Attacking the next first lady of the USA - Dr Jill Biden

[nickymanchester]

A recent post on twitter highlighted that some random dude writing in the Wall Street Journal decided to attack the wife of Joe Biden (The WSJ is the US equivalent of The Financial Times):-

twitter.com/AndrewSolender/status/1337804907177512962

This is a real paragraph – written by Joseph Epstein – that was published in the Wall Street Journal:-

Is There a Doctor in the White House? Not if You Need an M.D.

Jill Biden should think about dropping the honorific, which feels fraudulent, even comic.

Madame First Lady - Mrs. Biden - Jill - kiddo: a bit of advice on what may seem like a small but I think is a not unimportant matter. Any chance you might drop the "Dr." before your name? "Dr. Jill Biden" sounds and feels fraudulent, not to say a touch comic. Your degree is, I believe, an Ed.D., a doctor of education, earned at the University of Delaware through a dissertation with the unpromising title "Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students' Needs." A wise man once said that no one should call himslef "Dr." unless he had delivered a child. Think about it, Dr. Jill, and forthwith drop the doc.

I was just felt literally gobsmacked by that sort of condescension in a newspaper with the reputation of the Wall Street Journal.

It turns out that I wasn't the only person that thought that either. There were many people who responded just how you would expect, for example:-

twitter.com/jrpsaki/status/1337929492363407370

You are not alone if today is the first day you googled “Joseph Epstein” because you were curious who popped out of a 1950’s time warp to write the below for the WSJ

twitter.com/Chasten/status/1337776851423551489

The author could’ve used fewer words to just say “ya know in my day we didn’t have to respect women.”

twitter.com/DouglasEmhoff/status/1337848812610568193

Dr. Biden earned her degrees through hard work and pure grit. She is an inspiration to me, to her students, and to Americans across this country. This story would never have been written about a man.

But I think the best response came from the twitter account of Merriam-Webster (they are the US equivalent of the OED - the Oxford English Dictionary). Without making any reference to the Wall Street Journal article at all they simply put this out a few hours later:-

twitter.com/MerriamWebster/status/1337841415116763138

The word 'doctor' comes from the Latin word for "teacher."

The History of 'Doctor' - Just who qualifies as a doctor anyway?

Not surprisingly, people picked up on this quite quickly, for example:-

When Merriam Webster trolls WSJ....

When the dictionary has the shadiest subtweets on the web.

The pure devastation you must feel when the dictionary itself steps up to destroy your credibility..

While this may appear just a storm in a teacup, it is really quite staggering that attitudes like this can still be printed in opinion pieces in serious newspapers.

A couple of people have mentioned Oxbridge, but I think there is some confusion. As far as I'm aware, Oxbridge graduates have never been able to claim a doctorate without doing anything - you would have to do a PhD (or a DPhil, which is the same thing) just as you would anywhere else.

People are probably thinking of the Oxbridge MAs which you could claim several years after graduation - I never bothered with mine and did a real master's instead, but even if I had, it wouldn't have entitled me to call myself a doctor!

X post

I just don’t understand why people think me using Mrs would be more appropriate. Marrying my husband was easy, getting the PhD was hard work.

If our other ‘titles’ weren’t largely dependent upon our marital status (where a man’s is not) it might not irk me so much, but it is. I use Dr for work purposes, it’s on my driving license (not my bank account because France doesn’t permit it - it’s Mr and Mrs [husband’s name] surname, on our joint account 🤬). It’s not on my passport, I don’t want to cause confusion in the case of a medical emergency on a plane.

If people are confused by the fact that people other than M.D.s might be Drs, well I don’t know what to say. That’s no my problem. I don’t insist on people calling me doctor in my everyday life (unless they’re being a condescending prick 🤷🏻‍♀️).

Also...

If people are confused by the fact that people other than M.D.s might be Drs, well I don’t know what to say

It’s a quite common misperception though, no less than Whoopi Goldberg said that she’d make a great surgeon general because she’s an amazing doctor ....

Most US-based publications I’ve worked for follow the AP guidelines on this, which would just use Jill Biden without the honorific.

Unless you are the NYT which still insists on using Mr./Mrs. which is pretty old-fashioned 😓

My favourite response to this outrageous man was this -

Bernice King, the youngest daughter of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr, offered her support to the future first lady in a tweet: "My father was a non-medical doctor. And his work benefited humanity greatly. Yours does, too."

Most US-based publications I’ve worked for follow the AP guidelines on this, which would just use Jill Biden without the honorific.

Titles are less used in the US in general. However as noted below, the WJS is the other alongside NYT which uses Dr for doctorates.

The man's an idiot. Fwiw, I don't think the title of Dr Biden's thesis (not "dissertation"), Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students' Needs, is "unpromising". But apart from that, she has a PhD and she is entitled to use it regardless of whether other people think she is showing off.

As a general point, I think that when an individual makes a personal attack on another individual, 90% of the time it's out of envy.

@UsedUpUsername

A lot of writer’s guidelines specify using Dr only if the person has a medical degree and is an actual doctor.

I tend to agree with this POV in all honesty. Should I call someone with a doctorate in queer studies Dr so-and-so? Lots of worthless PhDs out there...

Really, could you link to those writers (there is no apostrophe in the word) guidelines? Speaking as and "actual doctor" (I hold an M.D.) and a "doctor" (I also hold a PhD) then who the hell are you to determine what research is "worthless" and what isn't? Those who have achieved the level of either qualification have worked incredibly hard and often at great sacrifice to achieve their level of expertise, and the awarding of those titles - which they are then entitled to use - is recognition of that fact.

Perhaps you would be less "weary" if you stopped explaining to people why they aren't entitled to use the honorifics that they have earned and grew up a bit. Jealous or what?

I bet he is doubling down, digging his heels in, or whatever people say now..

However as noted below, the WJS is the other alongside NYT which uses Dr for doctorates

AFAIK the NYT doesn’t automatically grant the ‘Dr’ for PhDs. Here’s an excerpt from the NYT style guide:

Dr. should be used in all references for physicians and dentists whose practice is their primary current occupation, or who work in a closely related field, like medical writing, research or pharmaceutical manufacturing: Dr. Alex E. Baranek; Dr. Baranek; the doctor. (Those who practice only incidentally, or not at all, should be called Mr., Ms., Miss or Mrs.)

Anyone else with an earned doctorate, like a Ph.D. degree, may request the title, but only if it is germane to the holder’s primary current occupation (academic, for example, or laboratory research). For a Ph.D., the title should appear only in second and later references. The holder of a Ph.D. or equivalent degree may also choose not to use the title.

So a bit more complicated than the AP.

Also, as an example, Ben Carson typically is just Mr Carson at NYT, but it’s because he’s retired and is written about in his capacity as a politician, not medical doctor as per the guidelines.

@Canwecancel2020

Vets and dentists can be called Dr in the uk too.... no human babies delivered there either

I'm guessing there's no assigning of sex in those places either...

I've been reading Victorian novels where families oppose marriage to a mere GP. I think there have been a few digs about 'so-called doctors' which I'd been puzzled by.

Thanks to posters for explaining the Oxbridge higher-degree system.

Perhaps you would be less "weary" if you stopped explaining to people why they aren't entitled to use the honorifics that they have earned and grew up a bit. Jealous or what?

Touched a nerve there. I never said that people can’t use honorifics, just that I agree with the style guidelines set out in a lot of publications. And there’s a good reason for it, as there are a lot of quack PhDs out there. Don’t forget we have plenty of PhDs from Christian colleges that will assert that the world is merely 6000 years old (or whatever). Should we respect that? I think not.

A genuine piece on the times and places that it might or might not be appropriate to use your title could easily have been achieved without being so mean spirited and patronising to Dr Biden.

Yes. The WSJ opted for clickbait, when they could have commissioned a perfectly reasonable article by a writer who doesn't ooze misogyny.

@UsedUpUsername

Perhaps you would be less "weary" if you stopped explaining to people why they aren't entitled to use the honorifics that they have earned and grew up a bit. Jealous or what?

Touched a nerve there. I never said that people can’t use honorifics, just that I agree with the style guidelines set out in a lot of publications. And there’s a good reason for it, as there are a lot of quack PhDs out there. Don’t forget we have plenty of PhDs from Christian colleges that will assert that the world is merely 6000 years old (or whatever). Should we respect that? I think not.

Respect it? Yes. That isn't the same thing as agreeing with it. I'm going to guess that you may be in the USA, since we certainly don't have plenty of Christian colleges giving out PhD's in the UK. Perhaps those countries with more lax academic standards need to do more to introduce some rigour to their system - online degrees for a fee and no study??? But let's face it, the "style guidelines" of some unspecified publications in some unspecified location are hardly of any merit, probably written by two bit journalists (and probably men) with little or no ability who couldn't get either qualification if they tried.

The "style guidelines" in my house are that you use the titles that people have worked hard to earn, and respect their effort. When people refuse to respect that, they are refusing to respect the people, and that is very evident in the piece under discussion here. It is not a matter of whether you agree with some random "house style" - that very house style is wrong and disrespectful, and I am surprised that any writer / journalist can't see that. But then, there's a lot of writers with little or no education or intelligence as well. I'm sure you'd agree.

I tend to agree with this POV in all honesty. Should I call someone with a doctorate in queer studies Dr so-and-so? Lots of worthless PhDs out there...

Define 'worthless PhD'
All PhD research contributes to knowledge in a particular field, just because it's not a field you are interested in or one that you feel is worthwhile doesn't make the qualification worthless.

.. Don’t forget we have plenty of PhDs from Christian colleges that will assert that the world is merely 6000 years old (or whatever)..

Flipping heck is that true?

(Not the 6000 years thing, the people getting PhDs in nonsense thing.)

I’m now catapulted back to an ongoing debate between two ex boyfriends of mine, who had followed similar career trajectories and had a bitter professional rivalry. Both had PhDs, one would use the title and one wouldn’t. The one who wouldn’t would always refer, sneeringly, to the one who did as “Doctor” Kenny; “so what’s Doctor Kenny up to these days, still trying to impress girls with his qualifications is he?”, “wonder what Doctor Kenny would make of that, eh?”

The whole thing was magnificently petty Joe Epstein would have enjoyed it.

Ah Epstein has no PhD himself, despite having been an academic. That would have rankled. Sour grapes? Well at least the world now knows that Epstein somehow failed to achieve a PhD. He has an honorary doctorate, but that is not the same (and I wonder if he engineered even that).

Mantrums all round Sophocles

If a publication generally doesn't use any sort of title then there's no onus on them to use them for medics or people with doctorates. If it's relevant to the article then explicitly mentioning their qualifications may be better for clarity. If they're using Dr for medics only because their readership is ignorant and might be confused then it's their job to communicate clearly rather than copping out - is it really beyond their capabilities?

The NYT making an arbitrary distinction for PhDs in fields closely related to medicine is frankly weird. Who are they to make that distinction? Would I pass - a chemist who writes software used in pharmaceutical research? Would they include a specialist in medical ethics?

Really, could you link to those writers (there is no apostrophe in the word) guidelines?

Firstly yes there is, it should be writers' guidelines.
Secondly, here's what The Guardian style guide has to say. It uses Dr when the person is "practising as a doctor in the field in which they gained that qualification" which seems fair to me.

Dr
at first mention for people practising as a doctor in the field in which they gained that qualification, including medical and academic doctors and doctors of divinity (not, for example, a politician who happens to have a PhD in history, or a medical qualification); thereafter, just use surname except in leading articles

Should I call someone with a doctorate in queer studies Dr so-and-so? Lots of worthless PhDs out there...

It's more he other way round - they can use the title Dr but no one apart from medics should say 'I'm a doctor'. 'A doctor' has a distinctly different meaning to 'someone with a doctorate', even though the former now commonly use the title and have taken the name for their profession from the latter.

But let's face it, the "style guidelines" of some unspecified publications in some unspecified location are hardly of any merit, probably written by two bit journalists (and probably men) with little or no ability who couldn't get either qualification if they tried

Please. It’s the AP guidelines, which is considered the standard for news reporting. Most US-based news organizations use them, with some house rules.

Those guardian guidelines are reasonable - for deciding what they do within their publications. They have little bearing on whether people with doctorates should or shouldn't use their titles in various circumstances (provided they're not being actively misleading).