Every day, it seems, another group gets ideologically captured, valorizing Palestine (or Hamas) and demonizing Israel. This is dispiriting for Jews, but the latest such capture—of the free-expression literary group PEN America—is especially depressing.
The decline of PEN American was first evidenced to me when, in 2015, it decided to give a “freedom of expression” award to the magazine Charlie Hebdo, many of whose writers (and a few others) were killed in an attack by al-Qaeda, presumably for making fun of Islam and Muhammad. The award was formally called the “PEN/Toni and James C. Goodale Freedom of Expression Courage Award”, and was to be conferred with other awards at a literary gala banquet.
But six PEN members refused to be “table hosts” at the banquet, and then 139 other members (now 242) signed a letter taking issue with the award. Why? Because although Charlie Hebdo is well known to be an “equal opportunity offender,” whose metier is mocking everyone, including politicians and religions, those PEN members said that it was a no-no to mock Islam because its adherents were “already marginalized, embattled, and victimized.” From the letter:
In the aftermath of the attacks, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons were characterized as satire and “equal opportunity offense,” and the magazine seems to be entirely sincere in its anarchic expressions of principled disdain toward organized religion. But in an unequal society, equal opportunity offence does not have an equal effect.
Power and prestige are elements that must be recognized in considering almost any form of discourse, including satire. The inequities between the person holding the pen and the subject fixed on paper by that pen cannot, and must not, be ignored.
To the section of the French population that is already marginalized, embattled, and victimized, a population that is shaped by the legacy of France’s various colonial enterprises, and that contains a large percentage of devout Muslims, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of the Prophet must be seen as being intended to cause further humiliation and suffering.
Our concern is that, by bestowing the Toni and James C. Goodale Freedom of Expression Courage Award on Charlie Hebdo, PEN is not simply conveying support for freedom of expression, but also valorizing selectively offensive material: material that intensifies the anti-Islamic, anti-Maghreb, anti-Arab sentiments already prevalent in the Western world.
It’s embarrassing to read the letter and see the list of signers who apparently surrendered their backbones in the face of Islamist outrage. This is a shameful episode.
But wait! There’s more! Two years ago PEN America canceled its literary gala because of controversy about the organization’s stand—or rather, lack thereof—on the war in Gaza. As Jennifer Schuessler reported in the NYT (she’s followed PEN for a while). (Bolding is mine.)
The free expression group PEN America has canceled its 2024 literary awards ceremony following months of escalating protests over the organization’s response to the war in Gaza, which has been criticized as overly sympathetic to Israel and led nearly half of the prize nominees to withdraw.
The event was set to take place on April 29 at Town Hall in Manhattan. But in a news release on Monday, the group announced that although the prizes would still be conferred, the ceremony would not take place.
“We greatly respect that writers have followed their consciences, whether they chose to remain as nominees in their respective categories or not,” the group’s chief officer for literary programming, Clarisse Rosaz Shariyf, said in the release.
“We regret that this unprecedented situation has taken away the spotlight from the extraordinary work selected by esteemed, insightful and hard-working judges across all categories. As an organization dedicated to freedom of expression and writers, our commitment to recognizing and honoring outstanding authors and the literary community is steadfast.”
In recent months, PEN America has faced intensifying public criticism of its response to the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks on Israel, which killed roughly 1,200 people, according to Israeli authorities, and Israel’s military response in Gaza, which has left about 34,000 people dead, according to health officials there.
In a series of open letters, writers have demanded that PEN America support an immediate cease-fire, as its global parent organization, PEN International, and other national chapters have done.
. . .In recent months, PEN America has faced intensifying public criticism of its response to the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks on Israel, which killed roughly 1,200 people, according to Israeli authorities, and Israel’s military response in Gaza, which has left about 34,000 people dead, according to health officials there.
In a series of open letters, writers have demanded that PEN America support an immediate cease-fire, as its global parent organization, PEN International, and other national chapters have done.
In March, a group of prominent writers, including Naomi Klein, Lorrie Moore, Michelle Alexander and Hisham Matar, announced that they were pulling out of next month’s World Voices Festival, one of PEN America’s signature events. And over the past several weeks, growing numbers of nominees for the literary awards, including Camonghne Felix, Christina Sharpe and Esther Allen, announced that they were withdrawing their books from consideration.
In a letter that PEN America leadership received last week, 30 of the 87 nominated writers and translators (including nine of the 10 nominees for one prize) criticized the group’s “disgraceful inaction” on the situation in Gaza, accusing it of “clinging to a disingenuous facade of neutrality while parroting” what the letter characterized as Israeli government propaganda. The letter also called for the resignation of the group’s longtime chief executive, Suzanne Nossel, and its president, the novelist Jennifer Finney Boylan, along with that of the group’s executive committee.
“PEN America states that ‘the core’ of its mission is to ‘support the right to disagree,’” the nominees stated. “But among writers of conscience, there is no disagreement. There is fact and fiction. The fact is that Israel is leading a genocide of the Palestinian people.”
That letter drew a brief but forceful response last week in which the organization described the war in Gaza as “horrific” but challenged what it said was the letter’s “alarming language and characterizations.”
“The perspective that ‘there is no disagreement’ and that there are among us final arbiters of ‘fact and fiction’ reads to us as a demand to foreclose dialogue in the name of intellectual conformity, and one at odds with the PEN Charter and what we stand for as an organization,” the organization said in a statement.
In other words, PEN America was criticized for organizational neutrality: the writers wanted it to take a stand against the “genocide” of Israel. They even claim “there is no disagreement” about this! That is a crock, and again the PEN America membership shamed itself. But the turmoil continued, and, as you see below, its chief executive, Suzanne Nossel, eventually was forced out (characterized by the NYT as “leaving the organization”).
A new article in Tablet magazine summarizes the recent anti-Israel and anti-Jewish stands of PEN America and PEN International. It’s not a pleasant read. I’ve reproduced a few excerpts (indented) below:
Here’s yet another action that appears to be antisemitic:
PEN America has quietly retracted its public statement condemning the cancellation of comedian Guy Hochman’s recent speaking engagements. In its original statement, PEN rightly “condemned placing a litmus test on someone to appear on stage,” calling such tests a “profound” violation of free expression and affirming that “shutting down cultural events is not the solution.”
That principled stance did not last.
This reversal is particularly striking given PEN America’s longstanding history of condemning the cancellation of controversial figures across the political spectrum, including music artist Kehlani (on two separate occasions) and political commentator Milo Yiannopoulos. PEN has even defended the right to gather for Moms for Liberty, an organization that actively fuels the book-banning campaigns PEN America claims to oppose.
In these cases, and many others, PEN defended a clear and consistent principle: Free expression must be upheld even when the speech is unpopular, provocative, or deeply offensive to some.
Yet, following internal and external pressure driven by anti-Israel—and, in many cases, overtly antisemitic—activism, PEN reversed itself. In doing so, it abandoned its own stated standards and effectively endorsed the very discrimination it had previously acknowledged as wrong.
The message this sends is unmistakable: PEN America supports free expression, except when Jews are involved. When it comes to Jewish artists and Israeli voices, PEN now appears willing to endorse ideological litmus tests, condemnation, cancellation, and boycotts.
Hochman has been accused of “inciting genocide in Gaza”. I’m not sure what he said, but I doubt it was “kill all the Gazans, civilians or not.” And regardless, PEN America is supposed to foster free expression, not foster it and then withdraw. Note their hisory of supporting other controversial artists, including, for crying out loud, Milo Yiannopoulos. There’s more (bolding is mine):
This incident does not stand alone. It follows PEN America’s recent deeply flawed report alleging that Israel intentionally sought to destroy Palestinian culture and education in Gaza, a report reliant largely on information supplied by Hamas, riddled with glaring omissions, and marred by demonstrably false and inflammatory claims.
By downplaying the atrocities and the horrors of Oct. 7 and largely dismissing Hamas’ own actions that led to the current situation in Gaza, PEN America further silenced Israeli and Jewish voices in literature and culture.
That bias is not confined to PEN America alone. It echoes the inherent bias, anti-Zionism, and antisemitism embedded in the recently passed “Resolution on Freedom of Expression in Palestine and Israel” at the 90th PEN International Annual Congress. Notably, Palestine was granted membership in PEN International, while Israel was rejected, a decision that speaks volumes about whose voices are deemed worthy of protection and whose are excluded.
Compounding this pattern, PEN America forced out its longtime CEO, Suzanne Nossel, after she was labeled a “Zionist” and refused to have the organization publicly declare that Israel was committing genocide. This episode sent a chilling message to Jewish professionals: Adherence to certain political dogmas is now a prerequisite for leadership within the organization.
Yes, the organization cannot afford to have a “Zionist” (they mean “a Jew”) as CEO, especially a “Zionist” who won’t sign on to the ridiculous “genocide” canard. One moore bit of information:
Over the past two years, many leaders in the literary and cultural world have attempted to engage PEN’s leadership in good faith. The pattern has been consistent: They listen, offer no meaningful response, and then double down on a hostile anti-Zionist and anti-Israel posture.
In doing so, PEN America has helped legitimize antisemitic discrimination at a moment when antisemitism in the United States is at historic levels. This is not an isolated failure of judgment, but a structural rot in the organization, one that reflects leadership choices, institutional culture, and a governing board that has failed to intervene.
This past week, the organization formalized the leadership of interim co-executives Summer Lopez and Clarisse Rosaz Shariyf, a move that signals continuity rather than course correction and suggests the organization is unlikely to return to viewpoint-neutral principles anytime soon.
Especially because of its supposed mission to foster free speech and open discourse, it’s important for PEN America (and PEN International) to remain viewpoint neutral, like the University of Chicago—except on issues that threaten the organization’s mission. Those issues would involve censorship. But PEN America is now okay with censorship so long as it’s Jews and Israel who are being censored. The organization’s ridiculous “genocide” stand serves only to chill the speech of members (notably Jewish ones) who dissent. The supposed “genocide” in Gaza (actually the declared mission of Hamas, not Israel), is contentious and not something that PEN should weigh in on. But as we all know, among left-wing intellectuals in America the going ideology is to praise Palestine, ignore the horrors and war crimes of Hamas, and to damn Israel, full speed ahead. PEN America has been captured by this ideology.
Jennifer Schuessler wrote about Nossel’s resignation firing in the Oct. 31, 2024 NYT. By all accounts Nossel did a good job with the organization. Her only flaw was to be a “Zionist” and to refuse to sign on to the “genocide” canard:
Suzanne Nossel, the chief executive of the free expression group PEN America, is leaving the organization, six months after escalating criticism of the organization’s response to the war in Gaza led to the cancellation of its literary awards and annual literary festival.
Nossel will become the president and chief executive of Freedom House, a nonprofit organization based in Washington that promotes democracy and human rights around the world. PEN America announced that it has elevated two current senior members of its leadership team, Summer Lopez and Clarisse Rosaz Shariyf, to serve as interim co-chief executives, effective immediately, with a national search for a permanent leader to follow.
Nossel, a Harvard-trained lawyer, took the helm at PEN America in 2013, after previously working at the U.S. State Department, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International USA. During her tenure, its membership increased to more than 4,500, while its annual revenue grew to about $25.8 million, up from $4.3 million.
The group, by far the largest of the national PEN International chapters worldwide, also expanded beyond its traditional focus on the literary world, starting initiatives relating to free speech on campus, online harassment, book bans and the spread of state laws restricting teaching on race, gender and other “divisive concepts.”
I’m glad that Nossel has found a home where, I hope, she can promote free expression and human rights and not be required to condemn Israel and its “genocide”, but PEN America seems to be a lost cause now, but just one more organization that has abandoned its principles in favor of ideology (viz., the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center).
Tablet author Ari Ingel, director of the Creative Community for Peace, ends his article this way:
If PEN America is serious about its mission, its board must urgently reevaluate who is running the organization, issue a clear and public apology to the Jewish community, and recommit itself to defending free expression without exception or favoritism.
That ain’t gonna happen. It’ll be a freezing day in July (in the Northern Hemisphere) when PEN apologizes to the Jews.
Here’s Nossel, and I wish her well:
Here’s a 4-minute video in which Nossel explains and defends PEN America’s principles (she has a book on free speech):
PEN America is just one of the arms of the vast, antisemitic hydra that has sprung back to life since October 7. The demand for Jews to renounce Israel in exchange for acceptance is just the latest attempt to separate Jews from their identities as Jews. We need to walk away from those institutions that have abandoned us.
Hear, hear. This Israelophobia is just antisemitism by another name. As Howard Jacobson said the attitude can be described as, “I can’t be antisemitic: I have nothing against Jews individually, I only hate them by the country.” The ideological capture of once respectable organisations is very dispiriting.
Dear “Activists”:
You are ruining everything. Not every organization has to be oriented around your half-baked pet ideology. If you continue with this Borg-like assimilation of valuable institutions, we won’t have anything left. No science, no art, no free speech, no democracy, no future.
P.S. You are more often than not playing the role of the useful idiot with your “activism”. Numeracy and critical thinking are not your strong suits, so I’ll try to keep this simple. Muslims are not “an oppressed minority”; there are almost 2 billion worldwide, and they control at least 50 countries including large swathes of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. In contrast, the total number of Jews worldwide is less than 16 million, and they have only 1 diminutive country (smaller than New Jersey). So you have been successfully brainwashed into thinking black is white, and white is black. Please try your best to understand this…Islamists don’t actually like you, and will cast you aside the moment you are no longer needed.
Sincerely,
The Public
The wokey takeover of organizations is reminiscent of the early stage in a previous tragicomedy of the US Left: the attempts by the CPUSA in the 30s and early 40s to commandeer “front” organizations, including labor unions. These maneuvers, typically obvious and clumsy, often antagonized other members, resulting in sectarian schisms. After some success in a few unions (e.g., Electrical Workers, Longshoremen, a now defunct Teachers’ Union in NYC), these internal politics alienated major figures in organized labor (e.g., Walter Reuther of the UAW, Philip Murray of the Steelworkers and the CIO). This alienation became distinctly more acute after members of some CP-ish unions were associated with the CP-dominated “Progressive Party” campaign against Harry Truman in 1948. Eventually, the national labor federations expelled these unions or purged their officers, a key feature of the cold war atmosphere of the 1950s.
The cold war atmosphere was, of course, conditioned by the US political conflict with the USSR, then by actual military conflict with the USSR’s protogé N. Korea and then with Communist China. Nothing of that sort is happening now. But suppose Islamist activists were to stage another one of of their exciting actions in the US, something like the 2016 Orlando nightclub mass shooting, or the 2025 truck attack in New Orleans. Perhaps then the typical wokey denial/apologetics for Islamism would lead to long run reactions comparable to the anti-Communist atmosphere of the 1950s. Just a possibility.
Thank you for this write-up Jerry. I have loss track of PEN goings on since I dropped my subscription to the NYRB five or so years ago. It’s a shame. Thank you Norman and Jeff also…I have nothing to add other than just to be further dejected…disappointed but not surprised yet again.
This is the first time I’ve taken a close look at the signatories of that abominable Charlie Hebdo letter. I knew I shouldn’t have. Joyce Carol Oates? Juno Diaz? Others who’s I’ve read and enjoyed. I’m feeling a little sick to my stomach.
I’m not one to make pointless gestures about boycotting artists who are shitheads, or alleged shitheads. I still watch Polansky’s films, I still think Picasso had some mind blowing art, and some times I still like to listen to Cat Stevens songs. But I shouldn’t have read that list. I should have just accepted that PEN is full of shitheads and ignored it.
The Charlie Hebdo letter was a real classic: denouncing the magazine for cartoons that were said to cause “further humiliation and suffering” to pious Muslims, those poor victims of European success—disregarding the Charlie Hebdo staff who were murdered (surely not so bad as “humiliation and suffering”). But back then, PEN was in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo, and conferring an award on the magazine. PEN’s present leadership will presumably now plan to take back the award. (Maybe that, if possible, would be just too much.)
Oh you guuuys! I went straight to Ms. Oats below before I’d read your comments here. She was one of many who objected to PEN’s sympathy for the victims ’cause… Islamophobia.
Cheers!
D.A.
NYC
Sorry to see it go (PEN America, I mean).
So, PEN America had “inaction” over the war in Gaza. They did nothing. And… so?? Just what did the resignees expect to be the result if PEN America “took action”? What would be that action? A strongly worded public statement? A no-holds-barred post in their web page, maybe? And just what would that accomplish?
This is from the same group of people who support land acknowledgments…
PEN has discredited itself, just like the “feminists” who could not bring themselves to condemn the rapes committed by Hamas. Just like the LGBTQetc who support regimes that openly support societies that persecute (in some cases murder) people for such behavior. Such abject stupidity makes their voices irrelevant.
I attended a PEN Annual Meeting in 2006, I think, where there was a panel on balancing freedom of expression with…I forget, but it doesn’t matter, as freedom of expression shouldn’t be balanced with pretty much anything. Several Europeans spoke, along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali and, via pre-recorded video, Tariq Ramadan, the Jihadist/accused serial rapist. Ramadan compared making fun of the founder-of-Islam Mohammad to mocking the death of Anne Frank. Yes, that’s how depraved the man is. I almost lost my lunch when the audience gave his shocking blather an especially enthusiastic and prolonged applause. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was the only panelist who properly defended free speech. It was quite an eye-opening afternoon.
Like the BBC, the NY Times, my prostate and Pan Am, PEN is another example of a once fine institution wrecked, broken and beyond all help.
Let’s not forget admired (by some WEITers) writer Joyce Carol Oats was on the Jihadi side of that Paris massacre, as were many discredited scribblers signing the PEN letter. I mention her, and others on twitter/X.
No longer fit for purpose. Many such cases.
D.A.
NYC (now happily back in NY!)