My husband received a thoughtful gift-a subscription to a magazine called
The Week. It is an aggregate of sorts that gives a concise overview of the week's major events as covered by numerous news sources from around the world, liberal and conservative alike. In the May 10, 2013 edition it gave a snapshot of an opinion piece by Charles C.W. Cooke from
The National Review, "Too many doctors in the house." In it, Cooke argues that only people with a medical degree should use the title "doctor" in everyday contexts. The Week's editors give three examples from Cooke's
original piece: Dr. Jill Biden, wife of Vice President Joe Biden, Dr. Cornel West, a philosopher at Princeton, and Dr. Maya Angelou, the recipient of 30 honorary degrees.* The piece focuses on the first, Dr. Biden, whose doctorate is in educational leadership.
I am struck by a couple of things. First, he says he doesn't use MA after his name, even though he earned one, because no one else is really interested in his "non-vocational education." That's his choice. Dr. Biden ostensibly feels that on some level it is important to use her title to share her credentials, perhaps because it makes her expertise more credible.
Cooke's primary gripe about Dr. Biden is she consistently uses the title Dr. across multiple contexts, even those outside her professional scope. He thinks when she's outside her professional context she should use a different title, presumably Mrs. or Ms. My feeling is that as the wife of a prominent political figure who is himself often in the media and whose title is regularly cited, her name is regularly used in formal contexts where titles are frequently used. Perhaps the regular use of "Dr. Biden" reflects the formality of much of her life. I wouldn't want to be constantly referred to as Ms. Bartlett (or worse Mrs. Bartlett) when I had worked hard to achieve the degree I had. Medical doctors are allowed and encouraged to be addressed as Dr. across numerous contexts. Why is it different for PhD holders and the other variants of doctoral degrees?
Second, he writes it is by chance that those who have doctorates can call themselves doctors. He provides the origins of the word. I wonder when the term "physician" arose and why we don't refer to medical doctors as "Physician Angelou" instead of Dr. Why is one group more deserving of the term than another?
Third, he quotes J. Frank Dobie who argues that the average PhD thesis is nothing but "a transference of bones from one graveyard to another" and adds he doesn't argue with that. Medical, scientific, social and cultural advances would not be where they currently are without the skills and insights discovered in seemingly useless PhD theses. I wonder why Cooke is so quick to paint all advanced degree work with the same negative brushstrokes.
Finally, I am most perplexed by the primary examples Cooke has chosen: a white woman (Dr. Biden), a black man (Dr. West), and a black woman (Dr. Angelou). It is likely each has had to surmount considerably more obstacles to earn their degrees than their white, male counterparts. There's a subtle suggestion that those with "real" degrees look like this man, Sir Raymond Firth (an ethnologist with a PhD)
There are numerous examples of other PhD holders who are men. For example: Bill Cosby, Ed.D in education; David Brin, PhD in physics; Jack Williamson, PhD in English; Brian May, PhD astrophysics. After doing a quick google search of each one it appears that Bill Cosby is most often discussed in conjunction with the title "Dr." Are men like him exempt from Cooke's contempt because they do not appear to use the title "Dr." to the widespread degree Dr. Biden and Dr. West do? It begs the question: whose choice is it, the person's or the source describing that person. For example, in
this piece Bill Cosby is presented with his title. Does this violate Cooke's code?
I don't mean to suggest that Cooke has been deliberately sexist or racist in his opinion piece. I suspect the examples that came to his mind did so because there is a broader social issue at work that goes largely unnoticed much of the time. As a society, we tend not to question the credentials and marks of prestige of white men. We are much more likely to question those markers when they are possessed by minorities such as women and people of color. NPR did a story a week or two ago on a physician from a minority background whose approach to his patients has had to change because they initially perceive him as unqualified because of his race. He invests greater time in them than his white colleagues because he has to set himself apart and find a way to connect to them. This is but one example. My overall point is to raise awareness of the inadvertent assumptions we make about people's backgrounds. Let's remember that professors also look like these women, Emma Perry Carr (PhD in chemistry) and Chien-Shiung Wu (PhD in physics).
(For thought-provoking discussions of some of these same issues I highly recommend NPR's new blog on
code switching.)
*For the record, I generally agree that whatever title a person chooses to adopt it should be grounded in an actively earned achievement. In the case of Maya Angelou, since she is the recipient of honorary degrees bestowed upon her for the contributions she's made to literature and society, not coursework completed, I am personally uncomfortable using the term Dr. with her. However, it's not up to me. It's up to her and the institutions who granted her those degrees. If I am ever lucky enough to meet her I will happily greet her by whatever title she prefers!
Images from Flickr The Commons which have no known copyright.
