These are days when the
value of a doctorate has been considerably compromised by dubious institutions
awarding such titles to persons of disrepute. The University system has not
done itself any favours by rewarding mediocrity with professorships, relaxing
what was previously a strict system of qualification and thereby enabling those
with hardly any publication worthy of the title ‘academic’ to strut around as
though they are of equal standing with men and women of eminence in their
chosen field of study.
We hear today of obituaries
and appreciations published in newspapers being tagged onto portfolios
submitted for consideration by committees in Universities appointed to
recommend promotions. Articles in refereed journals or books put out by reputed
publications are rare in these submissions, I am told.
All that matters is to get
the ‘marks’ as laid out in the point system against which one’s claim is
assessed. This is what Sasanka Perera calls the Nava Marksvaadaya or the New Marxism (k not x), tongue in cheek.
These are not days when
one’s work is one’s best advertisement. These are days where non-work is
bandied around as work, anthill accomplishments are talked as though they
required effort akin to Everest-scaling. These are package-and-packing-is-all
days.
These are days of skin-tone
and eyewash, cleansing days of delicately removing the residue of mediocrity
and emptiness. These are address-changing, name-altering days.
Yesterday I wrote a story
of two doctors (see Daily News of October 12, 2010). It was about a senior
lecturer trying to impress on first year medical students the importance of
dressing well. The man, to my mind, went beyond the parameters of reason which
an academic and doctor who was earlier the Secretary of the Sri Lanka Medical
Association, Ruvaiz Haniffa kindly outlined to me in an email. I summarize as
follows:
“I disagree that
inculcating in young doctors the necessity of proper attire and proper
communication are a waste of time in the context of the profession. To clarify
this point let me give a quote I use at my lectures-You must not only treat the
diabetes in Mr Piyasena but should try and treat Mr Piyasena who has diabetes.
We at Colombo try to impress that Medical students and future doctors should
dress appropriately. There is no compulsion on students to follow this dress
code though they are encouraged to do so. We at no time insist that students
are attired in the best possible clothing imported from the UK or some foreign
land but we do insist that they ‘dress appropriately’ while they are within the
Faculty premises attending to official academic activities.’
I am not disagreeing with
the above position. What I objected to was what I felt was a crazy and uncalled
for fixation on European clothing preferences. My word-giving friend Errol
Alphonso also emailed me just a minute ago and he put things in perspective:
‘People carry themselves
not on account of their clothes, but in spite of them.’
To get back to title and
name, i.e. in terms of the opening thrust of this essay, I am wondering why
people do not understand that in the final instance and for the most part they
carry themselves not on account of their titles or their names but in spite of
these, and moreover that any attempt to place trust on the reverse diminishes
them in the judgments that count.
The ‘doctor’ I wrote about
in that article, I was told this morning, was not a doctor. He is no physician,
has no medical degree. This is no crime and is not a disqualification to teach
medical students of course since the curriculum includes subjects to teach
which one does not necessarily have to have such a degree. Biochemistry can be
taught by someone who does not have any clue about diagnosing a disease or
prescribing medication. Physiology, Anatomy and other disciplines too, I am
sure, can be taught by non-Medical persons provided they are qualified and
skilled.
I am merely stating my
ignorance regarding the person’s educational background and apologizing to him
and to others who might be offended by being bracketed faculty-wise and
discipline-wise with him.
Here’s what’s objectionable
though and for which I will not seek pardon but express sadness and sympathy.
The man is ashamed of his name. Let us assume that his name is Pannipitiya
Arachchige Jinadasa Pitigala. His near and dear call him Victor. Why? A pet
name? I think not. A person who is ashamed of the name his parents gave him is
essentially kicking his parents and their memory, is spitting on his ancestors
and teaching his children to do likewise; i.e. kick him and spit upon him.
I am astounded by the
extent to which name and title and what’s implied therein can impact a man’s
values and conduct. Even admitting the pernicious and persistent negatives
attached to certain social categories, there is a sense in which a human being
can rise above these distinctions he/she is born into and which, in the final
analysis, are totally arbitrary.
People do this all the
time. They rise above the labels of ‘lowerness’ and rise above labels of
‘higherness’ too; yes, the latter too is handicap to those aspiring to be
better human beings tomorrow than they are today or were yesterday.
Labels diminish us,
especially when we use them on ourselves and believe we are naked if we do not.
Titles and names are not
clothes that are necessary to cover nudity and conform to acceptable minimums
in the matter of social intercourse.
They are frills. We
shouldn’t make too much of them, I think. Some do, though. They think these are
the clothes and knowledge and wisdom the frills. They don’t know they are
naked.
0 comments:
Post a Comment