Posted on 10/19/2004 12:21:59 PM PDT by neverdem
The American Civil Liberties Union has rejected $1.15 million from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying their effort to ensure that none of their money inadvertently underwrites terrorism or other unacceptable activities is a threat to civil liberties.
The organization has also returned to Ford $68,000 that it accepted in April and that was governed by the same restrictions as those on the two grants the board decided to decline at a contentious meeting on Sunday.
Anthony D. Romero, the A.C.L.U.'s executive director, said the language of the contracts governing the Ford and Rockefeller grants was broad and ambiguous, leaving them open to interpretation that could impede free speech and limit advocacy work not only at his organization but also at other nonprofits.
Over the last year or so, many foundations, including Ford and Rockefeller, have added language to their grant agreements that requires recipients to ensure against the use of the money for nefarious purposes.
Ford's grant agreement, which governs the use of the money it gives to more than 4,000 organizations it supports, says, "By signing 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 subgrants to any entity that engages in these activities."
In an interview yesterday, Mr. Romero said: "What do they mean by terrorism? What constitutes support for terrorism? We need to know precisely what those words mean. It is certainly appropriate for Ford and Rockefeller to require grantees to comply with existing federal law, but in a climate of fear and intimidation, vague language that goes beyond the legal requirements is regrettable and ill advised."
Ford had offered to give the civil liberties union a letter stating that it had no intention of interfering with the group's mission and activities. But Nadine Strossen, president of the A.C.L.U., said the organization had never been concerned that its own activities might be limited by accepting the terms Ford and Rockefeller laid down.
"We have to be the leader here,'' Ms. Strossen said, "and just because we weren't going to be intimidated or our speech wasn't going to be chilled doesn't mean we can overlook the potentially negative impact the language will have on other entities.''
The "side letter'' that Ford offered the civil liberties union would have been similar to those it has given universities that expressed concerns about the new language in its grant agreements.
"There have been a very small number of institutions that have some concerns with the new grant agreement,'' said Susan V. Berresford, Ford's president, "and in every case we try to work with them to see if we can address them, clarifying the grant letter in some fashion that makes them more comfortable."
André Oliver, a spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation, said more than 300 organizations had signed its grant agreement, whose wording is similar to Ford's.
"We've made it clear that our grant language is not intended to nor should it suppress free speech or academic freedom," Mr. Oliver said.
The issue of bowing to government demands for tighter restrictions on grant making and use of grant money has bedeviled many nonprofit groups, but none other so much as the civil liberties union. This summer angry donors and members descended on the A.C.L.U. after The New York Times reported that the organization's board was fighting over its decision to participate in a federal charity drive that had required it to certify that it would not knowingly employ people whose names appeared on government terrorism watch lists.
Similar discord marked its decision on Sunday, board members said, even though the grants in question had been under debate since May, when the new language in agreements came to the attention of board members through a Wall Street Journal article describing concerns about it among universities.
The board then learned that Mr. Romero, previously an executive at Ford, had been among several nonprofit leaders whom the foundation had consulted when drafting its new grant agreement. "He had advised Susan Berresford to mirror and parrot the language in the USA Patriot Act, aspects of which we have been fighting against," said Michael Meyers, executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition, who sits on the executive committee of the A.C.L.U.'s board. "My jaw dropped at that, but my jaw was the only jaw to drop on the committee."
Mr. Romero said he had advised Ford to "stick as closely to articulating the law as possible."
After a four-hour debate during a July meeting, the board decided to adopt a resolution expressing concerns about the language but giving the organization's administrators the option of taking the grants governed by the restrictions if Mr. Romero could negotiate an acceptable side letter.
On Sunday, however, at its first meeting since then, the board voted down a proposal to accept the grants and took up one rejecting them. Members of the executive committee tried to amend that proposal to preserve the A.C.L.U.'s ability to take the grants, according to several board members, and an amendment to that effect seemed to pass by show of hands.
But some board members demanded a roll-call vote. That resulted in a 37-to-37 tie on the amendment, which, under the group's bylaws, was therefore defeated. The proposal opposing the grants passed in a show-of-hands-vote with the support of about two-thirds of the voting board members, Mr. Romero said.
Mr. Meyers said he thought the vote had been closer.
"The A.C.L.U. leadership fought mightily to have us take this money in spite of the noxious language," he said. "This is a fight for the soul of the organization that I never would have thought would have occurred over a core free-speech issue."
The ACLU: proudly championing the rights of terrorists, murderers, socialists, pedophiles and Nazis...and screwing Americans every chance they get.
The sad part of this is no one is surprised that the ACLU is so far out (not just left... but out) that they would make these comments.
They follow the premise of liberty to mean it as Lenin stated, "It is true libery is precious, so precious it must be rationed."
Sounds reasonable, and simple enough that even the most dense person should be able to understand it...
In an interview yesterday, Mr. Romero said: "What do they mean by terrorism? What constitutes support for terrorism? We need to know precisely what those words mean. It is certainly appropriate for Ford and Rockefeller to require grantees to comply with existing federal law, but in a climate of fear and intimidation, vague language that goes beyond the legal requirements is regrettable and ill advised."
I stand corrected.
The ACLU has drawn a line in the sand I would think the useful idiot libs sitting on foundation boards like this will have a hard time ignoring.
Oh! It was just pointed out to me by a friend that I forgot the first rule of liberal politics....namely, "true or not, any excuse will do, though fear seems to work best."
Never mind.
The refusal of this $ just shows that the ACLU has too darn much of it! DEFUND, DECLAW, DELETE the ACLU.
An organization which is unable to understand something so simple has no business trying to interpret the Constitution.
The fact they have to ask those questions speaks volumes
They are enemies of a civilized society.
So in doing so, the ACLU tacitly admits they might inadvertently underwrite terrorism and other unacceptable activities?
On the surface this seems like a stupid thing to say but; Hypothesis. Kerry wins and immediately enacts confiscation of weapons from civilians. Are citizens that decide to "water the tree of liberty" terrorists or patriots?
By refusing to sign the letter, the ACLU is acknowledging that they believe they have the right to engage in or fund these actions. Since they are willing to forgo the actual donations to make a stand on the issue implies they may already be engaged in such activity.
The ACLU should be disbanded and the dirty, stinkin lawyers running it should be prosecuted under RICO laws.
This reminds me of the statement: That depends on your definition of the word "is".
Could this be the beginning of a big split on the left?
The ACLU should be branded an terrorist organization, like Al-Qaeda, PETA, Greenpeace Hamas, and PLO. A good start is auditing them and freezing their assets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.