All strong institutions are likely to benefit from internal dissension and external pressure. But too often, recent efforts to reform institutions have involved reconstituting them in ways that fundamentally distort or undermine their core mission.
Nonprofit organizations, government agencies, academic departments and cultural institutions have crowded out leaders and sent their staffs to turmoil in pursuit of progressive political goals. In the wake of the 2016 election and the 2020 murder of George Floyd and the rush to implement sweeping measures »In this house we believe“By unilaterally adopting standards, organizations risked open politicization, drift from their mission, irrelevance, or even dissolution. And now the war in Gaza is spreading to American universities.
The latest target is PEN America, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the free expression of journalists and authors. Last week, after an increasingly aggressive boycott campaign by some of its members, PEN canceled its annual World Voices festival, conceived by Salman Rushdie and due to mark its 20th anniversary in May. This followed the refusal of several writers to have their works considered for the annual PEN literary prizes. The award ceremony took place also canceled.
A open letter sent to the PEN America Board of Directors and Trustees and republished on Literary Hub, now the de facto clearinghouse for pro-Palestinian literary world sentiment, accused the organization of “implicit support for the Israeli occupation” and “complicity with the genocide”. He demanded the resignation of PEN’s longtime CEO, Suzanne Nosseland current president, Jennifer Finney Boylan. According to its 21 signatories, most of them emerging authors, “among writers of conscience, there is no disagreement. There are facts and fictions. The fact is that Israel is carrying out a genocide of the Palestinian people. »
In response and consistent with its mission of independence and freedom of expression, PEN America has accepted the desire of writers to express their conscience. He also made clear that there was room for more than one perspective on what constitutes genocide and the current conflict in Gaza.
“As an organization open to all writers, we see no alternative but to remain home to this diversity of opinions and perspectives, even if, for some, this very openness becomes a reason to leave” , PEN America said in a statement. open letter to his community.
This is not to say that PEN’s criticisms are unfounded. I have also heard some disagreement within PEN that the organization has not been as strong in its advocacy for Palestinian writers since October 7 as it has been for Ukrainian writers since the invasion Russian. I have seen internal letters describing this disparity in detail. These grievances may well be legitimate, and PEN should respond appropriately, defending the interests of all writers caught up in conflict, repression and censorship, regardless of geopolitical circumstances.
But for those who advocate that PEN America reform itself in service of a single political agenda, the organization’s efforts to reconcile a range of viewpoints weigh against the organization. “Neutrality,” say the authors of the most recent letter, “is a betrayal of justice.” Nothing short of total capitulation will achieve their goal. And they are waging a campaign of intimidation of other members and authors to join their ranks or keep quiet. According to PEN leaders, the writers have expressed his fear by openly supporting the organization in the assault of this latest campaign.
Since 2006, I have been one of more than 4,500 members of PEN America, which includes writers, journalists, activists and professionals involved in the world of letters. I joined long before joining the Times, after the publication of my second book, a liberal critique of the effects of online pornography, which met with a certain amount of pushback. As an independent journalist and author who has covered politically sensitive topics, I appreciated the protection offered by PEN America. For example, PEN takes a strong position against online abuse, something that every working journalist experiences today to one degree or another. PEN is also firmly committed to fight against book bans in schools, libraries, and prisons, which became increasingly relevant to me when I became editor of the New York Times Book Review.
Of course, these conflicts are minor compared to a war in which lives are at stake. But whatever my personal views on the Middle East, I do not expect, nor even wish, that all its members would comply to my political vision.
PEN has tolerated dissent before. In 2015, he honored the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo after its members were brutally attacked and despite opposition from some of its members. I appreciate that the organization named a prominent transgender writer and activist as president, even if I don’t share all of her views on gender politics. I don’t have to agree with everything PEN does; in fact, I prefer to disagree, because it opens me up to in-kind protection from members who might not agree with me on all issues.
Although we have become accustomed to organizations losing their way under political pressure, we should not be indifferent to Potential consequences. Especially now when there are so few truly independent organizations left.
According to its charter, PEN “defends the principle of the unhindered transmission of thought within every nation and between all nations, and its members undertake to oppose any form of suppression of freedom of expression in the country and the community to which they belong, as well as throughout the world. » wherever possible. I prefer to stand with PEN America and all its members, although perhaps silent now, who would like to see PEN’s mission maintained and strengthened rather than dismantled. Who does it really serve to keep tearing things down?
