Schlessinger (Was Re: One Tower, Two (or more) States)

[mwaters@mail.wesleyan.edu (Martin J. Waters)]

>Well, call me a liberal (G-d forbid), but I believe in calling anyone with
>a doctorate "Dr."  I prefer the European convention about that title, which
>calls even lawyers "Dr."  Why, we can even be sophisticated enough to
>understand that there are different types of doctorates.   E.g., being a
>physicist (Carl Sagan, r.i.p.) doesn't qualify you as a philosopher.  :-)
>
>If I understand aright, the APA's code of ethics does forbid the use of the
>title "Dr." by therapists without a doctorate in psychology, psychiatry or
>social work -- but Laura Schlessinger is no longer a practicing therapist,
>but the presenter of a radio show about moral questions.   So what's the
>beef?

        IMO, most of the public in the U.S. hears doctor and thinks,
medical doctor. I also know from many years doing PR for a college that
there are two schools of thought in higher education, generally, as well as
specifically among people who have doctorates. One is that using Dr. for
Ph.D. or other academic doctorate is pompous and silly and, in my
experience, most professors at the leading schools don't do it. At the risk
of sounding elitist, I'd say that in my experience, it's more often used by
people who hold doctorates in education or some other doctorate degree
that's not doctor of philosophy. On top of that, I've seen some people who
get honorary doctorates from colleges and have no actual earned doctorate
then go ahead and use the title. The other school of thought is that it's
an important credential, when it's an earned degree, and that, in higher
education circles, especially, when it's used it is understood that it
means doctorate degree of some type
        In Europe, it's different, I know. I recently was working with the
U.S. division of a German metal-fabricating manufacturing company at which
the German president insists on being called Dr., because he has some sort
of academic doctorate.
>
>>         BTW, for a major contrast with Schlessinger, check out the Dr. Joy
>> Browne (actually a psychiatrist) show sometime.
>
>Better check that: her web site says she's a psychologist.  Is she audible
>around here anywhere?

        It wouldn't be the first time (not even today, in fact) that I was
wrong. And if you're correct, I think less of her. I think this idea of
going on the radio claiming to be a doctor while doing a psychology-related
show is bogus. Would people shrug it off if Dr. Dean Edell, doing the
medical show, turned out to be a "doctor" only because he had a doctoral
degree in history? I don't think so. The fact is that Schlessinger's
doctorate degree is in a field that has nothing to do with
psychology/mental health/counseling.
        While I could try to argue, that, well, at least Browne's doctorate
is in psychology, I can't really go there. I think there's an unfortunate
lack of understanding among the public about the difference between
psychiatrists, who are M.D.'s, and all the others, like psychologists, who
are not, and that something  that contributes to that confusion is not
good.
`       And I think you're really splitting hairs (at best) claiming that
Schlessinger is no longer a practicing therapist. The fact is that she is
practicing every day on an audience of millions. And calling her show one
that discusses "moral questions" and differentiating that from mental
health/psychology also is off the track, IMO. If you listen to her calls,
many of them involve situations in which the people ought to be at least
considering getting actual professional psychological / mental health
counseling, or divorce mediation, etc.
        The idea of "moral questions" is what Schlessinger wants to project
for herself to give authority to her opinions, but it's basically just her
opinion in situations where someone else (Joy Browne, for example) might
come up with different advice. To use the latest Schlessinger controversy
as an example, I think it's morally reprehensible for her to be barking
that homosexuals are deviants, or whatever the exact homophobic crap is
that she spouts. So, who's right?
        In the case of Schlessinger in particular, I see the doctor thing
as a purposeful attempt to deceive people, no matter what she or her fans
say. And the argument that it's just entertainment also is hogwash. As much
as I find it unbelievable, the fact is that people listen to that show, the
pathetic callers call in, and actually take what she says as if it were
professional advice and act on it. As Schlessinger would be the first to
tell us, you need to take responsibility for your actions, and that
includes the results of those actions.
        There are no disclaimers of any kind on the Schlessinger show, to
start with, to my knowledge. How about this, "The following program is
hosted by  a narrow-minded bigot who has no professional qualifications to
advise anyone on emotional, mental, psychological or similar issues, but
has become a multi-millionaire doing this radio program while her son was
raised by hired help because millions of you are so clueless that you
actually listen to it."