Post from Kay Steiger's Blog:
The Marketplace of Degrees
Bad? Brilliant?
You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.
Scott Jaschik has a long and thoughtful piece over at Inside Higher Ed in light of St. Louis' Washington University decision to award anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly with an honorary doctorate. What, Jaschik wonders, is the point of honorary degrees? In the case of Schlafly, the university is endorsing a free exchange of ideas, officials claimed. But, as Jaschik pointed out,
Most of those protesting the Schlafly degree say that they would not object to her giving a lecture on the campus. Some might picket outside, but they would never challenge the right of a controversial figure to express her ideas, they say. An honorary doctorate is different from a lecture, they argue, because it is an honor, because it takes place at graduation, and because a doctorate — as the highest degree a university can award — conveys a sense of institutional endorsement.
If WU is merely endorsing the Schlafly's right to express ideas rather than the ideas themselves then what's the point of the award. Universities already endorse the free exchange of ideas in the very tenants of the institution of education.  By citing this as a reason, university officials are implying Schlafly is doing something brave and new by putting forth unpopular ideas -- but the ideas she purports are merely reinforcement of old stereotypes and a resistance to real science and education.

Furthermore, Jaschik notes that other universities have dealt better with this idea of doling out honorary degrees. The University of Chicago, for instance, only awards honorary degrees to scholars that are nominated by the school's professors. Cornell University avoids the subject altogether and just doesn't award honorary degrees. The question that Jaschik poses is a good one. With so many universities giving out honorary degrees, they can't all be to thoughtful scholars or those that make significant social change. In many cases, it seems that honorary degrees are nothing more than a publicity stunt or means of getting a famous person at a graduation ceremony. When so many people labor long and hard for years to earn real doctorates, the practice of awarding honorary ones seems silly and unfair. I'd be happy to see this convention junked altogether.

Reader Comments

Comments are closed for this post.

  
Phyllis Schlafly
By Megan May 22nd 2008 at 5:34 pm EDT
Phyllis Schlafly put herself through college test-firing machine guns in a munitions plant, went back to school to get a law degree after her six children were grown, and managed to take down a constitutional amendement that was supported in the platforms of both major parties and only a few states away from ratification. Whether or not you agree with her, she is the definition of badass.
Re: Phyllis Schlafly
By Erika May 23rd 2008 at 10:51 am EDT
Megan,
You mistake her hypocrisy for "badass." While she would gladly take all those "feminist rights" like the ability to work outside the home, higher education, a career in punditry, even an attempt at being a congressional representative, she would chastise and deny those rights to other women. She is the definition of a feminist who can't reconcile her "values" with her life choices. Had she practiced what she preached, there would be no honorary degree for Phyllis, she would simply be a retired home maker.
  
Eh.
By Seth May 26th 2008 at 6:04 pm EDT
Is anyone impressed by an honorary degree? Ever?

Chris Matthews has 19.
  
Campus Progress

Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.

Campus Progress