The good news about this week’s national flap over how the wife of the president-elect should refer to herself is that there has been an ocean of outrage to counter an op-ed screed published by the Wall Street Journal.
It’s unlikely that the outrage would have reached such enormous proportions 50 years ago, and indicates that American women have come a long way.
However, the author of the piece that spawned the outrage and the newspaper that published it apparently have not.
The column by Joseph Epstein called on Dr. Jill Biden to lose the formal title in front of her name. The problem was not with the subject itself, which has long been a matter of debate. The problem was that the column dripped with misogyny and condescension, familiar weapons used to denigrate the accomplishments and credibility of women.
Biden is a professor at a community college and plans to continue to teach. Epstein stooped low when he referred to Biden—who has two master’s degrees and a University of Delaware doctorate in educational leadership—as “kiddo.” He also took a cheap shot when he referred to the title of her doctoral thesis, “Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students’ Needs” as “unpromising.”
Epstein’s column flipped into a full-scale scattershot screed that spared nothing and no one. He blasted higher education in a nation where college graduates toil for decades after graduation to pay for their studies. He derided honorary doctorates and those who receive them in a nation that long ago recognized that people possess many valuable kinds of intelligence and that accomplishments can exist outside the hallowed halls of academe. One of his lines was blatantly racist.
Nothing was beneath Epstein’s schlock. He even attacked Biden for facing often arduous doctoral exams at age 55, “or long after the terror had departed.”
The Wall Street Journal defended the column as “provocative.” Epstein’s opinion piece is a relic of a time when society limited women’s roles because of their gender, oppressed minority Americans and confined honorific titles mostly to elitist white males.
Academia needs a new title that could be awarded to and used following the names of the “Joseph Epsteins” of the world. Instead of Ph.D, the degree should be Id.D—Doctor of Idiocy.
Take that, “kiddo.”
“Our View” represents the opinion of the newspaper editorial board, which is made up of members of its board of directors. Remarks may be directed to editorialboard@mtexpress.com.
Post a comment as
Report
Watch this discussion.
(11) comments
Just curious about how our local real doctors feel about Jill Biden being called Dr Jill Biden by our local 'news'?
I doubt they care. She's a doctor. Dummy
Phony1, not a 'doctor' in the accepted use of the word.
'...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.”
Who's the dummy?
If memory serves, Jill Biden has the same level of credential as our illustrious BCSD Superintendent GCH. Now I am impressed!
“I’m hoping Dr. Jill becomes the Surgeon General, his wife. Joe Biden’s wife. He would never do it but, yeah, she’s a hell of a doctor. She’s an amazing doctor.”
(Whoopi Goldberg -- March 4, 2020 -- from the daytime talk show, The View)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYzpLTLwSD0&feature
Poor Whoopi. Apparently the show's producers forgot to tell her that "Dr. Jill" was simply a Ph.D. with self-esteem issues, rather than an M.D.
CORRECTION: "Dr. Jill" isn't a Ph.D. She has an Ed.D. degree. Given that, it's obvious she suffers from low self-esteem. With the exception of PTA meetings, it's very uncommon to refer to individuals with an Ed.D. as "Dr." In fact, most people would agree that, although technically true, it's borderline misleading. Just ask Whoopi...
It's only misleading if you're an idiot, and you are.
Thanks PHOOEY1. I'm sure you have a lot of experience with low self-esteem.
Maybe a doctor of the Bidet’s tax returns
Funny that the Express editors should call out another paper. Conveniently, they have also left out the ability to comment on a story this week that ran my picture, when the story was about an Open Space Recreational Use parcel. Readers should pick up a copy of the Wood River Weekly which runs the correct picture for the story, and here is my writing this week on the subject of journalistic bias: Journalists can pick and choose what pictures and information they include in a story. Depending on what they choose, a story can be radically shaped and journalists have a huge opportunity to influence what the public thinks about a certain situation or a certain public figure. Therefore, most good journalists commit to a Code of Ethics https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp in order to give a fair and unbiased reporting of the facts to the public.
Let’s highlight a couple of things that journalists commit to in this Code of Ethics:
• Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it.
• Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
• Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information.
• Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
• Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently.
• Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
Choosing a photo or graphic to illustrate and elucidate a story is subjective and it can also be misleading. The media does not always live up to a code of ethics. For instance, in the story about the Valley Club West Nine Parcel C (for public open space or future recreational use, as determined by the County and Rec. District), the graphic of a duplex that most readers have seen leads one to believe that housing was always intended at the site. However, if the public sees this picture, they get a very different understanding:
Picture of a Fishing Pond Recreational Plan for Parcel C
Back in 2005, a Planned Unit Development created a balance of elements for all; an increased number of lots for the developer to sell, high density community housing, and an Open Space Recreational Use parcel C as a buffer for the community housing density and for the public to recreate on. An accessible fishing ponding was even proposed by the Wood River Land Trust as shown in the picture above. This balance of uses was finalized and memorialized in documents with restrictions on use that the public could depend upon into perpetuity. It is critical that the community knows this information and doesn’t make assumptions from the graphic next to a story that does not accurately reflect the story.
However, coverage by the Idaho Mountain Express about this parcel has included the inaccurate reporting of a “long-delayed duplex” and “Back in 2005, the county commissioners determined that affordable housing was a public benefit under the PUD.” The public may believe that housing was the allowed use for this parcel, when it never was intended for housing ever. I challenge you to find any 2005 County document that matches the Express’ reporting, or any document that ever talked about the PUD’s intention of housing on this parcel during a two to three year process.
Readers should always read with a critical eye, ask critical questions, and never assume that a publication is always right or unbiased. Photos and graphics are editorial choices, as are the decisions about what stories and graphics to run and what angle a reporter should take. The lawsuit about the Valley Club West Nine Parcel C (for public open space or future recreational use, as determined by the County and Rec. District) has been about us, as Blaine citizens, being able to count on the County’s written agreements made in a PUD. Don’t let the decisions made by the local media to tell you a story that they have created with a graphic and inaccurate reporting influence your thoughts about this situation.
Kiki, you lost. Sour grapes will get you nowhere.
Dr. Jill Biden is an example to young women everywhere. You, not so much.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In