Everyone, just chill over Jill Biden's degree

The other day, a controversy erupted over one of the least consequential subjects related to the presidential transition: whether first lady-to-be Jill Biden should use the honorific "Dr. Biden," since she is not a medical doctor but a community-college professor with a doctorate in education. As often happens, this "nontroversy" was one in which no one got to shine.

The first salvo was fired by essayist (and culture-war veteran) Joseph Epstein on the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal. He opened with the now-notorious line, "Madame first lady — Mrs. Biden — Jill — kiddo" and then suggested dropping the "doc": "‘Dr. Jill Biden’ sounds and feels a touch fraudulent, not to mention comical."

Cue the outrage. On Twitter, Epstein’s piece was denounced as "misogynist." Jill Biden spokesman Michael LaRosa called it "disgusting and sexist" and urged the editors to "remove this repugnant display of chauvinism . . . and apologize." Others lamented that Epstein’s broadside was typical of the disrespect to which women are routinely subjected in academia. Some urged women on social media to put their academic titles in their usernames as an act of defiance.

Northwestern University, where Epstein had once taught — a position he mentioned in the op-ed — issued a statement repudiating his "misogynistic views" and removed his page as an emeritus lecturer from its website. In response, former White House staffer Darren Beattie — a recent Donald Trump appointee to the board of a U.S. government cultural heritage agency — compared Biden to North Korean communist dictator Kim Jong Un.

Meanwhile, Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot stood by the op-ed and accused the Biden campaign of coordinating the backlash (as if Twitter outrage over perceived sexist put-downs needed coordinating).

I know "calm down" is a big no-no in any controversy involving women and feminism. But that’s what everyone needs to do in "Doctorgate."

There was no reason for The Wall Street Journal to give valuable space to Epstein’s petty broadside against the future first lady, with unrelated gripes about people using "Dr." despite having only an honorary doctorate. Epstein has done fine work, but he’s also a professional curmudgeon whose "kids these days" harangues tend to devolve into gratuitous nastiness. (He once slammed memoirs about terminal illness as an example of "victimhood" culture.)

Epstein actually has a valid point about the overuse of "Dr.," which The Associated Press stylebook says should be reserved for physicians, surgeons and dentists. But it’s not clear why Jill Biden should be singled out rather than, say, conservative guru Jordan Peterson, a professor of clinical psychology, whose website calls him "Dr. Peterson." (The double standards are more about politics than gender: Conservatives loved "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger, the pop psychologist with a physiology doctorate from Columbia University, and liberals have mocked Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka, who has a Ph.D. in political science, for insisting on "Dr. Gorka.")

However, the outrage was completely out of proportion to the offense. Does anyone really think Epstein’s transparently political jab can undermine the status of women in academe? And was it really "misogynistic"? Plenty of men have been targets of Epstein’s cantankerousness. Scrubbing Epstein’s page from the Northwestern website was an absurd overreaction. Suggesting that Epstein is being targeted for political persecution by the Biden camp is also an absurd overreaction. And if quibbling over Jill Biden’s use of "Dr." is petty, so is "respect my credentials" posturing.

The bright side is that this kerfuffle related to the incoming presidency is so utterly trivial — rather like the flap over Barack Obama’s tan suit. Maybe we’re seeing a return to normalcy after all.

Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine.

By Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.