The term “economic mobility” also reflects the SJF’s focus on investing in businesses, those locally rooted and with larger ambitions. After all, smart business people don’t like to say they fund charity; rather, they fund “investment.”
Contrasting Wu Tsai biographies
The changes are also reflected in two versions of Wu Tsai’s biography, from the Social Justice Fund website.
The Dec. 3, 2021 version, below left, says Social Justice Fund would “address the systemic imbalances that produce racial gaps in education, health, and wealth, with a priority focus on Brooklyn.”
The current version, below right, states that the Social Justice Fund aims to “catalyze economic mobility in Brooklyn.”2
Each quote begins with this sentence: “When it comes to dismantling system racism and economic inequality in our communities, we want to lead by example.”
The earlier version, however, continues: “That’s why it is so important to us to invest in the Black leaders combating racial injustice from every angle right here in Brooklyn.” (That quote persisted on the website through at least June 22, 2024.)
Today, it more simply says, “That’s why we invest in Brooklyn’s leadership to combat injustice from every angle.”
Still, the leadership they invest in is predominantly Black.
Curiously, the Tsais’ original Social Justice Commitment Statement (archived version), with its 2020 language—“We stand in solidarity with the Black community, and all Indigenous people and People of Color, to end racism in our organization and in our society”—is absent from the Brooklyn Sports & Entertainment website, though it’s still present on the New York Liberty site.
Is that just sloppy, or a recognition that the Liberty’s constituency is more politicized?
SJF history and focus
The changes are visible elsewhere on the Social Justice Fund’s website.
The SJF’s Nov. 26, 2021, About page stated, “We will focus on the inequities here in Brooklyn and work to support economic mobility within BIPOC communities across the borough.” That was attributed to both Joe Tsai and Clara Wu Tsai.
Today, as shown in the right panel, “We focus on identifying and supporting innovative solutions to systemic inequities in Brooklyn,” states Wu Tsai, with no mention of BIPOC or race. (Nor her husband, reflecting that other shift.)
In the left panel, the “Our History” segment cites a “commitment to fight for Racial Justice and to plan for the economic recovery of the Borough,” as well as an effort to “end racism in our organization and in our society.”
The “Our Focus” segment cites pervasive “racial injustice” and support for “anti-racist work.”
On the right, the “Our History” segment states that the Social Justice Fund aims “to support economic mobility within communities across the borough.” It does cite “programs that address racial gaps in education, health, and wealth.”
The “Our Focus” segment cites “innovative solutions to systemic inequities in Brooklyn,” but avoids race.
Another change: sometime between Aug. 17, 2024, and Dec. 12, 2024, so potentially after Trump’s election victory, “THE PLAN” below, referencing “community investments in Brooklyn’s BIPOC—especially black—community,” was deleted from the website:
The “How” changes, too
The “How” portion of the fund’s About page initially cited “systemic imbalances and root causes that produce racial gaps,” emphasized mentorship for “young men and women of color,” and said “access to capital for BIPOC and women-owned small businesses” would be an initial focus.
Sometime between Aug. 17, 2024, and Dec. 12, 2024, the text changed. The current website states, more generally, “We fund pilots and programs that are scalable, and which address systemic imbalances in education, health, and wealth.”
While the earlier COVID-19 reference is arguably dated, as is the citation of “initial areas of focus,” note that “racial gaps” became “systemic imbalances.”
Official guidance
According to the SJF’s (archived) Communications & Media Guidelines, those wishing to describe the fund in more detail should use the following paragraph:
The Social Justice Fund’s mission is to bring people together around a shared commitment to inclusiveness, justice, and equal opportunity. Our goal is to promote a society where people of all backgrounds can acknowledge differences and share common values without fear.
That omits explicit mention of race. The page is relatively new, with the first Internet Archive save from August 2025, so there’s no previous version for comparison.3
The Social Justice Fund’s Manager, in different iterations of her LinkedIn profile, cited a commitment toward “Racial Justice and Economic Mobility,” then revised that to “economic mobility.”
Program expansion?
Initially, the SJF clearly focused on Black Brooklyn; hence, Black Voices for Black Justice, with awards for five changemakers. Oddly, it’s no longer visible from the website’s Initiative menu, though it’s searchable.
Also, the EXCELerate loan program, as the website states, aimed “to help Brooklyn’s BIPOC business owners get back on their feet post-pandemic and support equitable economic momentum in Brooklyn.”
Regarding the latter, the rhetoric has changed. As a Social Justice Fund spokesman put it, “EXCELerate provided no- or low-interest loans to help neighborhood businesses reopen or stay open during the COVID-19 pandemic, along with free technical assistance.”
(Emphasis added)
A change is visible in the website for BK-XL, the Social Justice Fund’s program to invest in start-ups. “Brooklyn-born. For BIPOC founders. Up to $500K per company,” the website initially stated, as shown in the screenshot below, describing the program as “focused on BIPOC founders and based in Brooklyn.”
By 2024, BK-XL said it was “focused on supporting underrepresented founders,” omitting the term BIPOC, even though the website elsewhere uses it.
While the 2023 version of the FAQ said “BK-XL is open to founders of early-stage startups whose racial identities are under-represented, e.g., Black, Indigenous or people of color (‘BIPOC’),” the updated FAQ stated that the program focuses “on supporting underrepresented founders” but “is open to founders of all backgrounds.”
They still focused on founders of color.
In 2024, the Social Justice Fund launched Revitalize Brooklyn, a grant program “designed to identify and support innovative Brooklyn-based businesses by providing growth capital to help them reach the next level.”
Many of those businesses have BIPOC founders, but their roles, in food and fashion, as I wrote, are “consonant with gentrification.”
The Just Brooklyn Prize
The Just Brooklyn Prize, launched in 2023 by the SJF in partnership with Brooklyn Org (Brooklyn Community Foundation), was, according to an April 21, 2023 version of the website, “awarded to five BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) changemakers annually who are dedicated to strengthening and building power within Brooklyn’s communities.”
See the graphic below.
That language persisted through at least March 29, 2025. The website today omits the term BIPOC, saying the prize is “awarded to five changemakers annually who are dedicated to strengthening and building power within Brooklyn’s communities.”
Both versions cite “the pursuit of racial and social justice.” The “Who is eligible?” question in the FAQ, though at least Dec. 25, 2025, stated:
This prize is for leaders who identify as Black, Indigenous, or other persons of color who have made noteworthy contributions to Brooklyn’s communities in pursuit of social justice and racial justice.
Now it says:
The prize is for leaders who have made noteworthy contributions to Brooklyn’s communities.
In practice, all the 2025 winners, celebrated at a Nov. 14 award ceremony, fit the BIPOC frame, including three Black women, one Latina woman, and one Black man. (In 2023, the winners were five Black women. In 2024, the winners were three Black women and two Black men.)
The Just Brooklyn Prize selection committee in 2025 included five Black women and one Asian-American woman, Jo-Ann Yoo of the Asian American Federation.
The two men on the committee were almost ex officio: Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, who’s Dominican-American, and Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce CEO Randy Peers, who’s white. The Brooklyn Chamber has partnered with the Social Justice Fund on the EXCELerate loan program.
Part of a trend
The SJF is not alone. The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) on July 14, 2025, published Hiding in Plain Sight: Are foundation website changes masking their values, or pulling off their masks?, citing changes in the websites of 773 of the country’s largest 1,000 grantmaking foundations.
Comparing the then-current websites with an earlier archived version from 2024, the NCRP concluded that 73% of funders were silent, with no public reference to changes in the nonprofit ecosystem during the second Trump presidency.
“One in twelve [8.33%] foundations,” the NCRP said, “seem to have censored themselves, having made changes to their websites since the 2024 election that removes language related to concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the social sector.”
The Social Justice Fund wasn’t mentioned. Nor could it have been included, since the parent Joe and Clara Tsai Foundation is more of a shell than a grantmaking foundation. It’s not part of the “Foundation 1000” assembled by the organization Candid.4
“These foundations may have good intentions, but self-censorship on this scale snowballs into a lot of harm,” said NCRP Research Director Ryan Schlegel.
In the case of the Social Justice Fund, the self-censorship—likely better seen as a tactical change—hasn’t significantly altered their strategy, though a new business loan program has emerged, thanks to an alliance with Asian-American organizations, including Asian Americans for Equality, where Yoo now works.
More findings
The NCRP report cited rewritten language, as in the chart below, or even deletions regarding diversity and inclusion.
Why the change? The report suggests several reasons, including risk aversion (to avoid losing donors or to avoid federal probes), to protect grantees, or out of relief at having “plausible cover… to renege on public commitments they felt compelled to make in the first place.”
The Social Justice Fund doesn’t have to lose donors, nor has it clearly reneged on public commitments, though it has adjusted them.
Rather, it seems part of a broad effort, as with the claim that Wu Tsai’s the “founder,” to control their narrative.
The hyperlink includes all articles tagged with the Social Justice Fund, including an initial one Feb. 4, 2026, headlined Has the Tsais’ Social Justice Fund Really Invested $25M “In Brooklyn” Since 2020? The series only includes those with the logo “Eye on Joe and Clara Tsai Foundation Social Justice Fund.”
An intermediate, June 2024 version says the Social Justice Fund “works toward economic mobility and racial justice in Brooklyn.”
The page disappeared, I believe, after my inquiries, though I can’t be sure of a correlation.
Candid’s Foundation 1000 list is 1,000 of the largest U.S. private and community foundations, according to the NCRP report. The Foundation 1000, based on Form 990 filings with the Internal Revenue Service, comprises only about 1 percent of U.S. funders, but together their giving accounts for 50-60 percent of the grant dollars Candid tracks from U.S. foundations in a given year.