The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Vice-President of Writers' Organization (PEN) Resigns Because of Panel's Excluding Russian Writers
UPDATE: Added response from PEN.
A very interesting article in The Atlantic (Gal Beckerman):
[B]oycotts [of Russian culture] have only increased in intensity, and in ways that demonstrate how wartime assaults on freedom can ripple far outside the conflict zone—where the sound of war is not that of bombs detonating but of piercing silence. Now the impulse to censor anyone Russian has arrived in the United States, at a venue that is designed to—of all things—champion and promote freedom of speech and expression: PEN America's annual World Voices festival. It has also led, quite precipitously, to the writer Masha Gessen's decision to resign as the vice president of PEN's board of directors.
This past Saturday, as part of the festival, Gessen was set to moderate a panel showcasing writers in exile, two of them, like Gessen, Russian-born authors who had left their country in disgust. But a day before the event, ticket holders received an email saying that because of "unforeseen circumstances" the panel had been canceled. Their money would be refunded. No other explanation was offered and any trace of the event disappeared from PEN's program online.
A small delegation of Ukrainian writers, who participated in a panel planned for the same day as the canceled Gessen event, had declared they could not attend a festival that included Russians. Because two of the writers, Artem Chapeye and Artem Chekh, are active-duty soldiers in the Ukrainian army, they argued that there were legal and ethical restrictions against their participation. Chapeye, a writer whose short story "The Ukraine" was recently published in The New Yorker, texted with me from a bus on his way back to Ukraine. He didn't see himself as having boycotted the Russians. It was simply that their presence was incompatible with his. "The Russian participants decided to cancel their event themselves because we as active soldiers were not able to participate under the same umbrella," he wrote.
Chapeye said he didn't make distinctions between "good" Russians and "bad" Russians. "Until the war ends," he wrote to me, "a soldier can not be seen with the 'good Russians.'"
I don't fault the Ukrainian writers for simply not wanting to be on the panel; that's their call. (This having been said, I very much doubt that there's any "legal" obligation for Ukrainian soldiers to not even speak at a conference, in a foreign country, at which some other speakers are civilian citizens of an enemy country; and I find it hard to see it as an ethical obligation, either.) But I'm inclined to share Gessen's view that Russian writers shouldn't be excluded from such events simply because of the writers' country of citizenship, coupled with a demand by Ukrainian writers. And the organizers' opposition, which I share, to the war being waged by Russia shouldn't translate into such exclusion of Russian writers.
(Note that, as I understand the story, the event was canceled by PEN, not by the Russian participants themselves.)
UPDATE: PEN offers this response (note, for clarity, that Masha Gessen goes by "they"):
We are saddened that Masha Gessen has decided to resign from PEN America's board of trustees. They have served with distinction for nine years, championing our mission for free expression and values as an organization at every turn. We are deeply grateful for their innumerable contributions and service, including and especially relative to our work on Russia and Eurasia.
The events that precipitated their resignation began with an error on our part about what would be feasible within the parameters of our annual World Voices Festival of International Literature, which brings writers from around the world to the United States for conversations with U.S. and global counterparts. Working in partnership with PEN Ukraine, we had invited several Ukrainian writers to be part of this year's festival and discuss their experiences as writers and soldiers. Separately we had planned an event, to have included Masha, with Russian dissident writers who are now living in New York City on the theme of writing in exile from tyranny. Two of these writers came to New York with PEN America's support to help spearhead the Russian Independent Media Archive, a joint project of PEN America and Bard College to safeguard the work of Russian independent news outlets; that event was launched several weeks ago at an event including Masha and the Russian writers.
The Ukrainian writers who were invited are members of the military on active duty. They informed us in advance that they could participate with us as long as no Russians were part of the "event." We mistakenly took that to mean their panel, not the entire festival, which included more than 40 events at multiple venues. We deeply regret, and take responsibility for, this error of interpretation. Once the Ukrainians arrived in New York and learned that the Russian dissident writers were part of the festival, they informed us that they would be unable to participate, explaining that had both events proceeded, they could face being barred from returning to Ukraine or facing repercussions upon their return. PEN Ukraine strongly reinforced this message in communication to us, stressing genuine and compelling concerns about these individuals' safety. We then sought a solution that would have allowed one or the other event to proceed as a PEN America-sponsored conversation – at the same date and time, in the same venue and with the same audience during the festival timeframe - but outside the banner of the festival. That option was declined by both the Ukrainian and the Russian participants.
Faced with the consequences of our mistake and without good options, we made the decision that the event with the Ukrainians should go forward, given their circumstances and the risks they face as soldiers, that they had traveled a long distance to participate, and that they came with a misunderstanding to which we had contributed. The Russian writers conveyed to us that speaking about writing in exile is difficult under the best of circumstances, and that these were not such. We understood their decision and made clear to Masha and the Russian writers our sincere regret, and readiness to reschedule their event at any point.
PEN America regrets the situation that ensued from the error. As we conveyed to the writers from Ukraine, it is elemental to PEN as advocates of free expression that the positions of governments not be projected on writers, whose essence lies in their independence of thought. We have been and remain deeply committed to ensuring that the independent voices of both Ukrainian and Russian writers continue to be heard in the context of this conflict.
We thank Masha Gessen for their support, dedication and friendship over the last 9 years.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is looking more and more like a conspiracy of the Russian women to kill all the Russian men, as I can think of no other explanation for Putin's approval rating.
That's an idiotic take. Russian approval of the war isn't dictated by Russian women.
It's a sarcastic take.
Attempted sarcasm is no excuse for spouting misleading nonsense.
Most Russians support the war because they believe it justified, for various reasons. Maybe they're wrong, but "jokes" like this are really tedious and unneeded in an environment where "The Russians attacked their own pipeline, and now they've drone-attacked the Kremlin" doesn't get the ridicule it deserves anywhere that gets much exposure.
'a conspiracy of the Russian women to kill all the Russian men' is very clearly a joke.
You're just a grumpus.
The comment was clearly a joke, but "a conspiracy of the Russian women to kill all the Russian men" is less clearly a joke than one would hope.
I already answered that claim, idiot.
You claimed that you blocked me.
Why couldn't you manage to stay in the ostrich position?
Russia is the only country with motives to blow up NS because it could have potentially led to billions more in windfall profits for Gazprom while keeping Putin’s hands clean while average Europeans froze over the winter. Fortunately Hurricane Ian didn’t veer towards Louisiana and Europe had a mild winter and Putin’s gambit failed. Although he still paid for the repairs with a few weeks of risk premiums for natural gas exports.
Only Americans could buy this impoverished line of thinking.
Do you yourself?
Americans on the right love losing wars…Putin wants to win the war and blowing up NS got him pretty close to winning the war…but for the first time in history weather wasn’t on the side of Mother Russia.
I'm not American, and don't give a shit which 'side' of Americans likes losing wars.
I'm asking you if you yourself actually believe that bullshit. Certainly no one else in the world does.
Wtf would I care what other people believe?? I opposed the Iraq War from day 1 and my fellow citizens called me a “traitor”!
Because you come across to the rest of the word as just an American liar. Why? Because you ignore the simpler, more powerful motives for sabotage and prioritise one that’s clearly less potent. That comes across as self-serving (though that needn’t be the case).
So, again, do you actually believe it yourself, or is it something you just need to tell yourself? Alternatively, is it just some perverse form of virtue signalling to your fellow Americans?
No one still believes that nonsense except gullible dead-enders like you.
“… intelligence reviewed by US officials suggests a “pro-Ukraine group” — likely comprised of Ukrainians or Russians — attacked the Nord Stream gas pipelines in September, but there are no firm conclusions, the New York Times has reported.”https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-08/ukraine-group-nord-stream-attack-intelligence-report/102066980
If you are interested in what happened, I don't think I'd just blindly accept whatever "US intelligence" says.
Ever heard of legendary journalist Seymour Hersh? He's suddenly being ignored these days.
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream
If the purported depth of Russian fatalism is to be taken literally, then the Russian women would be telling their Russian men to not come back alive.
That gives me an idea—I will order a Russian bride once the war is over. The Russians will be desperate for American dollars and I will have money left over to increase her breast size…I bet Blackman could even get laid that way. 😉
You think you're funny. So sad for you.
I actually know someone that bought a Russian wife. Russia actually graduates more engineers than America and so you can even get a highly educated woman…and if she has a kid the kid is generally intelligent so Blackman could play chess with the kid instead of boring it with asinine law bullshit.
2023: the Russians.
2026: the Chinese.
This is going to get so bad, so quickly. Y'all appreciate that the rest of the world won't join the fight and start WWIII over Ukraine, yeah?
The US media has got a job to expose objectionable practice of Ukrainian activist and unprofessional handling of the case by PEN.
How about Russians just being unwilling to say they don't like Putin, because they're living in a police state, and it might result in them being killed?
The percentage of Russian opponents of the war is relatively small, but there are way too many to kill and, AFAIK, no known deaths. Don't make shit up.
Usually you think more clearly than you did as shown in this comment.
I am not so sure -- Id like to see a JAG take on this.
Do you normally consult David French on legal matters?
It makes a huge difference whether the Russians withdrew voluntarily.
There’s no reason to give that improbable hypothetical serious consideration. It's not like the moderator of the panel wouldn't know, or would consider she had good reason to resign if she did.
Acceding to the heckler's veto is never a good idea.
See, when you say you don't hold it against the Ukrainians, and then immediately doubt their sincerity, I kinda doubt your sincerity.
You didn't need that parenthetical.
To the overall point, meh. Once you agree that the Ukrainians were within their rights to say "its us or them", you should also acknowledge that neutrality is not an option: taking no action and keeping the Russians would have been as much a choice as cancelling the Russian event. And trying to insist on nuance? Sorry, but we all know that would have been lost. You are basically asking them to fall on their sword for principle.
Huh? He said he didn't fault the Ukrainian writers for simply not wanting to be on the panel. Sure, there's nothing wrong with not wanting to be on a panel.
But would also be surprising if there were any law preventing Ukrainian soldiers from speaking on a panel with civilian US-Russian dual citizens in the US. Do you have any evidence that any such law exists, aside from their say-so?
He said "(This having been said, I very much doubt that there's any "legal" obligation for Ukrainian soldiers to not even speak at a conference, in a foreign country, at which some other speakers are civilian citizens of an enemy country; and I find it hard to see it as an ethical obligation, either.)"
He is explicit in doubting their sincerity.
This might surprise you, but I don't actually need an opinion on a subject to point out that Volokh is being a double-talking ass.
Neutrality was absolutely an option. There was no need to respond to the Ukrainians' withdrawal, and not doing so would absolutely be neutral.
Nope. It would have been seen as favoring the Russians.
You can argue over whether it should have been seen that way, but if you deny that it would have, then you're an idiot.
"Masha Gessen goes by "they""
Oh, one of those.
One, or many?
Maybe she is just fat?
Yo mama so fat she uses plural pronouns? I like it.
Maybe not a half-educated bigot gullible enough to believe fairy tales are true and despise modern America?
In other words, a Republican?
I must say that, ironically, PEN did not provide a model of clear writing in its statement.
It seems they decided to exclude Russians from one of their events, and to compensate for this action by doing some kind of technical workaround.
Did I get that right?
As for the Ukrainian soldiers, if their duties preclude attending writers' conferences with Russians, so be it, that policy isn't attributable to PEN. But excluding Russians *is* attributable to PEN.
"...ticket holders received an email saying that because of 'unforeseen circumstances' the panel had been canceled" isn't a "technical workaround".
I'm disturbed by the idea that attending an event with Russians opposed to the invasion of Ukraine could endanger Ukrainian soldiers. Has Ukraine really become so crazy?
No one claimed "endangerment".
Good news is that PEN has got its reputation compromised, because its leaders decided to cancel the event and submit to the last minute blackmail. Legitimate Ukrainian concerns have also been tarnished by such an activism.
It's not in evidence that any blackmail was necessary or took place.
In the play between Abraham L. Putin and Jefferson D. Zelenskyy, we are missing at least one supporting character but overlook the presence of the "Shitheads of Shiloh" (a then-contemporary term used by Union newspapers to describe Generals Grant and Sherman) and those they themselves condemned.
Digressing momentarily, Grant was known for his “blundering stupidity and negligence” (quoting Stanton) but was supported by a mental-illness-recovering Sherman, who instead blamed the political leaders who defended the cowardice of the Union irregulars. Union soldiers themselves admitted cowardice, with one stating “we did run away; we won't deny it. We got under the bank and wouldn't come out. Why? Because it was no use. If a man gives his life, he wants to get the worth of it.” (Chicago Tribune, April 18, 1862, pg. 2) Grant writes in his memoirs that “Up to the battle of Shiloh, I, as well as thousands of other citizens, believed that the rebellion against the Government would collapse suddenly and soon, if a decisive victory could be gained over its armies.” After Shiloh, Grant “gave up all idea of saving the Union except by complete conquest.” Sherman was bolder, stating “we cannot change the hearts and minds of the people of the South, but we can make war so terrible that the rebels will tire of it” and successfully pressing Lincoln to support his campaign of what we now call war crimes.
Anyway... after Shiloh aka Pittsburg's Landing, Sherman writes to his wife, Ellen, "I am sometimes amused at these newspaper Reporters. They keep shy of me as I have said the first one I catch will hang as a Spy. I now have the lawful right to have a Court martial, and if I catch one of those Cincinnati Newspapers in my camp I will have a Court and they will do just as I tell them. It would afford me a real pleasure to hang one or two — I have seen a paragraph in the Cincinnati Commercial about Dr. Hewit. He never drinks, is as moral a man and as intelligent as ever, and all his time is working for the Sick, but because he will not drop his work & listen & babble with a parcel of false humorists who came here from the various [??] of our Country he must be stigmatized as a corrupt drunkard. Rebellion is a sin, & of course should be punished but I feel that in these Southerners there are such qualities of Courage, bold daring and manly that though I know they are striving to subvert our Government and bring them into contempt, Still I feel personal respect for them as individuals, but for these mean contemptible slanderous and false villains who seek reputation by abuse of others..."
The character of wartime players is not known until long after all battles have been decided.
"Abraham L. Putin and Jefferson D. Zelenskyy"
Heh.