A case for clearer academic honours

The recent proposal by the Karnataka government, as reported in the media (DH, March 19), to constitute a panel to regulate the conferment of honorary doctorates brings into focus an issue that has quietly grown in significance within higher education. While the move to introduce uniform guidelines is timely and welcome, it also presents an opportunity to ask a more fundamental question: is regulation alone sufficient, or is a deeper rethinking required?

Honorary doctorates have long been a means for universities to recognise distinguished contributions in fields such as public service, science, the arts, and social leadership. At their best, they symbolise a university’s engagement with society beyond the confines of academia.

Yet, over time, certain concerns have become increasingly visible. These include the growing frequency of such awards, the indiscriminate public use of the “Doctor” title by some recipients, and, in certain cases, a lack of consistency and transparency in selection criteria. When multiple institutions confer similar honours on the same individuals, questions about uniform standards and intent also arise.

The issue is not merely one of misuse but of conceptual ambiguity. Even when clearly designated as honoris causa, the term “doctorate” creates a symbolic overlap with earned academic degrees. This blurring of distinction can dilute the value of rigorous academic achievement, which is the result of sustained scholarship and research.

In academic practice, the inappropriate use of honorary titles as formal credentials is widely regarded as a breach of etiquette and, in some contexts, misleading. As higher education expands and becomes more competitive, preserving clarity in academic symbols becomes increasingly important.

The proposal to regulate honorary doctorates is an important corrective step. Standardisation of processes - covering eligibility, evaluation, and approval - can certainly bring consistency and reduce arbitrariness.

However, regulation primarily addresses procedures. It may not fully resolve the underlying concern: whether the current form of recognition itself is best suited to contemporary academic and societal expectations. While regulation can improve how honorary doctorates are awarded, it may not address the inherent ambiguity associated with them.

Several countries explicitly prohibit recipients of honorary doctorates from using the prefix “Dr”. India, too, has guidelines discouraging such usage, but these are not enforced.

In this context, an alternative approach may merit consideration: a gradual shift from honorary doctorates to a distinct, non-academic honorific framework. One possible model is the conferment of titles such as “Honorary Fellow”. Such a designation would be clearly non-academic, yet equally dignified and prestigious. It could be adopted at the university level or even within a broader national framework.

Importantly, the field of recognition could be explicitly indicated in the citation – for example, Fellow of Literature and Humanities (FLitt), Fellow of Performing Arts (FPA), or Fellow of Social Service (FSS). This would provide clarity while preserving the idea of honouring excellence.

A transition to such a framework offers several advantages.

First, it preserves the sanctity and distinctiveness of academic degrees, which are earned through rigorous intellectual effort. Maintaining this distinction is essential for the credibility of higher education institutions. Second, it enhances transparency and public understanding. A clearly defined non-academic honour avoids ambiguity and communicates its purpose more directly. Third, it aligns recognition practices with evolving expectations of accountability and institutional integrity – factors that are becoming increasingly important in a rapidly expanding higher education ecosystem.

Importantly, such a shift need not diminish the spirit of recognition. On the contrary, it could strengthen it by placing honours within a framework that is both conceptually clear and publicly credible. The current policy initiative may therefore be viewed not only as an effort to regulate an existing practice, but also as an opportunity to reimagine it.

In parallel, the proposed committee could also examine related concerns, such as the growing menace of fraudulent universities and fake degrees, which pose a serious threat to academic integrity.

A phased approach – where immediate regulation ensures consistency, and parallel deliberations explore alternative models – could offer a balanced and forward-looking pathway.

Systems of recognition must evolve in ways that uphold both excellence and clarity.

The writer is an agricultural entomologist, and consultant – biocontrol, agri-biotechnology and IPM, Bengaluru

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)