Charity Returns Grant Money Over Antiterrorism Provision

The Drug Policy Alliance, a group in New York that advocates changes in the nation’s drug laws, has returned $200,000 from the Ford Foundation to protest an antiterrorism clause in Ford’s standard grant agreement.

In a letter to supporters, entitled “We’ve Paid a Price for Free Speech,” the alliance’s president, Ethan Nadelmann, said he and the organization’s board of directors found the clause “unacceptable.” The clause requires grant recipients to promise that they will “not promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.”

“The Drug Policy Alliance does not promote or engage in any such activities — and the Ford Foundation knows it,” Mr. Nadelmann said in the letter. “But we also have to contend with federal officials and politicians who are incredibly reckless in linking drug use with terrorism, and who edge ever closer to linking drug-policy-reform advocacy with support for terrorism.”

Barry D. Gaberman, a spokesman for Ford, said the foundation respected the alliance’s concerns, but all grantees must sign the agreement. “We’re sad we couldn’t reach an accommodation,” he said. But “we haven’t changed the grant letter for anyone.”

The Drug Policy Alliance is the second Ford grantee to refuse to accept money from the foundation because of the antiterrorism language. In October, the American Civil Liberties Union, in New York, rejected a $1.15-million grant (The Chronicle, October 28).

In addition to these two groups, 14 colleges and universities protested the language earlier this year, Mr. Gaberman said. After negotiations with the foundation, all but one — Stanford University — agreed to sign the grant agreements, Mr. Gaberman said. “We’ve cleared up any questions they’ve had.”

The Ford Foundation added the controversial clause to its grant agreements this year in response to guidelines issued by the federal government in 2002 on how to prevent charitable dollars from supporting terrorist activities.

Seeking Donations

In his letter, Mr. Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance urged supporters to provide an “extra contribution” to help replace the Ford money.

But in an interview, Mr. Nadelmann said the alliance, which has a budget of $7.5-million, did not expect individuals to make up the entire difference and that his group would find funds elsewhere.

The Ford grant would have supported efforts to educate minority groups in southern California about drug use and HIV and hepatitis, and to pay for a conference for clergy members to discuss drug policy. Mr. Nadelmann is hopeful the California project will continue, but he said the alliance plans to cancel the conference.