Nothing scares men more than a successful woman – it’s getting quite exhausting

A few short months after the New York intelligentsia responded with horror to a New York Times op-ed titled “Send in the Troops” during the Black Lives Matter protests, an American publication has done it again. The Wall Street Journal over the weekend published a column about Dr Jill Biden, soon-to-be first lady of the White House, and in particular her well-earned doctorate. In it, 83-year-old former university lecturer Joseph Epstein, who does not have a doctorate, wrote: “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 EdD, 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 himself ‘Dr’ unless he has delivered a child. Think about it, Dr Jill, and forthwith drop the doc.”

It was a strange, mean-spirited piece that said very little about our political moment. “The PhD may once have held prestige, but that has been diminished by the erosion of seriousness and the relaxation of standards in university education generally, at any rate outside the sciences,” Epstein continued. He added that Jill Biden received her doctorate “as recently as 15 years ago”, meaning probably long after standards had supposedly dropped.

Unlike when this happened at the liberal New York Times, resulting in the firing of the opinion section’s editor, the Wall Street Journal’s head of op-eds released an unapologetic statement seemingly engineered to pour oil on the open fire. “There’s nothing like playing the race or gender card to stifle criticism,” said Paul A Gigot, before going on to theorise that the column might have received extensive negative press because of a coordinated effort by the Democrats. Many within the publication then stayed silent, though there were small instances of people breaking ranks – as in the case of Melissa Korn, a higher education reporter, who wrote on Twitter: “That op-ed belittling Jill Biden, urging her to drop the Dr, mocking her research on community college, likening her degree to an honorary doctorate, is disgusting … Pieces like that make it harder for me to do my job.”

As a woman and an opinion editor, this one hit me close to my heart. I spend my day commissioning people whose views I do and don’t agree with, and I always enjoy the debate. I’ve interviewed British Labour Party members, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats; I’ve spent time with Republicans and Democrats here in the US. Of course, I have my own political views (which are no secret, as many of them appear in my own columns) but I strive to always stay objective when ensuring I’ve commissioned a good spread of perspectives for The Independent. Rather than whether or not I agree with what a writer is saying, I try to apply some simple quality controls: Is the view “universalisable”, in the words of Immanuel Kant? Is it unclouded by personal experience (to be informed by personal experience is one thing; to be clouded by it is another)? And is it written without prejudice?

To me, the WSJ piece failed to pass the test. The view becomes nonsense when you try to universalise it: we can’t simply strip away every person’s doctorate given after 2004, and to do so would be profoundly unhelpful. The personal experience of the writer seemed to inform the piece entirely in the worst way: he had not ever achieved a doctorate himself, and clearly felt somewhat aggrieved about that fact. It’s hard not to read it as “I didn’t get one but they’re worthless anyway, so there!” Most importantly, it didn’t pass the prejudice test. Women are continually told that their jobs, specialisms and pastimes are less important (have a look at how the World Cup is spoken about versus Fashion Week, when both are examples of frivolous fun mainly enjoyed by one gender.) It’s no secret that it seems to particularly wind up men when women achieve more than them on paper. When that happens, prejudiced people will inevitably attempt to downplay those achievements, implying that because they didn’t fulfil X, Y or Z randomly chosen extra criteria, they actually “don’t count”.

Always classy, Jill Biden tweeted in response to the furore: “Together, we will build a world where the accomplishments of our daughters will be celebrated, rather than diminished.” In response, there was an outpouring of support, including from the daughter of Dr Martin Luther King – also a non-medical doctor – and from former first lady Michelle Obama, who wrote: “Right now, we’re all seeing what also happens to so many professional women, whether their titles are Dr, Ms, Mrs, or even first lady: All too often, our accomplishments are met with scepticism, even derision. We’re doubted by those who choose the weakness of ridicule over the strength of respect. And yet somehow, their words can stick – after decades of work, we’re forced to prove ourselves all over again. Is this really the example we want to set for the next generation?”

It’s still time for The Wall Street Journal to distance themselves for an op-ed that added nothing to the conversation. I hope they do – because after four years of Trump, I was looking forward to an environment where prejudice wasn’t a badge to be proudly displayed.