Harvard has drawn plenty of fire from all sides in recent debates concerning anti-Semitism, but last year, the shots came from an unlikely source: two prominent philanthropic foundations that give the University millions of dollars in grants each year.

The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, both based in New York City, adopted anti-terrorism language in their grants agreements last year that critics claimed infringed on academic freedoms. Ford was prompted to do so by criticism that its money paid the bills for anti-Semitic organizations; Rockefeller soon followed suit.

But for universities subject to the new language in grants, the devil was in the details. The change sparked an outcry from leaders of many leading research universities, including Harvard, who charged that the restrictions threatened to stifle campus debate on controversial issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The groups are both generous donors to higher education: Ford gave approximately $41 million to American colleges in 2004, while Rockefeller gave about $15 million. Harvard received $3.65 million from Ford and $3 million from Rockefeller that year, and $3.47 million and $3.21, respectively, in 2003.

But last January, Ford, which aims to “strengthen democratic values” and “reduce poverty and injustice” and has sponsored research at Harvard on topics such as American Islam, told universities that future grantees would have to agree not to “promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.”

Rockefeller soon followed suit. Last March, it told Harvard that grantees—who have received money from Rockefeller to study issues like the global AIDS epidemic—could not “directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.”

Harvard, and other universities, cried foul.

“The original language was completely unacceptable,” University Provost Steven E. Hyman says. “The initial language basically said that [they] got to reach in and regulate speech on campus.”

In April, Hyman joined provosts at eight other elite schools in firing off a response to the foundations, telling Ford that the new wording might “create an unfortunate barrier” to its work with universities.

Now, nine months after the beginning of protracted negotiations, most of those schools have accepted compromises with Ford, which agreed to write side letters to the universities clarifying that the restrictions are only intended to apply to “official speech.”

After discussions with Rockefeller, most of the schools accepted its new language as well. Rockefeller added clarifying language a few weeks ago explaining the meaning of “terrorist activity,” but it was Ford’s language that served as the main lightning rod for criticism all along.

Some are still holding out: Stanford University is still considering the restrictions and the American Civil Liberties Union has rejected the grants outright.

While Ford’s compromise language so far appears to have had little effect on researchers, university administrators say the provision sets a worrisome precedent.

“I’m not so concerned about Ford trying to dictate to us rules about bigotry—what I’m worried about is the different interest groups around the country using this as leverage with Ford,” University of Chicago Provost Richard P. Saller says. “I worry that even if Ford’s position is tolerable, they will become a focal point for some of this angry lobbying.”

THE CONTROVERSY