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.

Besides King, the most famous non-stethoscope-wearing "Dr." in America is Kissinger-though HK long ago asked the New York Times to call him "Mr." (which it does). (I myself have always thought "Dr. Kissinger" rather natural for the man, given his background in Germany: Herr Doktor and all that.) Another former secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, had a curious transformation. At first in the Times, she was "Mrs."; then she was "Ms."; finally, she was "Dr."-at her request ("Doctor's Orders," as a title-brilliant-in the Times put it). Albright's teacher at Columbia, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in the Carter administration, is "Mr." in the paper.

Condoleezza Rice, the current national security adviser, is "Ms. Rice"- her choice. Yet White House spokesmen routinely refer to her as "Dr. Rice." This is a bit strange, because the president's chief economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, is very much a "Dr."-Ph.D. in economics from Harvard-but is never, as far as I can tell, called "Dr." He's "Mr." (or just "Larry"). Why should this be? Is this a sneaking bit of racial condescension or puffery? Is it a harkening back to an earlier national security adviser, Dr. K? Or is it because there are a lot of Texans and southerners around the White House?

There is very much a North/South split in the country about "Dr." (as about so many other things). It is common practice for professors in the South to be called "Dr." At the universities I attended-Yankee-you would sooner have struck a professor than called him "Dr." In fact, it was something if the sullen and self-absorbed students grunted their acknowledgement of the prof at all.

Feelings about "Dr." are bound up in that bitch-goddess, Status. (Yes, I know: James said Success. But Status is a sister.) The best line in either Austin Powers movie belongs to Dr. Evil, who, when addressed as "Mr.," says, "I didn't spend six years in evil medical school to be called 'Mr.,' thank you very much!"

Our senior editor Jeffrey Hart, professor emeritus of English at Dartmouth, remembers serving as a campaign adviser to Nixon. To Jeff's amusement, Nixon always called him "Dr. Hart." This accords with the Nixon we know: class-conscious, status-nervous, chip-on-the-shouldery, the boy from Whittier who received a tuition scholarship to Harvard but couldn't go, because the family didn't have the money to send him to and from Massachusetts. Nixon, according to Jeff, would also say, "I'm no Ph.D., but . . .," before launching into a disquisition on some arcane topic.

For some, to be called "Dr." is a way of saying, "I am some-body," in the words of the Rev. Jesse Jackson. (Ah, "the Rev. Mr. Jackson" and "the Rev. Al Sharpton"-that's "a whole 'nother" article, as we say in my family.) Many years ago, another NR senior editor, Rick Brookhiser, surveying all the mail sent to Bill Buckley, adjudged that the most interesting letters were those from prison. And the least interesting? The ones from people who signed themselves "Ph.D." I know someone who's a lawyer in West Virginia who has found that the surest way to rattle his opposition's expert Ph.D. witness is to address him as "Mr."

But then, I have another acquaintance who earned a Ph.D. in biochem-and he pleads for his "Dr." because, "There aren't many perks in this line of work, and I'd like my little payoff from polite society." Well, at least he's not a drama teacher. The bulk of the Ph.D.'s I know balk at being called anything but "Mr." (or maybe "Professor," in the case of academics), believing that "Dr." has come to mean Marcus Welby, and that's about it. As for those who get bent out of shape when they're "Dr."-less, all we can say is, "Ph.D., heal thyself."