Dear Sir,

I am hoping that The Royal Gazette will continue its policy of opening up its newspapers to engage a greater diversity of opinions residing outside of Bermuda, expanding its readership in the process.

Please kindly allow me to respond to Academics First, a Letter to the Editor that appeared on October 7 in which the author questioned the tenets upon which an honorary degree is presented, not conferred.

An honorary degree may be viewed as a piece of paper that is a recognition by an authorising body without intellectual rigour. In advanced societies, intellectual rigour is the engine for social and economic growth, and development of a country. Having said that, from comments it would also appear that the writer is of the view that academics are entitled to wear letters (Dr/PhD) attached to their names by virtue that they “spend a great deal of time to study, and they pay a lot of money and have to pass all subjects and present a thesis, which has to be argued and accepted before the title is conferred”. My unorthodox view is that the writer’s position cannot be sufficient for entitlement.

Consequently, the question arises as to who is entitled and equipped to wear letters behind or in front of their names.

A PhD usually suggests scholarly attainment in a particular skill. It conveys rights and status on holders.

One issue is the false image on the part of those who accept the gift of an honorary degree, who may wear it inappropriately by presenting a false impression of intellectual rigour to an unsuspecting public.

An instance of this may be where the recipient holds his/herself as a specialist in an area where there is no such objectively measured speciality, aggravated by the acceptance of payment.

The other issue is whether, after having attained a PhD from an accredited institution of higher learning, an individual no longer practises his skill, namely one who sails by without intellectually engaging his craft, who does not contribute to the development of his skill, or to society, and to his country, whether he or she can be reasonably viewed as a scholar at the level of a PhD,

In more advanced countries, a PhD only implies but does not say anything fundamental about a person’s future ability to be a productive, contributing member in his particular academic field or to society in general.

The evidence suggests that some recipients of honorary degrees have been far more productive members of society than many university-accredited PhDs.

The issue then boils down to the question of purpose of honorary degrees and purpose of accredited degrees at the PhD level.

KATHLEEN PINDER