Partha Kar: We must stand up and challenge offensive behaviour
BMJ 2019; 367 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6749 (Published 03 December 2019) Cite this as: BMJ 2019;367:l6749
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Reticence and Etiquette hampered “calling out” in an era when face to face interactions were the norm. But with the advent of social media, an instantaneous “call out” culture, without due consideration of all facts, has become the norm. For instance, British Nobel prize winner Hunt was ostracised without thorough examination of the facts. [1].
Good people with good intentions are now "calling out" without considering all aspects of an issue (e.g BMJ illustration being called sexist). [2].
There is now a culture of demanding perfection from everyone else except oneself. As President Obama said recently, “The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws.” [3].
Even if someone else is plain wrong, what about forgiveness and redemption without public shaming?
During this Christmas season, one doesn’t need to be an adherent of any of the Abrahamic religions to consider this quote as an ethical antidote to the current “call out” culture (“the one who is without sin is the one who should cast the first stone”). [4].
References
1 Mensch L. The Tim Hunt Debacle. Medium. 2015. https://medium.com/@LouiseMensch/the-tim-hunt-debacle-c914395d5e01 (accessed 9 Dec 2019).
2 McDowall N. Re: How can I support a colleague who is being investigated? Published Online First: 7 December 2019.https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6426/rr-3 (accessed 9 Dec 2019).
3 Rueb ES, Taylor DB. Obama on Call-Out Culture: ‘That’s Not Activism’. The New York Times. 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/politics/obama-woke-cancel-culture... (accessed 9 Dec 2019).
4 Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery (accessed 9 Dec 2019).
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor,
As a white woman of privilege, I am fortunate to very rarely be at the sharp end of discrimination. When I am, it is always because I am a woman and I am frequently, and increasingly, disappointed by the silence of male witnesses (Pathar Kar, Offensive behaviour has to be challenged, 7th Dec 2019). Like other female doctors, I have long been accustomed to the everyday assumption that I am a nurse. On this particular occasion myself, and another senior (male) registrar flanked the consultant on our post take ward round. We had stethoscopes around our necks, notes in hand. The male consultant conferred with us on the patient’s case and best course of action while 3 further male junior colleagues stood slightly behind noting down jobs. The patient was itching to leave the hospital and keen to get his cannula out so I swiftly obliged, donning a pair of gloves, swab and tape at the ready. At the end of the consultation the patient thanked “all you doctors” gesturing towards me adding, “and your technician”.
I raised an experienced (at sexism) eyebrow as we walked away and waited for someone to correct him. Instead, the consultant looked somewhat embarrassed and muttered under his breath that I was a doctor whilst shuffling away. It was left to me to explain to my junior male colleagues the ways in which sexist assumptions such as these can have systematic negative impact upon women’s wellbeing and career progression, not to mention patient care. I was frank about my expectation of their vocal solidarity, solidarity my consultant colleague had failed to show.
I contrast this with an experience in which a patient overtly told me they did not want to be seen by the black SHO on our team. I was shocked into silence but my white male consultant, who had stepped outside the curtain to take a call, overheard and marched directly back to the bedside and told the patient in no uncertain terms that he would not tolerate racism and that any further behaviour of this sort would result in the patient being removed from that hospital.
The NHS is the 5th largest employer in the world and thus reflective of societal attitudes. It should therefore come as no surprise that in spite of progress made in the wake of the #metoo movement, sexism continues to be a problem within medicine. By way of example we need look no further than the recent report into sexism within the BMA which described an “old boys culture” allowed to go unchallenged (BMJ 2019;367:l6089). Racism too remains institutionalised and in a country emboldened by racist rhetoric from the very top of society, colleagues and patients of colour are continually and systematically discriminated against with little sign of challenge. It is all our responsibilities to call out perpetrators of any form of discriminatory behaviour but I expect most from those in positions of power – their silence is complicity and that complicity silences us all.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Partha Kar’s Comment this week makes some good points - for example that sexism and racism are absolute facts of life (people always have tended to favour whichever group they see themselves as belonging to) and that leadership starts at the top (although one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise in today’s political climate!).
However, he asks why no one interrupted a lecturer when he made a “bad” (in Partha’s view) joke. I would suggest that it is not polite to interrupt lecturers, one good reason being that it is disruptive and likely to distract other people who are listening to the speaker and reflects consideration for others. As regards jokes, they are often a good way of emphasising a point or helping to cement a memory in people’s heads – and often work best when the jokes are poor. I don’t know any jokes about strangling people (the closest I can think of is the cartoon with a stork swallowing a frog where the frog has managed to get its hands out of the stork’s beak and is attempting to strangle the stork – with the caption “never, never give up…!”), but it would be interesting to know more details (and whether it would have been “acceptable” if the joke had related to a man?!). I suspect that it will always be true that what one person finds funny, another might find offensive (“one person’s meat is another person’s poison”) so that cracking a joke will always carry a risk.
He then asks why an anti-slavery performance included a scene that was interpreted as a slave auction. I am not sure what the motivation for putting on such a performance is, but it wouldn’t surprise me if a scene referring to slavery was included and I have to assume that the people attending such an event would not have been either.
More generally, I think the suggestion that anyone who feels offended has carte blanche to say whatever they want is irresponsible: many of us are offended by things that other people say or do (which includes reading accusations that we might be exhibiting “unconscious bias”), but do not react dramatically. Although timidity might be a reason, others might include respect for other people’s opinions, an acceptance that our own interpretation of a situation is not always the right one (that is, a certain amount of humility) or a wish not to disrupt the smooth running of a lecture or event.
There is much to be said in favour of political correctness, but the fact that it often seems to be used as a weapon to attack other people suggests that the motivations of the people promoting it are not always the highest (two wrongs most definitely do not make a right!). As the Bible tells us (Jas 1: 19,20): “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry”.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Without full free speech, we exit democracy
Partha Kar's 'Comment' piece seems well- meaning, but is dangerous nonetheless.
A democracy cannot function, cannot be creative, cannot be lively and interesting, without one hundred per cent free speech. Liberals and Marxists obviously should be allowed to say whatever they wish- but, for the sake of equity, those on what is termed 'the Right' must, I would say, be allowed the same liberty.
Banning ideas for the sake of 'political correctness' (PC) is counter- productive in the end. Those who are silenced feel aggrieved.
Should we censor the Bible because it condemns homosexuality, again and again? Should we remove Wagner from opera houses, since he was an anti- Semite? Should we abolish Shakespeare as he consistently attacks Jews, 'Ethiops', Moors, Turks, the French, and so on?
Sanitizing discourse is a mistake. Without the rough and tumble of open debate, we wither away.
The NHS is indulging in its own sort of censorship, with, for example, the tragically complicated abortion conundrum. I believe it is illiberal and cruel towards Christians not to allow them to protest outside Marie Stopes clinics.
Any sliding away from free speech, however 'virtuous' or 'right-on' the motive may appear, is an insidious threat.
Competing interests: No competing interests