Interstitiality

The Authority of a Dr.

In orientation the other day, the faculty was asked what they prefer to be called in and out of the classroom. It has always struck me as interesting the responses the people give to this question and the rationale or lack of rationale that people supply for their position.

It seems to me that there are basically two positions: 1) to be called by your first name; or 2) to be called by your title, “Dr. Yamada” or “Professor Yamada.”

I prefer the first for reasons that I did not give yesterday. At Seabury, professors who decide to go by their title and last name usually feel the need to provide a rationale for their preference. The rationale makes a lot of sense: certain professors prefer to maintain appropriate boundaries between students and teachers. In an environment where faculty members are very accessible to students, and where community life often blurs role distinctions, this rationale can be an appropriate way to keep clear boundaries. I don’t agree, however, with the characterization that some of my colleagues give about the downside of calling professors by their first name, i.e., that being on a first name basis means that students and faculty are being “chummy” or too “friend-like” or “friend-ly.” This is certainly not why I prefer to be on a first name basis with my students.

For me it has to do with the nature of authority. There are different kinds of authority in the classroom, some given some earned. I am given the authority to shape the course in the ways I see fit. I walk in with that power, and I take that responsibility seriously. I also have the power to evaluate. This is non-negotiable. No matter what students call me, this authority is clear. I believe, however, that one’s authority in the classroom is also earned. My students can respect that fact that I am the professor and they are not, but that does not mean that I have earned their respect as a good, caring, and engaged teacher. I cannot make them be engaged by an act of power. I cannot make them enjoy the class. This aspect of classroom authority is earned. For me, it sets up a different environment for learning when I require students to acknowledge my authoritative status. I choose instead to earn their respect through my engagement with them, through my knowledge of the subject matter, and through my concern for them as students in the learning process. Hopefully, at the end of the course, the student will have walked away with a lived knowledge of my status as a doctor and teacher. That is, I prefer to let my teaching and teaching style dictate my qualifications as “Dr.” If I can’t earn such respect in the classroom, asking my students to call me Dr. Yamada or Prof. Yamada isn’t really worth much.

Now this is not to say that I don’t understand the position of those who prefer to be called Dr. or Prof. So and So. In the case, of many scholars of color and women, establishing this kind of authority in the classroom is vitally important, since it is a researched fact that women and scholars of color often have difficulty establishing their authority with students. Nor do I disagree with the performative aspects of this gesture in an environment where student/faculty relationships can be confusing. This is simply my personal response and rationale for being called “Frank” rather than “Dr. Yamada.” It is not simply tied to a notion that I prefer to be “friendly” with students, but is rooted in my understanding of authority and the ways in which respect is given or earned in the classroom. A rationale does not always accompany such a position. So I figured I should give one.

Posted by Frank Yamada at September 22, 2005 09:21 PM