On December 11, 2020, Joseph Epstein wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal titled “Is There a Doctor in the White House? Not if You Need an M.D.” that sparked controversy across the country. The article appears to counter the First Lady's use of the title “Dr.,” but Epstein's particular word choice exposes much more than first meets the eye. More than merely articulating his position on titles of non-medical doctors, the article reveals Epstein's archaic perspective towards women in power — that they are likely undeserving — and his perspective towards his own role in academia, particularly what appears to be his own feelings of inadequacy.

Epstein introduces the opinion piece with an immediate tell. He writes, “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” (Epstein). The tell is the use of the word “kiddo,” which can be perceived to be infantilizing, demeaning, and condescending, especially when addressed to the First Lady of the United States of America. The use of increasingly informal names, settling on “kiddo,” may seem at first to have been intended to innocently establish a lighthearted tone, but it actually reveals Epstein's true feelings regarding women in positions of power: he views them as simply below him, like a child. Epstein's comfort in applying such an intimate term like “kiddo” to someone he is in no way familiar with can be judged as paternalistic and condescending. The intimacy of the term makes one wonder if he would also apply it to a man in power. Additionally, the titles that Epstein actually does use in this opening sentence, “Madame First Lady” and “Mrs.,” are reliant on Jill Biden's status as wife to President Joe Biden. Although “First Lady” is arguably the highest title one could give to Jill Biden (rivaling “Dr.,” which would not be used by Epstein due to the very nature of his article), “Mrs.” is a title that is increasingly going out of fashion, replaced by “Ms.,” which doesn't reflect marital status. Given that Biden's use of the title “Dr.” is notable for its reliance on her own accomplishment, her doctorate, Epstein's use of “Mrs.”, which is reliant on her relationship to a man, is especially significant. Epstein then also throws in her first name, which is not only inordinately casual, but is also easily identifiable as a woman's name. The four ways Jill Biden is referred to by Epstein — two of which rely on marital status and the other two overly familiar and condescending in tone — reveal his true perspective that, more than the use of “Dr.”, it's the use of “Dr.” by a woman that is troublesome to him.

Epstein continues his condescension and displays his prejudice throughout the first paragraph. First, he does this with another small remark: “Your degree is, I believe, an Ed.D., a doctor of education” (Epstein). Obviously Epstein knows Biden's degree, so why does he introduce the information like this? He does this in order to continue the informal atmosphere that he began in the first sentence with the infamous “kiddo,” and also to once again place himself above Jill Biden by attempting to establish that he doesn't need to be certain of her degree in order to judge her. Then the paragraph winds down with a statement that has concerning pronoun choice: “A wise man once said that no one should call himself ‘;Dr.’ unless he has delivered a child” (Epstein). Even though “he” and “himself” can be gender-neutral terms, their use as such is not only antiquated, but assumes that men are the default gender. Unless Epstein is completely tone-deaf, he must understand the significance of Jill Biden's gender in this debate. By using these pronouns, Epstein is either accidentally displaying his own subconscious bias against women — specifically educated women and women with doctorates — or he is purposefully using exclusionary language.

Epstein's comments after this first paragraph display his perspective that women are undeserving of a title like “Dr.” much more explicitly. After discussing the debasement of the honorary doctorate due to the high frequency at which they are given, he turns his attention to political correctness. Epstein writes: “Political correctness has put paid to any true honor an honorary doctorate may once have possessed. If you are ever looking for a simile to denote rarity, try ‘rarer than a contemporary university honorary-degree list not containing an African-American woman’” (Epstein). In 2010, 42 million Americans labeled themselves as black, either alone or in combination with one or more other races (US Census Bureau). Assuming women are about 50% of this total, almost 7% of Americans are African-American women. So if the honorary doctorate is truly given out as frivolously as Epstein claims, it would follow that African-American women should appear on many honorary doctorate lists, yet Epstein labels the phenomenon as “political correctness” — why? His next mention of political correctness is even more concerning: “Between the honorary degrees given to billionaires, the falsely intelligent, entertainers and the politically correct, just about all honor has been drained from honorary doctorates” (Epstein). As Epstein leaves literally no other details about who the “politically correct” are, apart from his off-color joke, the natural thing the audience can interpret this phrase to be referring to are educated women and minorities. Reducing these groups to “the politically correct” is perhaps the most revealing part of this article in regards to his bigotry.

Epstein's passion regarding this subject may come from projecting his own insecurities regarding his perceived lack of accomplishment in academia. Most of the article focuses on his own academic journey and his thoughts on the use of the title “Dr.” for himself and others during his career. Epstein uses the second paragraph to briefly summarize his academic credentials. He writes: “I have only a B.A. in absentia from the University of Chicago — in absentia because I took my final examination on a pool table at Headquarters Company, Fort Hood, Texas, while serving in the peacetime Army in the late 1950s” (Epstein). The use of the word “only” reflects Epstein's feelings of inadequacy for missing out on higher education himself. Epstein clearly places a great significance on education. He missed out on not only achieving a true doctoral degree, but also the regular end of his educational journey for his bachelor's degree. Additionally, Epstein spends a substantial chunk of the article talking about honorary doctorates, which at first seems strange considering Jill Biden received her doctorate through fulfilling all the proper requirements. Not to mention, people with only honorary doctorates rarely use the title “Dr.” anyway. This discussion all makes much more sense once Epstein reveals that he himself received an honorary degree. He even mentions that, because of his honorary doctorate, he was often called “Dr. Epstein” while teaching and as the editor of the American Scholar (Epstein). His fixation on honorary doctorates, which are academically unrelated to real doctorates like Jill Biden's, only highlights his insecurity about the rise of women with doctorates while simultaneously not having one himself.

Epstein's insecurity about being called “Dr.” while not having a real doctorate is likely only part of his larger insecurity of having received opportunities and awards for which he was unqualified. Another example of this broader insecurity is his comments surrounding his work at the American Scholar, the newspaper for the academic honor society Phi Beta Kappa. While discussing his time as an editor for the American Scholar, he clarifies: “Let me quickly insert that I am also not a member of Phi Beta Kappa, except by marriage” (Epstein). This may have been a jab at Jill Biden, who ostensibly holds her high status due to her husband. Regardless, his need to mention his perceived lack of qualifications for this position — something neither necessary nor relevant to the editorial — is evidence of a more general feeling of self-doubt.

In the end, Epstein never does fully justify his position on titles of non-medical doctors. Instead, the article communicates Epstein's perspective on his own role in academia, which ultimately reveals a dated perspective towards women in power, where women are infantile and unworthy of their successes. The reader can only surmise that he feels inadequate regarding his own titles and accomplishments, which likely contributes to why he feels women are similarly undeserving of the titles he failed to achieve. Epstein's attempt at admonishing Jill Biden backfired, instead painting a detailed picture of his own deep rooted prejudices and insecurities.