Newsbrief:
Drug
Policy
Alliance
Rejects
Grant
Over
Anti-Terror
Clause
12/3/04
One of the nation's premier drug reform groups, the Drug Policy Alliance (http://www.drugpolicy.org), is returning a $200,000 grant from the Ford Foundation because of a new clause the foundation now requires in all its grant contracts that DPA says will undermine freedom of speech. The foundation inserted the clause under pressure from the federal government. The clause reads: "By countersigning this grant letter, you agree that your organization will not promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any State, nor will it make sub-grants to any entity that engages in such activities." While DPA is not known as a terrorism supporter, it raised concerns about comments from federal officials that drug users support terrorism. "You know, as do I, that the Drug Policy Alliance does not promote or engage in any such activities -- and the Ford Foundation knows it too," said DPA executive director Ethan Nadelmann in a message to supporters. "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. Remember the Super Bowl ads a few years ago that claimed that people who smoked marijuana were supporting terrorists? Have you heard about, or visited, the DEA's exhibit on drugs and terrorism? Or listened carefully to statements by the drug czar, and the head of DEA, and some members of Congress?" DPA now becomes the second grantee to announce it is returning Ford Foundation funds because of the terrorism clause. Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) returned a $1.15 million grant citing similar concerns. DPA board president Ira Glasser headed the ACLU for over 20 years. The Ford Foundation adopted the voluntary guidelines in the wake of the passage of the Patriot Act in 2002. Provisions of that act prohibited providing funds, goods, or services to those designated by the US government as terrorists or their associates. Ford and several other philanthropic groups amended their grant policies to include the new anti-terrorist clause. In October, the Washington-based Council on Foundations, representing some 2000 foundations, charities, and corporate grant makers, said it would ask the Treasury Department to reconsider the guidelines, which it called "impractical, costly, and potentially dangerous." Nadelmann pronounced himself and DPA disappointed that Ford had caved in to federal government pressure. "They can make clear that they don't support terrorism," he said. "But don't require us to put words into our own mouths that can be misinterpreted down the road."
|
