By now, you probably remember that the Oxford internal medicine department at Harvard University released an internal memo on Wednesday saying that it is “not acceptable to describe an academic physician as a ‘counselor’ or a ‘specialist.'”

And that the department was going to revise its rules on medical professionals.

But now that the memo is out in the open, it’s time to talk about the real reason why we’re so obsessed about the word “doctor” in general.

This is why I think the Oxfordian is worth reading.

The first thing to say about Oxford’s memo is that it’s not about academic medicine.

In fact, it is not even about medical academia at all.

The Oxfordian doesn’t use the word doctor to refer to academics at all, but rather to their professional activities, like teaching, writing, speaking, teaching, speaking.

If you are a doctor, for example, you are also an academic.

And if you are not a doctor at all (like an orthopedic surgeon, a social worker, or a social services worker), you are still an academic and are not considered a physician.

The letter is really about how academia is being used as a political weapon.

As the letter notes, there are “serious problems” with the current way that academia is defined.

“For instance, it appears that academic academics are defined as ‘people who have a particular specialty,’ and the Oxford Dictionary defines ‘specialty’ as ‘a discipline, or field of study, which requires specialized knowledge, skills, or abilities, in particular for the pursuit of a particular goal.'”

In other words, academic medicine is defined as a subset of academia, but it is still considered part of the academic academic enterprise, not the other way around.

The memo goes on to make the point that the academic community is becoming increasingly divided, and this divides into two camps: those who are pro-privatization, and those who support it.

This divide has led to a “disturbing lack of clarity about what is actually ‘academic medicine’ and what is merely ‘a subset of academic medicine.'”

The memo further says that “the current definition of academic as applied to the world of health care is inconsistent with the definition of the field of medical research.”

That is, the Oxford dictionary defines “academic” as being an academic, but not a medical academic.

This confusion between the academic and medical communities is an important problem.

Academia is often thought of as a separate field, but the truth is that its definition is tied to the political economy of academic life.

The political economy is defined by what you earn, not who you are.

Academics are paid based on the quality of their work.

Academe doesn’t have to be about what you think, it can be about who you think you are, or what you say.

Academs are a subset, but a very specific subset.

It is this particular subset that has become so politicized that it has become almost impossible to separate academics from the rest of the workforce.

The current definition also limits the type of work that can be done by academic physicians.

This means that academic medicine has become a profession in the truest sense, with a set of specialized skills that are not available to the rest.

The memo also points out that the “academics are also part of a larger political economy that has the power to impose a set agenda.”

Academicians are professionals who are paid by governments, but they are also paid by the public sector.

Academies are not independent contractors, they are funded by public funding.

This has made the current definition for academic medicine very problematic.

Academiems are being funded by government money, and if that money is being wasted on medical research, then why aren’t the rest for that?

This means academics are being “paid by politicians, politicians by governments.”

The idea that academics have become a political entity is a new phenomenon in the world.

It has existed for a long time, but now that it becomes a reality, the political landscape is being shaped by the needs of academics, rather than those of the rest the population.

So what is this new political economy really about?

Well, academics are a part of what is called a “consensus” (or consensus-driven).

This is a group of people who are in a consensus to a common set of goals, and it is a set that has grown increasingly politicized in recent years.

Academic medicine is part of this consensus, because it is funded by the government, and is part and parcel of this political economy.

It may be a good idea to get used to it, but academia is a profession, and so are many other professions, like doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants, and many others.

So it’s important to distinguish between academic medicine and other medical fields.

The real difference is that academics are in the majority. They