Is There a Dr. in the House?: What's in an honorific

What's in an honorific? Not Shakespearean, but it is our topic for today. The question came up when the New York Times ran its several articles on the Cornel West controversy at Harvard. (West, a star professor in the Afro-American Studies department, was tiffing with the university's new president, Lawrence Summers.) Some of us brooding types noticed that the Times referred to West and other Afro-Am profs as "Dr."-"Dr. West," "Dr. Gates," etc.-while referring to Summers as plain ol' "Mr." (The Times did the same with the school's former president, Neil Rudenstine. All these people have Ph.D.'s, of course.) This was passing strange-the kind of thing that "made you go, 'Hmmm,'" in the words of the old rap song.

How's that? First, the Times seldom refers to any Ph.D. as "Dr." The head of Mt. Sinai Hospital, yes; the Nobel Prize winner in physics, perhaps. But an English prof or a sociologist or a drama teacher or something? Highly unusual. Second, all of the men referred to as "Dr." were black, while the palefaces were "Mr." Was this an act of racial condescension, the attempt of a great liberal newspaper to puff these aggrieved Afro-Am peddlers up? It seemed to many of us that this was likely. Issues of this kind were addressed by Roger Kimball in the last NR, in a piece on the West controversy, titled, pointedly enough, "Dr. West and Mr. Summers."

This business of honorifics may seem trivial-certainly while the nation is at war and all-but it touches on some enduring cultural and national questions. Cornel West and his like (not that there are many of his like, West being a pretty singular character) are very big on pride, self-esteem, and what Aretha Franklin called "R-E-S-P-E-C-T." He's just the sort to insist on, and elicit, "Dr."

And as it turns out, he did. It is the policy of the Times to leave it up to the individual-to the individual Ph.D.-holder-how he's to be referred to in the paper. A senior news editor at the Times confirmed to me that West has told the paper that he wants "Dr.," while Summers- one of the youngest men ever tenured in the history of Harvard, by the way-wants "Mr." (Arthur Schlesinger Jr.-by the way, again-has fought all his life against being called "Dr." He never earned a Ph.D., having been made a Harvard professor without one. Come to think of it, this may speak well for a Ph.D.)

Another official at the Times-in the public-relations department-told me that the paper's reporters make it a habit to ask subjects who hold Ph.D.'s how they'd like to be referred to. This, however, would be news to many. I know several people-Ph.D.-holders-who've been quoted regularly in the Times for years who tell me they've never been asked such a question. (They're called "Mr.," "Mrs.," or "Ms.") These include big-time, true-blue, super-serious academics. When I mentioned this to the senior news editor, he replied that these people need only give the word, and they'll be "Dr." (You know who you are; be it on your conscience.)

In the West controversy, the Times wasn't quite consistent. In late December-right off the bat-West was "Dr." But in a January 13 article, he was "Mr." (So, for that matter, were his departmental colleagues-no word yet on whether they're planning a lawsuit.) On December 29, Charles Ogletree-a (black) law professor at Harvard and a key ally of West-was "Mr." Later, on January 6, he was bumped to "Dr." He may well have requested "Dr." But he is almost surely the first law prof in history, or at least recent history, to be called "Dr." in the Times, or most anywhere else. ("Dr. Bork," anyone?)

The Wall Street Journal has a policy on honorifics too. Its stylebook holds that a Ph.D. is called "Dr." "if appropriate in context and if the individual desires it." The editorial page, however-always independent and (gloriously) contrarian-won't give you "Dr." unless you wear a white coat and stethoscope. The paper at large also requires that Martin Luther King be called "Dr. King," always. And this, the editorial page follows. King is virtually the only non-physician in this society always to be called "Dr." (and virtually the only dead person, too).

In fact, "Dr. King" is one of the great linguistic sacred cows in America. The Times does "Dr. King" as well, though many great and eminent persons who are dead are referred to in those pages by their last names only (e.g., Einstein). (Odd that Martin Luther King should be more a doctor than Einstein, isn't it?)

It is, indeed, remarkable that King should be "Dr." in almost every breath concerning him. Granted, ours is a country in which black men, not too long ago, were routinely called "boy" (or worse); we are rightly conscious of a little dignity, even redress. But what's more significant about MLK? That he repeatedly put his life on the line so that black Americans could, at long last, become fully Americans- eventually paying the ultimate price-or that, early in his life, he managed to plagiarize his way to a Ph.D.? Anyone, practically, can get a Ph.D.; very few can be a Martin Luther King Jr.