![]()
Read the original article here.
For everyone else, free speech is a principle. For Jews, it appears negotiable.
By Ari Ingel
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.
Forcing an artist to renounce their identity, nationality, or presumed political views as a prerequisite is discrimination—plain and simple.
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.
Taken together, these actions reflect an organization that has lost sight of its mission and gravely undermined its credibility. Art and literature should build bridges and foster dialogue, not be weaponized as tools of division and demonization. Yet this is precisely how PEN America is now operating.
Most concerning of all, these decisions have helped create an increasingly hostile environment for Jewish writers and cultural figures. And when it comes to defending Jewish authors, PEN America has been conspicuously silent.
Over the past two years, planned bookstore appearances by Jewish authors have been canceled, ads for books about Israel have been rejected, book readings have been shut down, literary groups have been targeted, and activists have circulated blacklists of so-called Zionist authors for harassment.
A few examples: PEN America issued no public condemnation of the McCarthy-esque “Is Your Favorite Author a Zionist?” list; no statement objecting to the targeting and cancellation of Gabrielle Zevin based on a presumed political identity; no statement defending the canceled book-launch events of Brett Gelman; no statement condemning the rejection of advertising for Bernard-Henri Lévy’s book; and no statement opposing the boycott of Israeli writers and cultural institutions.
By validating ideological litmus tests, PEN America is declaring that free expression is not a universal right, but a privilege granted only to those who pass the “correct” political screening. That is a shocking precedent for an organization that claims to defend the “freedom of expression.”
Forcing an artist to renounce their identity, nationality, or presumed political views as a prerequisite for participation is discrimination—plain and simple. It is incompatible with the values PEN America claims to uphold.
If PEN America wishes to retain any semblance of credibility as a defender of free expression, it must explain why ideological tests are unacceptable for everyone except Jews and Israelis.
In PEN’s own words, “Ultimately, shutdowns of this nature, however they occur, do little to address hateful speech, but instead contribute to a climate of silencing and self-censorship for artists with a wide range of views.”
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.
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.
