August 4, 2025
Kori Davis
In the wake of the first Trump presidency and in the midst of the Ukraine-Russia war, PEN situated itself as a paragon of free expression defense. l mobilized members to combat the wave of book bans sweeping the nation and fostered an inclusive environment for writers and literary professionals who expressed difficulty breaking through the hegemonic whiteness of the literary world.
After October 7th, I saw my organization falter. PEN leadership failed to support Palestinian, Muslim, and Arab voices or address the US-funded Israeli genocide in Gaza. I saw firsthand how PEN America condemned the Russia-Ukraine war and how quickly it moved to program Ukrainian writers. However, the organization remained silent on Israel’s assault on Gaza. This led to widespread opposition to the organization by the literary community, resulting in the cancellation of our awards and festival, writers pulling out of our events, and a boycott that still continues. Tense discussions followed on how best to address our organization’s negligence, and if we could or should. As a part of the Membership team, I tried — through programmatic work and internal channels — to foster discourse. I, along with many others, still believed in PEN’s mission and that some inward reflection could help us realign with that mission.
Grab a new tote bag from Mondoweiss with the powerful slogan, "From the River, To the Sea, Palestine will be free!"
During the Spring of 2024, I reached out to the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalist Association (AMEJA) to collaborate with PEN on programming centered on elevating Palestinian voices. AMEJA wisely suggested an event focused on Israel’s targeting of journalists in Gaza. When I presented our outline to my supervisor, they told me that the proposed program on Israel’s targeting of journalists “was a mistake.” This confused me as I told my supervisor about our potential collaboration prior to handing over the proposal. Thankfully, others considered it for the World Voices Festival. However, PEN’s C-suite ultimately killed the program–we canceled the festival shortly afterwards. It was hard not to see the cancellation of that programming as a failure of our mission to serve writers and journalists at risk.
To guide us back to our mission, foster discourse, and combat the silence around the genocide in Gaza, I shared anti-Zionist perspectives on the internal listserv. Following my attempt to share pro-Palestinian perspectives with my colleagues, PEN initiated an investigation against me, citing harassing behavior. I published an article that shared my perspective on being investigated by PEN; in response to this free expression, PEN fired me. This is particularly egregious and hypocritical coming from PEN —an organization that has raised its voice to criticize censorship, authoritarianism, and retaliation against writers.
PEN’s chilling retaliation was swift and shut down all dialogue. The Tuesday following the publication of my article, I received an email saying I was let go five minutes before a standing meeting, making it impossible to have a Union rep present. The hastiness of their decision left no room for dialogue. Because they did not carry out a proper investigation, no one from leadership heard my perspective, nor did they engage with the substance of the article. Instead, they doubled down on what I heeded against in the article: rendering pro-Palestinian advocates voiceless amidst a genocide.
On May 15, in a meeting with representatives from PEN Management, I learned they had ascribed “spite” as the main motive for the article. I was also told that I “attacked” PEN—although I see nothing in the article that constitutes an attack. Writers of color know the implications behind words like “spite” and “attack.” These words assume that my writing does not stem from critical thought, that it is self-centered, making it easy to dismiss. It is the same discriminatory gatekeeping I strove to dismantle at PEN. I was critical in my article, but PEN’s mission is to always defend a writer’s right to critique. In fact, in their FAQ dated March 14, PEN said they would defend the rights of writers who advocated for boycotts and protect them against retaliation. Their own organization should not be exempt from their values.
Paradoxically, the main crux of their reasoning for my termination stems from the fact that I hyperlinked to Writers Against the War on Gaza (WAWOG) in the article. PEN management claimed the purpose of the WAWOG boycott was to inflict serious adverse financial and reputational harm on the organization this year, and argued that I caused financial damage by including the link — despite their inability to show measurable impact.
The purpose of linking to WAWOG was to supply context surrounding PEN’s recent controversies and the accompanying boycott, not to endorse it myself. For a literary organization to treat a description of critical perspectives as an endorsement is disingenuous. It erases discourse and distorts intent—something PEN was founded to fight against.
In their scouring of my emails, they looked for any mention of WAWOG, taking email threads out of context to claim I was linked to the group and making me a scapegoat. It is alarming to see even a simple mention of WAWOG weaponized against me and to see PEN management resort to McCarthyite tactics against a group of writers opposing a genocide.
On July 2, PEN informed me and my union, via email, that they refuse to go to arbitration for my termination after an unforeseen emergency delayed my union from filing—despite management being aware of the circumstances. My union has been extremely supportive in advocating for arbitration, and that my termination violated our collective bargaining agreement. PEN’s denial of this arbitration risks me losing back pay. It speaks to PEN’s culpability and cowardice in their ongoing disregard for free expression, specifically around Palestine. They have avoided due process throughout my case: no proper investigation, no dialogue with me, no arbitration. It sets a dangerous precedent for workers at PEN—that they, too, could be terminated without due process for sharing or writing anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian perspectives.
By refusing to confront Zionism, they betray their own mission—as they did here. My termination is a microcosm of PEN’s approach toward Gaza: they ignore and silence the voices of marginalized writers who rightfully critique imperialism and genocide because these voices are counter to the mainstream, because they lack agency, and because they are easy to dismiss. It comes from fear—fear of the consequences of promoting Palestinian voices and a fear of confronting their own complicity. PEN’s actions are reflective of a wider culture in the U.S. of promoting Zionist ideas while silencing pro-Palestinian speech in service of Israel’s genocide.
PEN has leaned towards a broader culture of silence and silencing on the matter of Zionism and the current climate of Palestinian censorship—I have seen too much programming that would elevate Palestinian voices shut down—and I do not want to be an extension of that silence. It is a shame because PEN should be shedding light on the cases of repression and retaliation in the workplace against employees who express pro-Palestinian sentiment; instead, it is choosing to add on to that statistic.
PEN owes it to writers to make their position clear. If they are a free expression organization, they need to do a lot of inward reflection and assess if they are truly honoring their mission. If they are a risk-averse corporate entity hiding behind the mask of a free expression organization, they need to be upfront about it.
Kori Davis
The
free speech organization PEN America fired me three days after I published an
article about how they investigated me for sharing an article critical of
Zionism. My termination is a sad reflection of PEN's censorious approach to
Palestine.
On March 25, PEN America fired me
for living up to their mission. This termination came only three days after I
published an article in Mondoweiss titled “Why was I investigated for
sharing an article critical of Zionism by the ‘free speech’ organization PEN
America?,” three years into my tenure on the membership and National
Engagement team. Nine months earlier, after I shared an article on unlearning
Zionism to our internal listserv, PEN leadership sent my colleagues and me an
email stating that workers could be terminated for discriminatory action. While
I felt a deep sense of betrayal from PEN’s weaponization of
‘anti-discrimination’ to silence anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian sentiment, I
was not surprised by their actions.
In the wake of the first Trump presidency and in the midst of the Ukraine-Russia war, PEN situated itself as a paragon of free expression defense. l mobilized members to combat the wave of book bans sweeping the nation and fostered an inclusive environment for writers and literary professionals who expressed difficulty breaking through the hegemonic whiteness of the literary world.
After October 7th, I saw my organization falter. PEN leadership failed to support Palestinian, Muslim, and Arab voices or address the US-funded Israeli genocide in Gaza. I saw firsthand how PEN America condemned the Russia-Ukraine war and how quickly it moved to program Ukrainian writers. However, the organization remained silent on Israel’s assault on Gaza. This led to widespread opposition to the organization by the literary community, resulting in the cancellation of our awards and festival, writers pulling out of our events, and a boycott that still continues. Tense discussions followed on how best to address our organization’s negligence, and if we could or should. As a part of the Membership team, I tried — through programmatic work and internal channels — to foster discourse. I, along with many others, still believed in PEN’s mission and that some inward reflection could help us realign with that mission.
Grab a new tote bag from Mondoweiss with the powerful slogan, "From the River, To the Sea, Palestine will be free!"
During the Spring of 2024, I reached out to the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalist Association (AMEJA) to collaborate with PEN on programming centered on elevating Palestinian voices. AMEJA wisely suggested an event focused on Israel’s targeting of journalists in Gaza. When I presented our outline to my supervisor, they told me that the proposed program on Israel’s targeting of journalists “was a mistake.” This confused me as I told my supervisor about our potential collaboration prior to handing over the proposal. Thankfully, others considered it for the World Voices Festival. However, PEN’s C-suite ultimately killed the program–we canceled the festival shortly afterwards. It was hard not to see the cancellation of that programming as a failure of our mission to serve writers and journalists at risk.
To guide us back to our mission, foster discourse, and combat the silence around the genocide in Gaza, I shared anti-Zionist perspectives on the internal listserv. Following my attempt to share pro-Palestinian perspectives with my colleagues, PEN initiated an investigation against me, citing harassing behavior. I published an article that shared my perspective on being investigated by PEN; in response to this free expression, PEN fired me. This is particularly egregious and hypocritical coming from PEN —an organization that has raised its voice to criticize censorship, authoritarianism, and retaliation against writers.
PEN’s chilling retaliation was swift and shut down all dialogue. The Tuesday following the publication of my article, I received an email saying I was let go five minutes before a standing meeting, making it impossible to have a Union rep present. The hastiness of their decision left no room for dialogue. Because they did not carry out a proper investigation, no one from leadership heard my perspective, nor did they engage with the substance of the article. Instead, they doubled down on what I heeded against in the article: rendering pro-Palestinian advocates voiceless amidst a genocide.
On May 15, in a meeting with representatives from PEN Management, I learned they had ascribed “spite” as the main motive for the article. I was also told that I “attacked” PEN—although I see nothing in the article that constitutes an attack. Writers of color know the implications behind words like “spite” and “attack.” These words assume that my writing does not stem from critical thought, that it is self-centered, making it easy to dismiss. It is the same discriminatory gatekeeping I strove to dismantle at PEN. I was critical in my article, but PEN’s mission is to always defend a writer’s right to critique. In fact, in their FAQ dated March 14, PEN said they would defend the rights of writers who advocated for boycotts and protect them against retaliation. Their own organization should not be exempt from their values.
Paradoxically, the main crux of their reasoning for my termination stems from the fact that I hyperlinked to Writers Against the War on Gaza (WAWOG) in the article. PEN management claimed the purpose of the WAWOG boycott was to inflict serious adverse financial and reputational harm on the organization this year, and argued that I caused financial damage by including the link — despite their inability to show measurable impact.
The purpose of linking to WAWOG was to supply context surrounding PEN’s recent controversies and the accompanying boycott, not to endorse it myself. For a literary organization to treat a description of critical perspectives as an endorsement is disingenuous. It erases discourse and distorts intent—something PEN was founded to fight against.
In their scouring of my emails, they looked for any mention of WAWOG, taking email threads out of context to claim I was linked to the group and making me a scapegoat. It is alarming to see even a simple mention of WAWOG weaponized against me and to see PEN management resort to McCarthyite tactics against a group of writers opposing a genocide.
On July 2, PEN informed me and my union, via email, that they refuse to go to arbitration for my termination after an unforeseen emergency delayed my union from filing—despite management being aware of the circumstances. My union has been extremely supportive in advocating for arbitration, and that my termination violated our collective bargaining agreement. PEN’s denial of this arbitration risks me losing back pay. It speaks to PEN’s culpability and cowardice in their ongoing disregard for free expression, specifically around Palestine. They have avoided due process throughout my case: no proper investigation, no dialogue with me, no arbitration. It sets a dangerous precedent for workers at PEN—that they, too, could be terminated without due process for sharing or writing anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian perspectives.
By refusing to confront Zionism, they betray their own mission—as they did here. My termination is a microcosm of PEN’s approach toward Gaza: they ignore and silence the voices of marginalized writers who rightfully critique imperialism and genocide because these voices are counter to the mainstream, because they lack agency, and because they are easy to dismiss. It comes from fear—fear of the consequences of promoting Palestinian voices and a fear of confronting their own complicity. PEN’s actions are reflective of a wider culture in the U.S. of promoting Zionist ideas while silencing pro-Palestinian speech in service of Israel’s genocide.
PEN has leaned towards a broader culture of silence and silencing on the matter of Zionism and the current climate of Palestinian censorship—I have seen too much programming that would elevate Palestinian voices shut down—and I do not want to be an extension of that silence. It is a shame because PEN should be shedding light on the cases of repression and retaliation in the workplace against employees who express pro-Palestinian sentiment; instead, it is choosing to add on to that statistic.
PEN owes it to writers to make their position clear. If they are a free expression organization, they need to do a lot of inward reflection and assess if they are truly honoring their mission. If they are a risk-averse corporate entity hiding behind the mask of a free expression organization, they need to be upfront about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment