There was a time when an organization was formed for a purpose, usually one that transcended partisanship and stood for a principle. Think ACLU, the one that backed the right of neo-Nazis marching in Skokie despite deploring what they stood for, before it became the ACLU that supported only free speech when it supported the content of the speech. Or think PEN America.

PEN America stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide. We champion the freedom to write, recognizing the power of the word to transform the world. Our mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible.

Notably, it does not claim to stand for progressive or conservative writing, but for writing and writers, whatever they write about. Some of its members, unfortunately, no longer find that acceptable.

An open letter sent to PEN America’s board and trustees and republished on Literary Hub, now the de facto clearinghouse for pro-Palestinian literary-world sentiment, accused the organization of “implicit support of the Israeli occupation” and of “aiding and abetting genocide.” It demanded the resignation of PEN’s longtime C.E.O., Suzanne Nossel, and current president, Jennifer Finney Boylan. According to its 21 signatories, mostly up-and-coming authors, “among writers of conscience, there is no disagreement. There is fact and fiction. The fact is that Israel is leading a genocide of the Palestinian people.”

It’s not that some writers shouldn’t be allowed to believe that Israel is engaged in genocide, even if one would hope writers had a better grasp of the meaning of the word, but that the signatories assert that “among writers of conscience, there is no disagreement.” So anyone who disagrees is not a writer of conscience? Apparently so, and these are not writers with whom the signatories will associate.

Last week, after an increasingly aggressive boycott campaign by some of its members, PEN canceled its annual World Voices Festival, which was conceived by Salman Rushdie and was to mark its 20th anniversary in May. This followed a refusal by several writers to have their work considered for PEN’s annual literary awards. The ceremony awarding those prizes was also canceled.

Most people would agree that Salman Rushdie is a “writer of conscience,” having given much of his life and one eye to the pursuit of his writing. And the current president, Jennifer Finney Boylan, is a transgender writer, which used to mean something in the “writers of conscience” column. But still that’s not good enough. Instead, it’s all about writers as long as they are writers who believe as I do, and burn all the writers who don’t.

PEN America has canceled its festival and awards not in capitulation so much as in refusal to subvert its mission to partisan politics.

In response and in keeping with its mission of independence and free expression, PEN America accepted the writers’ willingness to voice their conscience. It has also made clear that there is room for more than one point of view on what constitutes genocide and on the current conflict in Gaza.

“As an organization open to all writers, we see no alternative but to remain home to this diversity of opinions and perspectives, even if, for some, that very openness becomes reason to exit,” PEN America stated in an open letter to its community.

Much as its refusal to capitulate to the unduly passionate merits praise, is there much of an organization left without them? Has the core of its writer membership gone hard left, leaving an organization which stands proud of its refusal to associate with one side or the other a lonely place?

But for those advocating that PEN America reform itself in the service of a single political agenda, the organization’s efforts to accommodate a range of views count against the organization. “Neutrality,” the authors of the most recent letter contend, “is a betrayal of justice.” Nothing short of total capitulation will serve their purpose. And they are conducting an intimidation campaign among other members and authors to join their ranks or shut up about it. According to PEN leaders, writers have expressed fear in openly supporting the organization in the onslaught of this latest campaign.

In certain fields of endeavor, there appears to be a vociferous group condemning and castigating anyone who fails to toe their line. Some say this is the case in academia, particularly legal academia, Some see this with writers, the sorts who populate organizations like PEN America. Whether they make up a substantial portion of the membership or are just outliers is unclear. What is clear is that they are loud, brash and happy to denigrate others in their field as racists and murderers, genocidal killers or apologists, in their effort to make them bend the knee or be destroyed.

Can PEN America survive? If the only way it can keep its factions together is to compromise its integrity and become an organization with a mission, but with the caveat that it will only support writers who express the “correct” views, should it survive?