Ford Foundation - Controversy

Controversy

Over the course of its history, the foundation has been a target of political criticism, especially from populists who resented its elitism. Even more sustained criticism came from conservatives who resented its liberalism, including its support for voter registration drives among blacks in the southern United States and school redistricting in Manhattan.

In 1968, the foundation began disbursing US$12 million to persuade law schools to make "law school clinics" part of their curriculum. Clinics were intended to give practical experience in law practice while providing pro bono representation to the poor. Many people, however, charge that the clinics have been used instead by professors to engage in political activism. Critics cite the financial involvement of the foundation as the turning point when these clinics began to change from giving practical experience to engaging in advocacy.

Joan Roelofs, in Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (State University of New York Press, 2003) argues that Ford and similar foundations play a key role in co-opting opposition movements. "While dissent from ruling class ideas is labeled 'extremism' and is isolated, individual dissenters may be welcomed and transformed. Indeed, ruling class hegemony is more durable if it is not rigid and narrow, but is able dynamically to incorporate emergent trends". She reports that John J. McCloy, while chairman of the foundation's board of trustees from 1958 to 1965, "thought of the foundation as a quasi-extension of the U.S. government. It was his habit, for instance, to drop by the National Security Council (NSC) in Washington every couple of months and casually ask whether there were any overseas projects the NSC would like to see funded." Roelofs also charges that the foundation financed counter-insurgency programs in Indonesia and other countries.

In 2003, the foundation was critiqued by U.S. news service Jewish Telegraphic Agency, among others, for supporting Palestinian nongovernmental organizations that that were accused of promoting antisemitism at the 2001 World Conference Against Racism. Under pressure by several members of Congress, chief among them Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the foundation apologized and then prohibited the promotion of "violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state" among its grantees. This move itself sparked protest among university provosts and various non-profit groups on free speech issues.

In 2005, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox began a probe of the foundation that ultimately backfired. Though the foundation is headquartered in New York City, it is chartered in Michigan, giving that state some jurisdiction. Cox focused on its governance, potential conflicts of interest among board members, and what he viewed as its poor record of giving to charities in Michigan. Between 1998 and 2002, the foundation gave Michigan charities about US$2.5 million per year, far less than many other charities its size. The foundation countered that an extensive review and report by the Gaither Study Committee in 1949 had recommended that the foundation broaden its scope beyond Michigan to national and international grant-making. The report was endorsed by the foundation's board of trustees, and they subsequently voted to move the foundation to New York City in 1953.

The foundation's partnership with the New Israel Fund, which began in 2003, was frequently criticised regarding its choice of mostly liberal grantees and causes. This criticism came to light after the 2001 Durban Conference, where some nongovernmental organizations funded by the foundation backed resolutions equating Israeli policies as apartheid, and later, against those groups which support the delegitimization of Israel. In response, the foundation adopted stricter criteria for funding.