the sociology of the dr. jill biden brouhaha

The Jill Biden doctorate controversy is one the lamest public events in a long time, rivalling the tan suit debacle, the “binders full of women” blow up and the endless mockery of presidents who play golf. And for the record, I definitely side with Jill Biden’s defenders. A doctorate simply means scholar or teacher, a doctorate of education is a real advanced degree, and it’s appropriate for professional situations, as long as your aren’t in a hospital. And yes, I also agree with her defenders that the original WSJ post was cranky and condescending, to say the least. And also, yes, if you were offended by the WSJ column, you just got gaslighted.

Here’s the real sociological question: When can you use your professional title in society? When are you allowed to assert status in a way that would be recognized by others as acceptable? Aside from monarchs and perhaps the most elite of political leaders like a US President or Prime Minister, I think the answer is only in professional settings. Here are some examples:

1. A medical doctor goes to a Subway sandwich shop and demands that the person at the counter, whose title is actually “Sandwich Artist,” demands to be called “Dr. Karen.”
2. A medical doctor goes home and demands that her spouse call her “Dr. Karen.”
3. The high school principal, who has an Ed. D., asks to be called “Dr. Karen” during faculty meetings.
4. The medical doctor asks that a nurse call her “Dr. Karen.”
5. The medical doctor asks that other doctors call her “Dr. Karen.”
6. A medical doctor is in conference with her lawyer over a non-medical legal issue (e.g., closing a real estate deal) and wants to be called “Dr. Karen.”

I think #1 and #2 are wrong, as these are either informal settings like family or out of expertise settings. #3 is fussy but people would go along with it. Schools are more chill than hospitals, but the hypothetical principal is the leader and wants to be recognized as such. #4 and #5 would also be accepted because, like #3, Dr. Karen is in the relevant professional setting. #6 is actually ambiguous. A legal consultation is certainly a professional setting, but Dr. Karen’s medical degree is not relevant. In practice, we might say that Dr. Karen actually has earned her title and merits the honorific, but it’s not needed and a bit fussy. I think that Jill Biden would be justified using Dr. in policy settings, as it’s actually normal. For example, in a formal meeting at the Department of State, it would be normaly to introduce an expert on Chinese politics with a Ph.D. as “Dr.” Everyobody obviously knows that the hoorific refers to scholarly expertise, not medical expertise. Biden, for example, might asked to speak at the Department of Education and her Ed.D. is obviously relevant. Super elites, like Presidents and monarchs, seem to over ride these considerations and people will use the honorific without problem in most settings.

Personally, I will tell graduate students to call me by my first name because they’re colleagues in training. I tell undergraduates to use “Mr. Rojas,” since that was what my father used. And if it was good enought for him, it’s good enough for me. Students from the South will insist on “Professor” or even “Doctor.” Since it’s in the obviously professional setting of a university, it’s fine by me. Finally, just because the public has conflated medical training with the word “doctor” doesn’t mean that the title should be dropped in non-medical settings.

++++++
50+ chapters of grad skool advice goodness: Grad Skool Rulz ($4.44 – cheap!!!!)
Intro to sociology for just $1 per chapter – INSANE BARGAIN!!!!!
A theory book you can understand!!! Theory for the Working Sociologist (discount code: ROJAS – 30% off!!)
The rise of Black Studies:  From Black Power to Black Studies 
Did Obama tank the antiwar movement? Party in the Street
Read Contexts Magazine– It’s Awesome!!!!

Advertisement