Please check out this panel discussion with myself and Dr. Marlon Swai and Dr. Keshia Abraham on language and race, and implications for the classroom and beyond.
A recent Wall Street Journal Opinion piece by Joseph Epstein was entitled “Is there a Doctor in the White House? Not if you need an MD: Jill Biden should think about dropping the honorific, which feels fraudulent, even comic”. In addition to the piece being sexist (as many female professors and professional women are often called Miss, Mrs., Ma’am, and even worse by their students, colleagues, clients, and patients) and personally disrespectful to Dr. Jill Biden (kiddo, to a grown-ass woman?), I argue that the question itself is rather banal, if not adolescent. At any rate, I would like to comment on the linguistic aspects of the terms Doctor and Phd and justify why professors–who are not medical doctors–are justified in using them. I would like to add that if Epstein (we won’t give him a title, we’ll just refer to him in a Welcome-Back-Kotter-kind-of-way), would have just googled the term, he never would have asked such a stupid question out loud.
So, why are individuals who have PhDs called doctors in the first place? They are not medical doctors, or so the ‘argument’ goes. And, why are they called Doctors of Philosophy, when they do not all receive a degree in philosophy?
Simply put, the ‘doctorate’ degree has nothing to do with medicine. The term ‘doctor’, in this sense, is an academic title that derives from the Latin word docere (pronounced [dó.ke.re]) meaning ‘to teach’ (Merriam-Webster online). According to a Wikipedia article, “it appeared in medieval Europe as a license to teach (Latin: licentia docendi)”. Apparently, it has been used in this way for hundreds of years by medieval universities and scholars, originally applying the term to early Church fathers and authorities who taught and interpreted the Bible, but later extending it to any ecclesiastical, then later, academic and secular authority, teacher, or pedagogue. Merriam-Webster says that the term doctor of the church can apply to an eminent theologian who expounds doctrine. Its meaning of ‘teacher’ is clearly seen in languages such as Spanish, where the modern-day word docente means a ‘teacher’ or ‘professor’.
Over time, the academic title PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) came to apply, not to the discipline of Philosophy proper, but to the earlier, more general meaning of the term philosophy which referred to any discipline outside of the Big Three fields of study, Theology, Law, and Medicine. According to Wikipedia, “such studies were then called ‘philosophy’, but are now classified as sciences and humanities–however this usage [of ‘philosophy’] survives in the degree of Doctor of Philosophy”.
The title of ‘doctor’ sits in relation to Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees. Interestingly, the title of master has also undergone some change in commonly understood and spoken English compared to its earlier Latin and academic roots. Today, a master is generally understood to be a person who is an expert or is at the top of their field, in addition to person owning other people who work for him; thus, the height, or pinnacle of achievement, or someone in the topmost position of authority. However, the term, in an academic sense, is simply derived from a word meaning male teacher, maestro, thus, it refers to someone, because of the conferral of a university degree, who is qualified to teach. This definition is consistent with the historical definition of doctor (or, teacher), which also explains why many of them teach at universities and colleges. Even the term maestro in English is limiting, its pronunciation anglicized, referring only to someone who leads or conducts an orchestra. Historically, however, the orchestra conductor was called maestro because he was the teacher, or instructor, of the musicians, who were often his students, in addition to being in charge of the orchestra.
I say all of this to say two things: When your fundamental premise is based on pudding, your entire argument is untenable. In other words, the idea that you have to be an MD to have the term doctor applied to you has no historical or logical basis. So, to ask why it applies to an particular individual makes no sense. Second, when you can’t even do the most basic research, such as look up words in an online dictionary, or google a doggone Wikipedia article, as I did this morning, then you probably should not be given a platform to pontificate (look it up, Epstein), especially from a place of such extreme ignorance. The fact is: If he didn’t know it, he’s stupid. If he did know it, he’s sexist. Regardless, I think the case can be made for both. Maybe this suggests that even Op-Ed pieces need to be peer reviewed.
Dr. Hiram L. Smith, PhD, MA, BA, and a BMF besides
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy
“Doctor.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctor. Accessed 25 Dec. 2020.
“Master.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master. Accessed 25 Dec. 2020.
Originally, a racecard was “a printed card giving information about the horse races scheduled for a particular race meeting.” Its first attested use was in 1836 (Oxford English Dictionary Online). The newer, two-word play on ‘racecard’, ‘race card’, came on the scene a century and a half later, around 1974, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online. It has a different meaning, but one related to, and probably derived from, the original meaning. According to Merriam-Webster, a race card is “the issue of a person’s race as it relates to a particular contest (such as a political campaign or a court trial) —often used in the phrase play the race card.” The meaning of this term, however, goes far beyond the bland dictionary definition.
The expression: “He’s playing the ‘race’ card” is now pretty much a fixed expression in American English, but if you analyze its internal structure, it becomes clear that it is a powerful metaphor that evokes many semantic frames. The most obvious frame is the poker playing frame. He’s playing the ‘race’ card (i.e., not a Joker or an Ace), but the ‘race’ card. This metaphor is very revealing. Just as when you’re in a card game, you ‘play’ a card that is advantageous to you–it’s a strategic move, in other words. It’s a TRUMP card. This is exactly how the term race card is interpreted.
In its application, the expression to play the race card is meant to suggest that certain claims of racial discrimination are illegitimate, and part of a deliberate strategy on the part of the so-called ‘victim’ or claimant to use anti-discrimination laws as a form of (undeserved) redress (usually for a lawsuit). The term came into being after the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) (the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and other anti-discrimination legislation), and when black people (and other minorities) were newly beginning to file racial discrimination lawsuits in response to ongoing systemic problems of exclusion, discrimination, and abuse in the workplace and elsewhere. Title VII addresses not only discriminatory practices against employees and applicants based on race (and other factors), but also establishes the enforcement powers of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC), monitoring and regulations, as well as civil action that can be taken by aggrieved claimants. Well, while these protections may seem like open and shut cases to the average lay person, these cases are actually very hard to prove in a court of law under Title VII.
“It would be reasonable to interpret [Title VII] language as simply requiring proof of causation without proof of intent”, says Linda Hamiliton Krieger, JD, Law Professor, and author of “The Content of our Categories: A Cognitive Bias approach to Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity” (1995). She continues: “This is not, however, how section 703 has been construed. Under existing law, the disparate treatment plaintiff […] proceeding under Title VII…must prove not only that she was treated differently, but that such treatment was was caused by purposeful or intentional discrimination.” (italics mine) This creates some serious hurdles for the plaintiff who claims that race discrimination has occurred. For instance,
- In the absence of racial slurs or other explicit, consistent racist behavior, how can one prove intention? In other words, how can you prove what is in the mind of the employer? His actions, though not kind, may simply be because he doesn’t like you, or your attitude–not because he’s a racist. “You know John, he’s a jerk with everybody.”
- In order to establish that she was fired because of her race, and for no other reason, a plaintiff has to be a damn-near model employee who has never come in late, has never had an infraction–of any kind–with the employer, other employees, or with customers. And she must have a sunshiny personality. If she has had any problems whatsoever–and even worse, a write up–then all the employer has to do is say: “I didn’t fire her because she’s black–I fired her because she came in late twice.” Or, “I let her go because she doesn’t get along with the other personnel.”
- Even explicitly racist language, or racial jokes in the workplace, must be proven to create a hostile environment, and they must be proven to be examples of racial animus against the employee and her race, and that they were purposefully meant to hurt her. The plaintiff must prove that the jokes are indeed racist, not just in poor taste, or off-color humor. (Pardon the pun) And that she’s not just overly sensitive, thin skinned, misunderstanding, or imagining things. “After all, we tease Bob about his hairline. (And he doesn’t get offended.)” “I call Jim a redneck all the time, and he doesn’t see it as racist.”
Early on (at least since 1974), the term He’s using the race card has been used as a legal strategy to avoid having to pay large settlement claims. Businesses and their attorneys began to claim that this is just another baseless, fraudulent, or frivolous lawsuit filed by another person playing trying to unjustly enrich himself. The unarticulated assumption was: After all, they’ve been historically poor and resentful, and the system has no mechanism for them to gain upward social mobility otherwise. Therefore, this a strategy–an easy card to play–in order to get a quick payday. It’s much easier than a ‘slip and fall’ in the grocery store. If we’re not careful, paying out will set a precedent that may bankrupt the nation. (Notice who was actually playing the race card.)
Now, the term has been extended beyond use in courts and is used as a discursive strategem to delegitimate almost any claims of discrimination by blacks. In school, in the marketplace, and on the Internet.
The problem is…the deck is stacked with ‘race’ cards. Blacks don’t have to play them–they’re already there.
References:
The Content of Our Categories: A Cognitive Bias Approach to Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity, 47 Stan. L. Rev. 1161 (1995).
“Racecard, n.1.” OED Online. Oxford University Press, March 2020. Web. 4 May 2020.
“Race card.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race%20card. Accessed 4 May. 2020.
Picture credit: impflip.com
If evolution is progressive and the first humans were from Africa, what is the unarticulated assumption about the European and the African? The Neanderthal Man was the first homo sapien (or, thinking man). Interestingly he was discovered in the Neander Valley in Germany. His African predecessors (homo habilis and homo erectus) were nit wits. 19th Germany, Britain and France were in a race to prove that intelligent humans came from their respective soils.
Ernst Haeckel, prominent (and extremely influential) 19th German century naturalist promulgated evolutionary theory that “provided scientific support for the particularly virulent racism that infected some strands of German thought during the late 19th and early 20th centuries culminating in Nazi race theory”. According to Kant (and many others) races, groups and nationalities are species and are in a struggle for competition. International war and domination are an example of ontology recapitulating phylogeny with the European on top. He must be superior biologically. Most early evolutionists made that direct connection between the natural world and social connections, capitalism and imperialism. They are the natural result of competition between racial “species”. ~Evolution: The remarkable history of a scientific theory by Edward Larson 2004
The idea of whether humans evolved first came to fruition in 1838 when Darwin visited the island of Tierra del Fuego. The short, dark people said Darwin, resembled the monkeys at the London Zoo. He called them the lowest form of humanity on earth (Darwin, Journal of Researches, p. 373). He asked: “Does a negress blush? Animals I would think should not…I am almost sure the Fuegians did.” It was from these racist thought experiments and comparisons, not science (and certainly not through any empirically or biologically valid taxonomy), that the idea of human evolution was born. Before this, the idea of human evolution was hardly ever considered (only the transmutation of animal species was discussed). These taxonomic relations borne out of pseudo-science of the day always placed the European at the top of the evolutionary chain and the Negro at the bottom, both biologically and culturally. This gave the some scientific validity to racial domination and social stratification couched within a capitalist ideology.
For those who make claims about what the “original” intent of evolution was vs. what it is now: if you have not read this book (or ones like it), you are remiss (to put it mildly). Put it on your shelf.https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Remarkable-History-Scientific-Chronicles/dp/0812968492?fbclid=IwAR1-BiHAKh2z9O3tfbcVuiVVZrHXlkzIWQN0irOE_TroLZpsrnLbumRkHoc
This is my first blog post ever. Although I do have a Facebook page, which I use too much, and a Twitter account (follow me at @hiram2424) that I don’t know how to use, I figured I would try to separate my Facebook (which I think is way too heavy for some folks. I might try to make it more about friends, family, and food.) My first short test blog will be about a time when I knew EVEN LESS about blogging and more about late night TV.
HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher used to have a regular segment on the show called “Blogga Please!” So, back in 2008 or so, I wrote on his blog:
“Your liberal white audience may not know that “blogga, please” is a reference to the expression, ‘Nigga please’–but I do. And I think you also know that it’s very offensive–not because you’re using it, but because you think you CAN use it simply because you’re a big liberal. You don’t get a pass. AND because you think we’re too stupid to catch it. Well, I caught it.”
I never saw it on the show again after that. Always made me wonder.
But is Blogga Please the name of his Tumblr blog?