On July 6, two days before the publication of its report on the cultural boycott of Israel, PEN America made a subtle but important change to its position on boycotts. The organization had developed language almost twenty years earlier opposing the academic boycott of Israel, making PEN America the only PEN chapter to have a policy opposing a vital form of political expression. That position had remained unaltered for nineteen years, and the changes that day were presented as a clarification of a policy that was perhaps too vague and hard to define.
When asked about PEN America’s boycott policy, I had long claimed that while PEN America opposed boycotts, the organization defended the right to participate in them. As the new policy made clear though, that was not in fact the practice or position of the organization. The organization, at best, defended writers, in some circumstances, and only in some jurisdictions, from the right to protection from retaliation.
If the difference between these positions seems far too minor to quibble over, that is, in part, the point. Who can tell the difference between defending the right to boycott and defending someone from retaliation for participating in a boycott? Or better yet, who can tell the difference between “assiduously defending” someone and just defending someone, or defending someone from punishment for their choices and views or just defending them from punishment? A few more words here, a few fewer words there—at the end of the day, most people are probably too trusting or indifferent to note the difference.
