All powerful organizations stand to benefit from internal dissent and external pressure. But recent institutional reform efforts have too often meant reconfiguring institutions in ways that distort or fundamentally undermine their core missions.
Nonprofits, government agencies, university departments, and cultural institutions have ousted leaders and thrown staff into disarray in pursuit of progressive political goals. In the wake of the 2016 election and the 2020 killing of George Floyd, organizations have become overtly politicized in their haste to unilaterally apply a blanket standard of “In this house we believe.” , have been at risk of mission deviation, irrelevance, and even dissolution. And now, the war in Gaza is spreading across American universities.
The latest target is PEN America, a nonprofit organization dedicated to free expression by journalists and writers. Last week, PEN canceled its annual World Voices Festival, the brainchild of Salman Rushdie and due to celebrate its 20th anniversary in May, following an increasingly aggressive boycott campaign by some of its members. This followed several writers refusing to be considered for Penn's annual literary awards. The presentation ceremonies for these awards have also been cancelled.
An open letter sent to PEN America's board and directors and now republished on Literary Hub, the de facto clearinghouse for pro-Palestinian literary sentiment, calls the organization “tacit supporter of the Israeli occupation.” He was accused of “aiding and abetting genocide.” ” demanded the resignation of PEN's longtime CEO Suzanne Nossel and current president Jennifer Finney Boylan. According to the 21 signatories, most of them up-and-coming writers, “There is no disagreement among writers of conscience. There is fact and fiction. The fact is that Israel is leading the genocide of the Palestinian people. I'm saying that.”
In response, and upholding its mission of independence and freedom of expression, PEN America embraced the willingness of writers to express their conscience. It also revealed that there is room for multiple perspectives on the issue of genocide and the current conflict in Gaza.
“As an organization open to all writers, we have no choice but to continue to embrace this diversity of voices and perspectives, even if for some that openness is a reason to leave,” PEN America said in an open letter to the community. .
This does not mean that PEN's critics are meaningless. I've also heard objections from within Penn that the organization hasn't defended Palestinian writers as strongly since Oct. 7 as it has defended Ukrainian writers since the Russian invasion. I saw an internal document that detailed this disparity. These complaints are likely legitimate, and Penn should respond appropriately on behalf of all writers caught up in conflict, repression, and censorship, regardless of geopolitical circumstances.
But for those who insist that PEN America reinvent itself for a single political purpose, the organization's efforts to accommodate a variety of opinions are detrimental to the organization. The authors of the latest letter argue that “neutrality is a betrayal of justice.” Nothing short of complete surrender can serve their purpose. And they are running a campaign of intimidation against other members and authors to either join them or keep quiet about it. PEN leaders say writers have expressed fear of openly supporting the organization in this onslaught of campaigns.
Since 2006, I have been one of over 4,500 members of PEN America. Members include writers, journalists, activists, and literary professionals. Well before I joined the Times, I had joined the company with some backlash after publishing his second book, a liberal critique of the effects of online pornography. As a freelance journalist and writer who covers politically sensitive topics, I appreciate the protection provided by PEN America. For example, PEN takes a firm stance against online abuse, which every working journalist today has experienced to some degree. PEN is also staunchly committed to fighting the banning of books in schools, libraries, and prisons, something that became increasingly important to me when I became editor of the New York Times Book Review. I did.
Of course, these conflicts are small compared to the wars where lives are at stake. But whatever my personal views on the Middle East, I do not expect and do not want all Middle Eastern countries to follow my brand of politics.
PEN has blocked dissent before. In 2015, it praised the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, whose members were brutally attacked, despite the objections of some members. I appreciate that this organization named a prominent transgender author and activist as its president, even if I don't share all of her views on gender politics. You do not have to agree with all of PEN's activities. In fact, I prefer to disagree. Because doing so gives me protection in kind from members who may not agree with me on all issues.
Even if organizations have become accustomed to losing their way due to political pressure, they should not be indifferent to the potential consequences. Especially now, there are very few truly independent organizations left.
According to its charter, PEN “represents the principle of the unimpeded communication of ideas within and between all nations, and its members shall not tolerate any form of suppression of freedom of expression in their countries or communities.” “I also pledge to oppose this wherever possible in the world.'' ” I want to stand with PEN America and all its members, who may be silent now, but who want to see PEN's mission upheld and strengthened, not dismantled. Masu. Who does it really help to keep destroying things?
