In January 2015, Islamic terrorists murdered 12 people at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo for depicting the Prophet Muhammad. When PEN America honored the magazine with its Freedom of Expression Courage Award that same year, the organization received backlash from prominent members.
Then-PEN president Andrew Solomon stood by the decision, saying that the controversy was a reminder that the “defense of people murdered for their exercise of free speech is at the heart of what PEN stands for, so is the unfettered articulation of opposing viewpoints.”
Standing up for free speech principles against religious extremism, it turns out, was the right call since it remains a real threat to authors and speakers around the world. At a book talk in August 2022, novelist and former PEN America president Salman Rushdie was stabbed 15 times by an assailant who admired Iran’s theocratic regime that issued a fatwa against Rushdie back in 1989 for the supposed blasphemy of his novel The Satanic Verses.\
ADVERTISEMENT
But now PEN America finds itself embroiled in another controversy about first principles.
The organization felt compelled to cancel its 2024 World Voices Festival after around 30 writers withdrew from the event backing protesters who claimed PEN America’s approach to the war between Israel and Hamas was “tepid.” In other words, PEN America stood by its explicit mission to promote free expression and remain neutral on sharply contested matters of geopolitics and armed conflict.
An open letter from writers and translators nominated for the PEN America Literary Award argued that they “cannot, in good faith, align with an organization that has shown such blatant disregard of our collective values… We refuse to be honored by an organization that acts as a cultural front from American imperialism.”
Never mind that PEN America has provided financial assistance to Palestinian writers, issued many statements condemning the suppression of pro-Palestinian speech on college campuses, spoken out against postponing awards for Palestinian authors, and criticized the cancellation of film screenings for documentaries critical of Israel. The now-canceled World Voices Festival would have also featured several Palestinian writers.
Regardless, the authors of the open letter contend that PEN America’s leadership should be replaced with staff that will make a bold declaration that would firmly align with one side. But this would be a grave mistake.
PEN America’s very purpose is “to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide” and to “champion the freedom to write… unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible.” PEN America’s mission is not to advance the political or ideological goals of a specific portion of the diverse range of writers around the globe. To succumb to external and internal pressures to take positions on contentious policy issues threatens to undermine its very purpose and its efforts on other issues.
PEN America has been leading the charge against attempts by red states to ban books and restrict discussions of “divisive concepts,” which frequently means speech treating issues like race and LGBT+ themes in a manner that triggers conservatives. It has also played a crucial role in trying to persuade progressives that the values of free speech and equality are mutually reinforcing—not mutually exclusive—and that abandoning free speech is likely to hurt rather than protect minorities and vulnerable groups.
But if PEN America bends to pressure to take explicit positions on progressive or social justice causes, it will only become more vulnerable to criticism. After all, why should skeptical lawmakers or the general public pay attention to an organization whose advocacy dovetails with progressive politics rather than First Amendment principles?
To understand the danger of an unprincipled defense to free speech—where ideological agendas mean abandoning commitments to free expression when it’s inconvenient—one needn’t look further than Republicans who decry “cancel culture” and censorship.
In March 2023, House Republicans on the Higher Education Committee held a hearing on the state of free speech on college campuses. Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT), chair of the House Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee, said, “If those with certain views are allowed to shut down competing views, the battle to sustain freedoms upon which our county was founded—free speech, free thought, and free expression—will be lost.”
This week, that devotion to free speech apparently waned, as Owens joined his fellow Republicans in co-sponsoring and passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. If the bill becomes law, it will deem certain viewpoints—including criticism of Israel—as antisemitic based on the broad definition promulgated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). If colleges fail to adopt this definition, they could lose federal funding.
PEN America rightly opposed this bill, arguing that it could “harm academic freedom, free speech, and legitimate political speech.”
In 2019, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law to promote free speech on college campuses and tweeted about how “protecting the right to free speech is critical to the future of our country.” But his belief that censorship is “un-American” hasn’t stopped the governor from banning drag performances, banning books, and issuing an executive order for Texas colleges to enforce the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism.
If PEN America becomes an explicit progressive social justice organization and abandons its commitment to ideological neutrality and the unbiased application of free speech principles, it will have no leg to stand on when taking on the free speech opportunists of the world.
It will instead become the distorted mirror image of the very unprincipled forces it is fighting against.
