The Ph.D. is a trapping that means something, but not that much. There are fools with doctorates, and sages without them. Should Kierkegaard go unread because he is a mere Magister? Does anyone prefer to read his brother Peter over Søren because the former was called Doktor? Should we turn a blind eye to Eric Hoffer's True Believer because its author was a migrant farm worker and stevedore who, as a pure autodidact, had no credentials at all, not even an elementary school diploma? Sixty-five years after it was written, in these days of increased Islamo-militancy, Hoffer's penetrating book has gained even more relevance.
As Schopenhauer was always keen to point out, there is a difference between a philosopher and a professor of philosophy, namely, the difference between someone who lives for philosophy and someone who lives from it. The professors, parading their titles and credentials, show thereby that they are more concerned with appearance than with reality, when the office of the philosopher is precisely to penetrate appearance and arrive at reality. I am reporting Schopenhauer's view here, and would nuance his point by saying that of course a professor of philosophy can be a genuine philosopher. Schopenhauer himself would have to admit this given his great admiration for Kant. The professors he could not abide were Hegel, whom he considered a charlatan, and Fichte, whose Wissenschaftslehre he mocked as Wissenschaftsleere (empty of science) and as Onanie (masturbation).
An important text relating to the question of academic credentials is William James’ "The Ph.D. Octopus" in Essential Writings, ed. Wilshire (SUNY 1984), pp. 343-348) It first appeared in 1903 in the Harvard Monthly.
As for Claudine Gay, the black female president of Harvard University and well-known plagiarist who presides over this once-great institution’s decline into wokery, the less said the better.