Controversy at the UK's Royal Society of Literature – Is this a turning point for the institution?

The Royal Society of Literature (RSL) held its highly anticipated Annual General Meeting (AGM) earlier this month, following a year of intense scrutiny and controversy.

For an organisation steeped in over two centuries of literary tradition, the meeting marked a critical moment of reflection and transition, as it navigates both internal changes and public criticism.

A key announcement that set the tone for the AGM on 15 January was the news that Molly Rosenberg, the RSL’s director since 2017, would step down at the end of March to "pursue new career opportunities". Rosenberg's departure came after months of heightened tension within the organisation, which has faced questions about its governance and leadership. Alongside this, Daljit Nagra, who has served as chair for the past four years, confirmed that he would also stand down at the meeting, as his term comes to a close.

The AGM saw Nagra introduce the results and recommendations of the RSL’s first-ever governance review, which was commissioned in 2024 and conducted by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO). The review, which had been in the planning stages since 2022, was part of the RSL’s wider effort to modernise its governance and address concerns raised over the past year.

The RSL told the Guardian that it would likely share some elements of the report publicly following the AGM, although the organisation has not published anything since the meeting. Nagra said that he is proud to have overseen the review and that it will “increase transparency for the future”.

As part of the ongoing efforts to rebuild its reputation, the RSL confirmed in February 2024 that it had referred itself to the Charity Commission, following increasing criticism over its stance on censorship, its response to the stabbing of Salman Rushdie, and its recent changes to the fellowship election process. The Society’s decision to self-refer was described as a responsible move to safeguard its future, given the damaging press coverage surrounding these issues.

A statement on the RSL’s website entitled "Statement of facts 2025" clarified that the decision was “one of good governance,” with trustees and the Charity Commission having examined the claims and found no evidence of wrongdoing.

One of the central topics to inevitably be discussed at the AGM was the controversy over the RSL’s annual magazine Review. In 2024, the magazine’s publication had been postponed, sparking claims of censorship, particularly around an article critical of Israel.

Maggie Fergusson, the former editor of Review, had publicly speculated that the delay was directly linked to this article. However, the RSL vehemently denied the accusations, stating that there were “a number of issues” with the issue’s contents. The magazine was eventually published in full in March 2024, including the article in question.

In “Statement of facts 2025”, the RSL reiterated that “the magazine was not cancelled, nor was any article contained within it censored,” noting the improvements made to the publication in terms of design and content.

The RSL has also faced significant criticism for its response – or perceived lack thereof – to the stabbing of Salman Rushdie in August 2022. Some writers and Fellows, including Ian McEwan, voiced outrage over the organisation’s failure to issue a strong public statement in support of Rushdie. McEwan, who had been a vocal defender of the author in the past, remarked that the RSL’s leadership showed the institution to “inhabit a remote moral universe that most of us do not share.”

In response, RSL President Bernardine Evaristo defended the organisation’s actions, pointing out that the RSL had posted two tweets offering support to Rushdie following the attack. 

Another area of contention was the rapid expansion of the RSL fellowship, which some critics argued had diluted its prestige. The Society’s recent efforts to diversify the fellowship by recognising younger writers and those from underrepresented backgrounds –  were met with mixed reactions. Former president Marina Warner voiced her concerns in The Observer, saying that the fellowship, “used to mark an acclaimed career”. However, Evaristo, in a February 2024 letter to The Guardian, wrote: “Even today, only 4% of the fellowship is under 40, while more than 55% of it is over 65 – and more than 34% is over 75. Sidelined? Clearly not.”

In the "Statement of facts" released shortly before the meeting, RSL attempted to clarify  a new election process, launched in December, which invites members of the public to recommend writers for fellowship. “Only Fellows can nominate writers for Fellowship,” the statement reads, underlining that the recommendations are assessed by a panel of fellows, who make the nominations, with final nominations voted on by the RSL’s Council and senior members.

As the Royal Society of Literature withstands the turbulence, questions about its future remain front and centre. Will the changes implemented be enough to restore trust and align the institution with its rich literary legacy, or is a deeper overhaul still needed to navigate the challenges ahead?