Free speech, cancel culture, and taking down statues [PODCAST]

Listen and followApple PodcastsSpotifyYouTubeMore apps · Browse all episodes

“History cannot be changed and should not be erased. The First Amendment was placed first for a reason. It is the bedrock of our nation’s ability to overcome despots like Hitler and to abolish slavery. However, it comes at a price. You may hear things you don’t like or make you uncomfortable. You may see statues or places like the Old Slave Market that offend you because of what they represent. But you also see works of art like the Declaration of Independence. You cannot have one without the other. To limit speech or erase history because you do not personally like it, or because it doesn’t fit your narrative is a step towards liberal and/or conservative fascism. Personal liberty is sacrificed.”

Andrew Pickens is an emergency physician.

He shares his story and discusses his KevinMD articles, “The cancel culture and the erasure of less just times and imperfect people” and “The DNA of the United States of America.”

This episode is sponsored by The Nuance Dragon Ambient eXperience (DAX). The Nuance DAX solution makes it possible to forget the tech-toggling and reduces documentation burdens no matter how or where care is being provided.

Did you enjoy today’s episode?

Please click here to leave a review for The Podcast by KevinMD. Subscribe on your favorite podcast app to get notified when a new episode comes out!

Do you know someone who might enjoy this episode? Share this episode to anyone who wants to hear health care stories filled with information, insight, and inspiration.

Hosted by Kevin Pho, MD, The Podcast by KevinMD shares the stories of the many who intersect with our health care system but are rarely heard from.

Transcript

Kevin Pho: Hi, and welcome to the show, where we share the stories of the many who intersect with our health care system but are rarely heard from. My name is Kevin Pho, founder and editor of KevinMD. Today on the show, we have Andrew Pickens. He’s an emergency physician, and he wrote a pair of KevinMD articles: the first, “The DNA of the United States of America,” and second, “The cancel culture and the erasure of less just times and imperfect people.” Andrew, welcome to the show.

Andrew Pickens: Thank you for inviting me to do this, Kevin. I’m happy to be here.

Kevin Pho: So we’ll get into your articles in a little bit, but first off, can you share your story and your journey to where you are today?

Andrew Pickens: I’m originally from the Midwest. I live in Connecticut right now. I started off, I’m a St. Louisan. I was born there, grew up a decent amount of time in Kansas, and went to college there. I was a philosophy major at the University of Kansas. From there, I went to law school at Washington University in St. Louis and also got an MBA while I was there. I practiced for a few years and then went back to medical school at St. Louis University and went to residency at UNC for emergency medicine. Now I’m a practicing emergency physician for the last 15 years. Yeah, I guess counting residency, 15 years. I ended up in Connecticut at this point.

Kevin Pho: We’re speaking in the beginning of October. How’s the pandemic affecting your emergency department?

Andrew Pickens: I think Connecticut’s done a very good job of managing it, and I’ll say that up front. I mean, since May, maybe even April, we peaked pretty early, and we haven’t started coming back up again, and so it’s been manageable here. But I will say that the effects of COVID are long-lasting on the volumes in the emergency department. The structures we built to deal with it are still there, and they’re ready to be called upon when we need them. It’s still ever present; it’s just not in the volumes that we’ve had to deal with back in the spring.

Kevin Pho: All right, so let’s get into your KevinMD articles, and they’re somewhat related. Your most recent one is “The DNA of the United States of America.” Now, for those who haven’t read that article, can you walk my audience through it and share the story of why you decided to write it?

Andrew Pickens: So the title of it, “The DNA of the United States of America,” came from what I saw politically in the atmosphere we were seeing at the time. There was a lot of unrest in the country, and there were several commentators, and most cable news now isn’t really news; it’s almost all political opinions of one sort or another, for the most part. There were, from what I saw, some real attacks on the foundation of our country.

We can discuss what the foundation of our country is, but what I consider it to be is the Constitution and the rights that were written into that Constitution for everyone. They may not have existed at the time it was formed, but they certainly exist at this point. We can argue about how well they exist at this point and how equally everybody is treated currently, but I think that the constructs that the Founding Fathers put together have allowed us to get to the point where we are now, which is, I think everyone would have to agree, a lot better than it was in the 1780s, in the 1770s, when our country really came to be.

Kevin Pho: So you talk about things like cancel culture and the removal of Confederate statues, and how that may progress to the removal of statues of our Founding Fathers. Can you talk about the arguments, pros and cons, for that?

Andrew Pickens: Yeah, so I wrote in the first article I published about a trip my wife and I took to Charleston, South Carolina. It was about the same time that we decided to move up to New Haven. That’s a very historic city. There are a lot of parts of it that are really, I think I used the word, steeped in history there, both good and bad: the slave market, as well as Fort Sumter, et cetera. It’s an eye-opening experience to go to a city like that, which has preserved a lot of those landmarks that represent some horrible times in our past, as well as some good times in our past.

When I saw some of the political unrest and the public unrest, the civil unrest, that had gone from just being peaceful to somewhat violent and destructive at some points, it moved me in a way that I just felt like I had to say something about it. I certainly understand both sides of the argument for it. There have been questions posed to me in the past: When we’re talking about Confederate statues, when we’re talking about monuments to people who were on the South side of the Civil War, they were put up at times when people who may not like those statues had no say in our country, so how is it just to keep those up?

I think the point of my article isn’t that it was just to keep them up. The point is, in a democracy, we should do it in a way that a democracy would have it done correctly. That would mean if a city council decides to vote to take a statue down, that’s democracy at work. If a group of people go and decide to tie it to a truck and pull it down, that’s not democracy; that’s vandalism. So it’s not so much about the fact that they have to stay there and everybody has to look at them every day, especially if it offends them. It’s what do we do with them?

I do think that if you vote to move them, take them down, put them in a museum, put them somewhere else where they can still be seen, there is some historical importance to them that I think we can learn from. But it’s really the idea that we need to follow the laws that are in place to have our voices heard, so that we can preserve what we’ve got in society. I hope that gives you some context for where I was coming from.

Kevin Pho: So the historian W. Fitzhugh Brundage wrote, specifically about the Confederate monuments, that they were, “in short, the result of private groups colonizing public space. And furthermore, African Americans who objected to the erection of these monuments had no realistic opportunity to voice their opposition to them.” So what’s your response to something like that, to people who see these monuments as symbols of, say, white supremacy?

Andrew Pickens: I don’t know that I disagree with that statement. Depending on when they were built and who decided to put them up, et cetera, I think there’s probably a very valid point being made there. Nonetheless, they were put up, and in order to take them down now, with a different country, you do it in a way that is more acceptable, I think, to the majority of the people in the country, which is to vote in the people you want to have in office who will take the statues down. That’s kind of the way I see it needs to work, and I’d be a hypocrite if I said that wasn’t the case, right? I mean, it’s the will of the people.

But another part of the two articles that I think is a common theme is that me voicing that opinion, I don’t think it’s particularly controversial, right? It’s basically saying that if a group of people who hold power in an area, because they’ve been voted in democratically by people to make decisions about what to do with statues or any other monuments, decide to take an action, that’s democracy at work. So to me, what I wrote isn’t inconsistent with what you stated from the historian. I think it’s completely consistent.

Kevin Pho: So that leads into the hot topic of what we call cancel culture, and that’s the subject of the first article that you wrote. In your view, what exactly is cancel culture?

Andrew Pickens: So it’s kind of a catchphrase, right? And I’m not sure there’s a really good definition that everybody would agree to when they hear it. But to me, at least in one form, it’s that if you have an opinion and somebody else doesn’t like it, they tend to cancel you and everything that you stand for, regardless of who you are. So that’s one definition of it, right? There are other ways where it’s appropriate, right? You should be canceled if you’re a mass murderer and you’ve done other things to people. You should be canceled, I agree. But when it’s used to quash free speech, that’s when I start having issues with it, OK? And that’s not exactly where the line is; it’s probably further back than that.

But the idea is, if there’s one thing the United States has gotten right, it’s freedom of speech. There are a lot of other things we’ve done right, but it’s the First Amendment for a reason, right? It’s the foundation of what we do. My ability to talk to you on the air and express my opinions now, and your ability to be on the air and question me however you see fit, is part of our freedom of speech. When cancel culture is starting to be used as a weapon to essentially nullify opposing viewpoints, I think it becomes a problem. And I do think that on the political spectrum, both extremes, left or right, have done that in the past, and I think it’s been ramping up recently.

In my own personal vision, look, I’m a moderate, and I’ll say that openly. I’m a moderate, and I tend to vote based on different issues, and I try to do free thinking and be logical in the philosophical way I was taught in college to assess things. I think it’s been used to polarize the country. Right now, at least from what I was seeing during the summer, you could argue it was being used a little bit more by the left, but that’s not to say the right doesn’t do it too, because they do.

So to me, our personal liberty is based on that ability to say, “Here’s what I think,” and not expect that my life will be torn asunder because of it. If we can’t live in a country where you can do that, then it’s not the country that this great United States was founded on, based upon the Constitution that was written over 200 years ago.

Kevin Pho: Now, cancel culture has risen to prominence over the last 10 years or so, and not coincidentally, that’s also the rise of social media. So can you comment on how perhaps social media may contribute to that rise of cancel culture?

Andrew Pickens: You know, it’s interesting you asked that, because I was thinking about that the other day. I mean, we live in a society right now where there’s nowhere to hide. Media is everywhere. Everything you do is caught on tape. If you’re not careful, when we’re practicing as physicians in the office, we could be getting taped, right? So it’s a very unforgiving way to live, in that everything you do, down to the last word that you say that could have just been phrased wrong, or you garbled it when you said it. It’s a very unforgiving culture when you’ve got this much electronic connection, social media connection, but the personal part of it has been removed, because I’m not in the same room with you. I’m not able to shake your hand, for multiple reasons at this point, right? Not just the rise of social media, but because of COVID. I do think COVID has added to it, because we’re more isolated.

And so with good friends who are on the other end of the philosophy, although I’m kind of in the middle, but who have different views than me, I can have heated discussions with them. Not where we get angry, but we’re pretty vehemently into it and talking about it. But I know them, they know me, we’re in the same room. They trust me because they know my history. And so, yeah, he has a different viewpoint than me, but I can live with it.

Now I’m a guy in a little box here on the computer talking to you. You don’t really know me. You don’t know what my family’s like, what I do in my personal time, et cetera. So there’s no context to it. This individual encounter on a flat screen, without the depth of me as a person, I think leads to being, “OK, shut that off. I don’t want to see it anymore,” because it’s somewhat dehumanizing, right? It’s easy to dehumanize somebody, I think, in the social media culture, and so I think that’s why it’s become more acceptable.

But I also think both sides have seen it as an opportunity to use as a weapon in certain situations, sometimes justified. I mean, we can call cancel culture appropriate when it is essentially saying, “You’ve done something so horrific, you should not be allowed to have some of the benefits of our society anymore.” But when it’s certain things that are arguably reasonable opinions, then I think that when you’re taking it to that level and fundamentally affecting somebody’s life, it’s gone too far.

Kevin Pho: Now, have you had any personal experience with being proverbially canceled because of your opinions, or did you know someone who had some personal experience of being canceled?

Andrew Pickens: No, I really haven’t, knock on wood, and I hope it stays that way. But I haven’t. It’s mainly me watching what I see on television, being a consumer of social media, seeing what happens. I can’t think of anything personal to me, or even in what you’d consider your family or friends circle, where it’s really happened. I can’t.

Kevin Pho: Putting aside the term cancel culture, some would say that it is a way to speak out against those in power. Really, this whole issue is about power. Now, if we take away the ability to cancel someone, let’s say, how can those who aren’t in power speak up against the injustices they see by the people in power?

Andrew Pickens: So it’s a good point, and I think that comes back to what we mean by cancel, in a way, right? So if by cancel you mean speak up and speak against what somebody’s saying, that’s fine, OK? Taken ad absurdum, you don’t like what I say, so you come to my house and burn it down, or something like that. That’s a different level of things. Absolute peaceful protest, being able to speak your mind, is the fundamental right we’ve got in this country. Unless you’re in a theater and yell “fire” or something like that, there are limitations to it.

But I don’t think that cancel culture, in the way it’s used as a term in society, is generally thought of as only a tool to take down the powerful. It’s to take down the people whose viewpoints you don’t like, so that your viewpoint can get stronger. So I understand your question, but I don’t think in that sense we’re using cancel culture quite the same. I think there are plenty of outlets now to get your viewpoints out, and I think that might be part of the reason that people have gone to such a large hammer as cancel culture to try to take somebody out and nullify their opinions, even if they seem to be somewhat reasonable.

Kevin Pho: This is also an issue of boundaries. You know, where is the boundary of what’s acceptable and what is not between two groups of people? Now, I know that’s very difficult with social media, but what are some of your solutions going forward? How can these two groups of people find out and negotiate and really debate the line of what’s acceptable and what’s not?

Andrew Pickens: Yeah, so look, I think this starts at both a leadership and a societal level, right? Look, this is my own viewpoint. It’s clear from the articles I wrote. I believe the United States, and I’m not trying to be nationalistic when I say this, but when you look at the formal laws in the living document that is the Constitution, which allowed our country to develop to where it is today and allowed us to have these conversations and have peaceful protests, etc., I believe that this country is one of the few places that you can do this and do it appropriately.

And so, what do I take as the solutions? You’ve got to have strong leadership that allows for a diversity of opinion, OK? And when I say diversity of opinion, I mean, “Here’s my view, I’m on the right. Here’s my view, I’m on the left.” It doesn’t make you a bad person because you don’t agree with me. It just means that we have to have a little bit more decorum in the way we go about talking about stuff. I think it starts at the top, but I think as a society, we have to just not accept it when people take it beyond mere discussions, and very vibrant discussions, about differing viewpoints and start doing ad hominem arguments against people because of it, or taking it that because you are supporting one certain argument, everything that some people who believe that have is now part of you, right?

And I know I’m talking a little ethereal in general there, but I think the idea is it has to come from the temperature of society. It has to come from each individual saying, “I’m not going to put up with some of the crazy violence or crazy name-calling,” or some of the stuff that may or may not have been popularized by some of the popular reality TV shows we see these days, and that sort of thing. It’s more about leadership, strong leadership respecting this country and its foundation, and the true belief that, at the end of the day, the words “all men are created equal” are probably one of the most important sentences that’s ever been written in a governmental document.

And so that’s where my view on it is, and I think that’s the best way to go about it. We just have to take a stand and say we’re not going to accept this kind of overzealous canceling of individuals because they just don’t agree with us, especially when they have reasonable opinions. And we can talk about what reasonable is, but I think most people know what that means.

Kevin Pho: So how realistic is that, do you think, going forward? We live in such a polarized society. Everyone is in their own bubbles, and on Facebook, they have their Facebook feeds of purely people who they agree with. So I think everything you said certainly is a path forward, but realistically, how can we do that?

Andrew Pickens: That’s a very good question, and I’m not sure I know the answer. Look, I’m 51 at this point, right? And so I’ve seen a lot. I’m still, hopefully, knock on wood, got a lot more to see. I think where we go from here is something that most of us can’t predict. If 15 years ago you had told me I’d have something in my pocket that was as powerful as the laptop I had at the time, and more so, and had more connectivity with everybody else in the world, I would have thought it was cool, but it’s kind of weird, right? And when the first iPhone came out, when I was in residency, I don’t think I appreciated the amount of change that would bring to this country, having smartphones in our pockets everywhere.

So I don’t know how realistic it is, but what I can say is this, and this is my own personal viewpoint: The United States Constitution and every right that is guaranteed by it has withstood huge changes in our society for over 200 years, almost 250 years at this point. It’s going to persevere through this and will come out on the other end better than we were, like we have every time something like this has happened in our country. I think we’re heading in the right direction. It’s just an issue of how fast we’re going to get there and how we get there.

Kevin Pho: We’re talking to Andrew Pickens. He’s an emergency physician, and he wrote the KevinMD articles “The DNA of the United States of America” and “The cancel culture and the erasure of less just times and imperfect people.” Andrew, do you have a take-home message that you want to share with the KevinMD audience?

Andrew Pickens: All I would say is this: Every line I put in my articles, I chose very carefully, and I did that because this is such a delicate topic. I wish it wasn’t so delicate, because then I think it would be the world that I would envision us living in, which is where we can have the open flow of ideas between people, even if they’re on the polar opposite ends of the spectrum. That’s about it.

Kevin Pho: Well, thank you so much for sharing your time and insight. Thanks again for being on the show.

Andrew Pickens: Thanks a lot, Kevin. I appreciate it.

Listen and followApple PodcastsSpotifyYouTubeMore apps · Browse all episodes