Featured
SF Foundation’s Brantley, A “Catalyst for Change”
Interim CEO Dee Dee Brantley is leading The San Francisco Foundation in its mission as a “catalyst for change” in the San Francisco Bay Area, where it is making an impact with big ideas, innovative projects and continues to fund local programs that make a difference in the community.
Brantley is the first African American to lead the organization, taking over the helm after former CEO Dr. Sandra Hernández stepped down. With a background in human resources, Brantley has been at the foundation for over a decade and held the position of Chief Operating Officer (COO) before being appointed Interim CEO this month.
She moved to Oakland from her hometown of Ohio to attend Holy Names University where she earned her bachelors degree and MBA. Since then, she has been a longtime Oakland resident and has been married for almost 40 years having raised two sons.
The Post had a chance to sit down with Brantley to talk one-on-one about her career in philanthropy and her vision for the Foundation.
Post: How did you get involved in philanthropy?
Dee Dee Brantley: I actually had a career in the for-profit world, so I’ve seen both sides of the equation, what it’s like to work there versus what it’s like to work in a community-oriented, values-oriented organization.
I was at a point in my career where I actually felt compelled to be in a different environment and not in a for-profit environment any longer, where I felt I could actually make a difference. Fortunately, my sons actually did have some advantages, but even with those advantages, it didn’t stop some of the things that happen to people of color in this society.
Post: And what were some of those experiences that personally affected your sons?
Brantley: The things that come to mind – racial profiling, that’s probably one of the most prevalent.
The other is really around employment opportunities. My background is in human resources and different people that I have worked with, I have personally heard them make statements that they are intimidated or threatened by black males. How do you get in the door and have these opportunities when people who hold the power in the organizations in some of these higher positions are not accustomed to working with people of color, or may feel somewhat intimidated by a certain population?
Almost 2-to-1 of my nephews and my sons have experienced that.
Post: The Foundation has impacted so many communities with social justice, racial discrimination, youth programs, and civic engagement among other issues. What do you see as the most pressing need now?
Brantley: That’s a really difficult question if you say what is the single most pressing need now. From my perspective, there are a lot of needs that have been around forever.
If you think about equity inclusion at the macro level, that’s something that we always strive for. So if you think about pressing issues, I think it depends. If I think about Oakland where I live, one of the things that concerns me the most is the high crime rate and the high crime rate for various populations.
If you think about the changing demographics just in the Bay Area in general, I think the work that we’re doing around immigrant integration is really, really critical because that’s another group of individuals that face barriers in terms of employment. We have to be sensitive about how the world is changing around us.
With our FAITHS program, we’re doing a lot of work in that area and I think that is really a pressing issue.
The Bay Area has tremendous needs around affordable housing and again, that’s a really key focus of the Foundation with our HOPE SF projects, with Great Communities Collaborative, this transit-oriented development work that we’re doing. So affordable housing is really key because we’re going to lose so many people in our communities if they can’t afford to live here.
Post: What is your vision for the organization?
Brantley: My vision is really influenced, most recently, by the great Board of Trustees that I have the privilege of working with right now as we bring in a new leader for the Foundation.
One of the things that is extremely pleasing to me is that we’ve always been on the right path. Our mission is our mission; we’re a catalyst for change. The vision is successfully executing on that mission.
What may change a little bit is how we do the execution, what may change I think in some ways is where particular focus areas might be, because not only do we do all of the work in these core areas but we also position ourselves very well to look at emerging issues as they come.
But in terms of a vision, it’s more around how we do the work differently. One of the big things that’s happening with our Foundation is we’re finding more and more of the work we do – because we’re in it for the long-haul and because we’re dealing with extremely difficult issues – that if they were easy to solve, somebody would’ve solved them by now.
We can’t do it alone, no one can do it alone. So we are doing a lot of work that requires collaboration with other foundations, with other public entities, private entities, corporate entities, so that collectively we can actually make a big impact on some of the big issues that we’re dealing with.
For more info, visit www.sff.org.
Activism
OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners
Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”
That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.
That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.
Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.
The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.
These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.
I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.
About the Author
Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.
Activism
OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners
In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.
In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.
A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.
This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.
This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.
“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.
Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.
“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.
Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.
“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.
As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.
Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.
It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.
When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.
About the Author
Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.
Activism
Newsom, Pelosi Welcome Election of First American Pope; Call for Unity and Compassion
“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.” Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media
Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom on May 8 issued a statement congratulating Pope Leo XIV on his historic election as the first American to lead the Catholic Church.
The announcement has drawn widespread reaction from U.S. leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called the moment spiritually significant and aligned with the values of service and social justice.
In their statement, the Newsoms expressed hope that the newly elected pope would guide the Church with a focus on compassion, dignity, and care for the most vulnerable. Newsom said he and the First Partner joined others around the world in celebrating the milestone and were encouraged by the pope’s first message.
“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.”
Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.
“May he remind us that our better angels are not far away — they’re always within us, waiting to be heard,” he said.
Pelosi, a devout Catholic, also welcomed the pope’s election and noted his symbolic connection to earlier church leaders who championed workers’ rights and social equality.
“It is heartening that His Holiness continued the blessing that Pope Francis gave on Easter Sunday: ‘God loves everyone. Evil will not prevail,’” said Pelosi.
-
Activism3 weeks ago
AI Is Reshaping Black Healthcare: Promise, Peril, and the Push for Improved Results in California
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Barbara Lee Accepts Victory With “Responsibility, Humility and Love”
-
Activism3 weeks ago
ESSAY: Technology and Medicine, a Primary Care Point of View
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Newsom Fights Back as AmeriCorps Shutdown Threatens Vital Services in Black Communities
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Faces Around the Bay: Author Karen Lewis Took the ‘Detour to Straight Street’
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Teachers’ Union Thanks Supt. Johnson-Trammell for Service to Schools and Community
-
Alameda County3 weeks ago
OUSD Supt. Chief Kyla Johnson-Trammell to Step Down on July 1
-
Arts and Culture3 weeks ago
BOOK REVIEW: Love, Rita: An American Story of Sisterhood, Joy, Loss, and Legacy