Ford Foundation’s Antiterrorism Provision Draws Rebuke From Civil-Liberties Group

Note: The article below inaccurately describes the American Civil Liberties Union’s deliberations and actions over restrictions imposed by the Ford Foundation and other grant makers to guarantee that no grant money is used to finance terrorism activities. On July 9, the board of the civil-liberties group voted to postpone accepting a $1-million grant from the Ford Foundation pending further discussion with Ford officials about the antiterrorism language in its grant agreements. Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU’s executive director, said his group will not accept Ford money, or grants from other foundations with similar antiterrorism clauses, until he receives assurances from the grant makers about his concerns that the language will hinder academic freedom and advocacy work. However, in April, the civil-liberties organization did accept a $136,000 Ford grant for reproductive-health issues that included the antiterrorism clause. Mr. Romero said his organization did not reject that money because the grant supports a program that does not seem relevant to the issues the antiterrorism language addresses. In addition, he said, the money was accepted before concerns about the language were widely known. In total, the ACLU had expected to receive $1.8-million from the Ford Foundation this year, Mr. Romero said.

The American Civil Liberties Union this month sent a letter to the Ford Foundation to protest antiterrorism language recently added to the fund’s standard grant agreement, saying it stifles debate and threatens academic freedom. The action comes after nine major universities complained about the new language.

Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU’s executive director, said the organization has decided to continue to take money from Ford. The ACLU board this month voted to accept $1-million from Ford to respond to civil-liberties issues that arose after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. By accepting the grant, the ACLU is agreeing to abide by the antiterrorism rules, but Mr. Romero said his group would not have done so if it felt the language would impede its advocacy efforts.

Even so, Mr. Romero says the wording in the agreement remains troubling. “Our greatest concern is that ambiguous definitions of terrorism will essentially shut down what are legitimate forms of advocacy and debate,” Mr. Romero told The Chronicle. “Our worry is that grantees, whether they’re advocacy organizations, universities, or colleges, would be forced to steer clear of controversial activities for fear of donor reprisal.”

In response, Susan V. Berresford, president of the Ford Foundation, in New York, told Mr. Romero in a letter that the language “should not restrict ACLU’s activities as we understand them. The language simply makes explicit what has always been implicit in our relationships with grantees.”

Ms. Berresford went on to explain that while Ford denounces terrorism, it supports the “ACLU’s efforts to defend the due process rights of detainees in Guantanamo Bay who are accused of supporting terrorism.”

Terrence Scanlon, president of the Capital Research Center, a conservative Washington think tank that monitors nonprofit groups, derided the civil-liberties group’s decision to accept the Ford grant while objecting to the antiterrorism clause. “The ACLU is phony. If it has strong objections, it shouldn’t take the money,” he said.

Mr. Romero said he also has raised the issue with other supporters who have added antiterrorism language to their grant agreements, including the Rockefeller Foundation and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.

In May, nine universities asked Ford, as well as the Rockefeller Foundation, to change the antiterrorism language (The Chronicle, May 13). Alex Wilde, a spokesman for the Ford Foundation, said “several” of the universities had decided to accept Ford grants after talking with the foundation. He declined to name the universities.