first name basis

[Hegemony]

I agree that writing "Dear Sir" when you know the person's name is peculiar and not following the rules. If you know their name, you should always use their name. Otherwise it looks as if you are trying to imitate a form letter.

The use of "Sir" and "Mr." and so on is really about demarcating status, isn't it? That's why Kay (or Mr. Sixteen, or Sir) would like a receptionist (lower in status) to address him as "Mr. Sixteen," but the doctor (equal or higher status) can call him "Kay."

The other former model was about how well you knew the person — kind of like the use of "vous" and "tu" in French. So friends could call say "Kay," but, say, business acquaintances would say "Mr. Sixteen." I don't think this one has been in force since the 1930s or so.

The advantages of sticking to an outdated system is that one can claim the moral high ground and victim status at the same time. "I'm only doing what's right, and people criticize me for it!" Thus I knew a guy in England who insisted on referring to all modern prices in guineas and shillings. He was very proud of sticking to what's "traditional and right," and took umbrage at those who rolled their eyes. And of course those who feel they are not accorded the respect they deserve will tend to insist on being addressed by a title, however much the modern age has moved on. I remember a duchess in a documentary complaining that online drop-down forms (Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., etc.) rarely included an option suitable for a duchess. The Oxbridge drop-down menus do still include those, along with "Lord High" and "HRH" and a lot of other very amusing options.

[Caracal]

I leave it to all of ye to ask yourselves, sincerely, what you would do if confronted in a classroom with a 'student' with a swastika tattooed on his neck, and 'f*ck you' (asterisk mine) on his hands.

I've encountered these tats, and others far more offensive, Every. Single. Semester. since I've been teaching (i.e., Fall 1997). My approach is to respectfully ask all students on the first day of class to dress and present themselves in a professional manner, including dressing and speaking in ways so as not to offend or to embarrass themselves or others, and to cover up any ink that others might find offensive. (The ones with those tats know exactly who they are and what the tats in question are and why they offend; it's often why they got them in the first place.)

My general rule is: if you wouldn't want your granny or your 4-year-old niece or nephew to see or hear it, we don't need to see or hear it either, so cover it up or knock it off. I've yet to have any student give me more than token resistance to that or continue to display such things in my classrooms. (Baseball caps, sweatshirts, and such can cover a lot; students also do a pretty good job of calling each other out when needed.) If problems persist, I deal with them calmly, one-on-one: I hear the student out, explain my position, and while we can agree to disagree, the classroom is not the place to get into a war of wills. 

There are so many more important things to focus on in this life than somebody's tattoos, clothes, or how they address me. If I go through life looking for things to be offended by, I'll never run out of grievances, but what a miserable way to live.

Huh, I can't say this is something I've ever had to deal with. I mean I'm not examining student tattoos closely, but I've never noticed anything that's a problem.

[jerseyjay]

I suspect many if not most of you would adjust to my life circumstances no better, and in most cases much worse, than I have.  The life of a satisfied college professor, happily ensconced in a community and a job where you would simply never have to encounter and regularly experience that which I deal with essentially daily, are essentially in different universes.  I do not want to brag about myself, but I think I have dealt with these things as best as possible.

I have to say I do not understand this. It appears to be a non sequitur. From what I understand from this, KaySixteen is unhappy with his life circumstances. Without knowing the details, all I can say is fair enough, and sincerely wish that things work out better for him. However, I do not see what this has to do with being addressed by his first name by receptionists. While it may be true that I live in a different universe than KaySixteen, I have known people who have experienced truly horrible life circumstances--deaths, illnesses, redundancies, jail time, divorces, you name it--and nobody has insisted on following an outdated social norm because of this. I am not a religious person, but I do like the underlying theme of the serenity prayer, and I hope I have the wisdom to know that I cannot change social norms regarding names.

On the other hand, people of once-elevated circumstances who experience a loss of status do often insist on people following outdated social norms because it constructs a fiction of not having lost status. I am not sure if this is the case with Kay Sixteen, though.

I sincerely get that it is annoying that people do stuff that you were raised to believe is maleducato. I honestly believe that the world would be a better place if people still wrote in cursive using fountain pens. And I miss getting letters in the mail. And I think that a suit is sometimes better than "business casual." But I also realize that life is what it is and there is no percentage in wishing I lived 100 years. (And I also realize that there are many good things that have come in the last 100 years.)

I also note that sometimes signs of respect can also be signs of, well, less respect. I recently witnessed a mother and her young child. For most of the time, the mother addressed her child with the informal "tú". When the child started throwing a tantrum, she switched to the formal "usted" in chastising the child. Another person I know does this with their spouse--using the formal sense when they are angry. My point is that being referred to as "mister" can mean many things, not all of them positive.

That does not mean I have to like these trends, no.  Nor will I.  I leave it to all of ye to ask yourselves, sincerely, what you would do if confronted in a classroom with a 'student' with a swastika tattooed on his neck, and 'f*ck you' (asterisk mine) on his hands.

Again, I find this a non sequitur. Perhaps KaySixteen believes that every day, in every way, things are getting worse and worse. In which case the conflation of having a receptionist use his first name is and an apparent Nazis in his class makes sense. Otherwise, I do not see what one has to do with each other--using Christian names is the camel's nose, leading to Nazi students? If the tattooed student referred to him as Professor Sixteen, would that be better? I just don't understand the conflation.

[Kron3007]

I have had several debates on this forum with Dr. Sixteen, and this goes much deeper than names.  It seems he was raised  in a very traditional and religious setting and wants to impose his moral values and standards on society across the board. 

To me, it seems he has somehow travelled through time from 1800's puritan USA and is struggling to adjust to the future, ranging from names, LGBT rights, racial interactions, drug policy, and even technology (see the cable thread). 

I can see how it would be hard being raised with such values and trying to navigate the outside world, but you can't expect the world to bend to your culture.  It would make for a tough go. 

[Caracal]

I sincerely get that it is annoying that people do stuff that you were raised to believe is maleducato. I honestly believe that the world would be a better place if people still wrote in cursive using fountain pens. And I miss getting letters in the mail. And I think that a suit is sometimes better than "business casual." But I also realize that life is what it is and there is no percentage in wishing I lived 100 years. (And I also realize that there are many good things that have come in the last 100 years.)

These are also all examples of things that you could do if you wanted to, but which would be bizarre to expect others to do. You can send letters in the mail, in cursive, written with a fountain pen. I often wear a coat and tie to class, because I think it's flattering on me, I enjoy wearing tailored clothes and it makes me feel good. (Also men's sport coats have so many pockets!) These things might make us seem old fashioned, but at best it will come across as charming, and at worst nobody cares.

What doesn't really work is being angry and taking personal offense that other people aren't doing these things. If Kay wants to call students by honorifics, he can go ahead and do so. If I'm being honest, I do think the casualization of America is a bad thing, I do judge people who show up at airports in their pajamas and I think there are a lot of people out there who aren't doing themselves any favors with how they dress. However, these are the kind of boring opinions, I bore friends and family members with till they lose patience and tell me to stop. I don't take it as a sign of personal disrespect when students wear workout clothes to class or get angry that tenure track colleagues don't dress as formally as I do.

[apl68]

I suspect many if not most of you would adjust to my life circumstances no better, and in most cases much worse, than I have.  The life of a satisfied college professor, happily ensconced in a community and a job where you would simply never have to encounter and regularly experience that which I deal with essentially daily, are essentially in different universes.  I do not want to brag about myself, but I think I have dealt with these things as best as possible.

That does not mean I have to like these trends, no.  Nor will I.  I leave it to all of ye to ask yourselves, sincerely, what you would do if confronted in a classroom with a 'student' with a swastika tattooed on his neck, and 'f*ck you' (asterisk mine) on his hands.

This week, one of my staff members attended the trial of a man who shot and killed her brother-in-law.  The victim had been a likeable man, generous, and a good father in an intact family.  However, he had experienced severe injuries that left him with ongoing pain and trauma that doctors tried to handle with heavy medication.  The medication affected his mind in a way that caused him to have highly uncharacteristic borderline psychotic episodes.  It was during one of these episodes that he physically attacked a man who happened to be carrying a concealed weapon.

The man who shot him was a youth with no previous criminal record.  He was a member of a gun-toting culture who panicked and killed somebody under severe but not life-threatening stress.  The jury should have considered this a major set of mitigating factors.  Instead they put him away for 45 years.  Most relatives of a shooting victim would have been pleased at such a severe verdict.  But my staff member, and some others in the family, feel that the sentence was unduly harsh.  They are deeply compassionate and sad for this youth who shot and killed one of their own kin.  Their stance reminds me of the Amish community some years back who publicly forgave the school shooter who murdered their community's children, and backed that statement up by assisting the murderer's family.

They are able to have forgiving attitudes like this because they have a New Testament Christian understanding of God's grace.  They understand that we're not a society of victims and perpetrators--I am a victim, you are a perpetrator--but, rather, a whole society of perpetrators who have sinned against God.  Part of accepting God's grace by following Jesus to receive forgiveness of our sins involves recognizing that from that point on our lives must be about passing on God's grace.  Which allowing Jesus to transform our lives will enable us to do.

I'm saying all this to say that this New Testament Christian grace is not compatible with holding gnawing grudges over the sort of pet peeves and disappointments that we all have.  God's grace in our lives should enable us to let these sorts of things go.  It may be a challenge, but we can and must do it.  I've found in my own case that learning to live like this is very freeing, and makes life much better.

[Juvenal]

I suspect many if not most of you would adjust to my life circumstances no better, and in most cases much worse, than I have.  The life of a satisfied college professor, happily ensconced in a community and a job where you would simply never have to encounter and regularly experience that which I deal with essentially daily, are essentially in different universes.  I do not want to brag about myself, but I think I have dealt with these things as best as possible.

That does not mean I have to like these trends, no.  Nor will I.  I leave it to all of ye to ask yourselves, sincerely, what you would do if confronted in a classroom with a 'student' with a swastika tattooed on his neck, and 'f*ck you' (asterisk mine) on his hands.

This week, one of my staff members attended the trial of a man who shot and killed her brother-in-law.  The victim had been a likeable man, generous, and a good father in an intact family.  However, he had experienced severe injuries that left him with ongoing pain and trauma that doctors tried to handle with heavy medication.  The medication affected his mind in a way that caused him to have highly uncharacteristic borderline psychotic episodes.  It was during one of these episodes that he physically attacked a man who happened to be carrying a concealed weapon.

The man who shot him was a youth with no previous criminal record.  He was a member of a gun-toting culture who panicked and killed somebody under severe but not life-threatening stress.  The jury should have considered this a major set of mitigating factors.  Instead they put him away for 45 years.  Most relatives of a shooting victim would have been pleased at such a severe verdict.  But my staff member, and some others in the family, feel that the sentence was unduly harsh.  They are deeply compassionate and sad for this youth who shot and killed one of their own kin.  Their stance reminds me of the Amish community some years back who publicly forgave the school shooter who murdered their community's children, and backed that statement up by assisting the murderer's family.

They are able to have forgiving attitudes like this because they have a New Testament Christian understanding of God's grace.  They understand that we're not a society of victims and perpetrators--I am a victim, you are a perpetrator--but, rather, a whole society of perpetrators who have sinned against God.  Part of accepting God's grace by following Jesus to receive forgiveness of our sins involves recognizing that from that point on our lives must be about passing on God's grace.  Which allowing Jesus to transform our lives will enable us to do.

I'm saying all this to say that this New Testament Christian grace is not compatible with holding gnawing grudges over the sort of pet peeves and disappointments that we all have.  God's grace in our lives should enable us to let these sorts of things go.  It may be a challenge, but we can and must do it.  I've found in my own case that learning to live like this is very freeing, and makes life much better.

This.

[Wahoo Redux]

I have had several debates on this forum with Dr. Sixteen, and this goes much deeper than names.  It seems he was raised  in a very traditional and religious setting and wants to impose his moral values and standards on society across the board. 

To me, it seems he has somehow travelled through time from 1800's puritan USA and is struggling to adjust to the future, ranging from names, LGBT rights, racial interactions, drug policy, and even technology (see the cable thread). 

I can see how it would be hard being raised with such values and trying to navigate the outside world, but you can't expect the world to bend to your culture.  It would make for a tough go. 

I tend to get embroiled here and elsewhere with "conservative" people, and I realized one day that it was because I grew up in one of those nurturing households with old-school conservative parents born in the '30s who were beautifully honest, generous, gentle, and terribly judgmental, and most of all, they were perpetually irritated and outraged by the facts of an evolving Western culture. 

Hair, rock'n'roll, TV, driving, clothes, jewelry (particularly on boys), language, outlook, careers, college majors, the military, staying up at night, Democrats, homosexuality, obesity, body parts showing, and yup, being referred to by their first names outside their peer group.  One of the first things my father said when meeting the woman who would become my wife was "We will not hire anybody with a tattoo."  It was a complete non sequitur since neither my wife nor I have tattoos; it was just something that had been galvanizing him as more and more people were sporting ink. He also did the same thing when meeting my friends after I defended my master's thesis.  My mother was upset one night at a Chinese buffet when her 6 and 8-year-old granddaughters bought lick-on tattoos from a gum-ball machine (mom also objected to them learning to belly-dance because it was not dignified and it was "sexual").  Once at a symphony orchestra concert, my father in a full business suit looked over the crowd and complained, "No one dresses up any more."  And the anecdotes can go on.

I guess the point is exactly what Kron says above.  People sometimes conflate their subjective viewpoints of ephemeral social conventions, often which were inculcated during childhood, with fixed ethics and aesthetics.  These folks will spend their lives resentfully telling everyone about their personal judgments----powerlessly, as it turns out.

I'm all for the casualization and slobification of Western culture.  If jammies are comfortable, particularly on an airplane, why not wear them?  Casualization makes dressing up cool again.  And slobification means we can relax, show off our new ink, and comfortably address each other in any respectful manner we choose. 

[Kron3007]

I have had several debates on this forum with Dr. Sixteen, and this goes much deeper than names.  It seems he was raised  in a very traditional and religious setting and wants to impose his moral values and standards on society across the board. 

To me, it seems he has somehow travelled through time from 1800's puritan USA and is struggling to adjust to the future, ranging from names, LGBT rights, racial interactions, drug policy, and even technology (see the cable thread). 

I can see how it would be hard being raised with such values and trying to navigate the outside world, but you can't expect the world to bend to your culture.  It would make for a tough go. 

I tend to get embroiled here and elsewhere with "conservative" people, and I realized one day that it was because I grew up in one of those nurturing households with old-school conservative parents born in the '30s who were beautifully honest, generous, gentle, and terribly judgmental, and most of all, they were perpetually irritated and outraged by the facts of an evolving Western culture. 

Hair, rock'n'roll, TV, driving, clothes, jewelry (particularly on boys), language, outlook, careers, college majors, the military, staying up at night, Democrats, homosexuality, obesity, body parts showing, and yup, being referred to by their first names outside their peer group.  One of the first things my father said when meeting the woman who would become my wife was "We will not hire anybody with a tattoo."  It was a complete non sequitur since neither my wife nor I have tattoos; it was just something that had been galvanizing him as more and more people were sporting ink. He also did the same thing when meeting my friends after I defended my master's thesis.  My mother was upset one night at a Chinese buffet when her 6 and 8-year-old granddaughters bought lick-on tattoos from a gum-ball machine (mom also objected to them learning to belly-dance because it was not dignified and it was "sexual").  Once at a symphony orchestra concert, my father in a full business suit looked over the crowd and complained, "No one dresses up any more."  And the anecdotes can go on.

I guess the point is exactly what Kron says above.  People sometimes conflate their subjective viewpoints of ephemeral social conventions, often which were inculcated during childhood, with fixed ethics and aesthetics.  These folks will spend their lives resentfully telling everyone about their personal judgments----powerlessly, as it turns out.

I'm all for the casualization and slobification of Western culture.  If jammies are comfortable, particularly on an airplane, why not wear them?  Casualization makes dressing up cool again.  And slobification means we can relax, show off our new ink, and comfortably address each other in any respectful manner we choose. 

I think as we age many of us are in a similar boat on this.  My father was all about "clothes make the man", and had all sorts of old fashioned views (don't get me started about immigrants...).   It would not have been ok to address adults by their first name unless they were very familiar.  He was a product of his times.

However, I am impressed with how much my father's views have evolved over the years, and I feel he is much happier for it.  I'm sure he still thinks you should dress to impress and that tattoos have gone too far (he has one, but was a navy guy). I agree there is a time and place for that, but don't know that the airport is one. 

As I devolve into an old man I too think some trends are silly or stupid, like the jogging pants that are baggy, but tight around the ankles that were popular a few years ago (really?).  The difference, is that while I think they are stupid looking, I don't care that half my grad students wore them, as long as they don't make me.  So, instead of getting peeved, I have a chuckle.

I had someone contact me the other day about research collaboration and addressed me as "bro".  Dr. Sixteen and I agree that this is not the right way to address someone in this situation, but where I had a laugh, he would have gone red in the face. 

A laugh is good for the soul, going red in the face is not good for anything.

[Caracal]

.

I'm all for the casualization and slobification of Western culture.  If jammies are comfortable, particularly on an airplane, why not wear them?  Casualization makes dressing up cool again.  And slobification means we can relax, show off our new ink, and comfortably address each other in any respectful manner we choose. 

I have had several debates on this forum with Dr. Sixteen, and this goes much deeper than names.  It seems he was raised  in a very traditional and religious setting and wants to impose his moral values and standards on society across the board. 

To me, it seems he has somehow travelled through time from 1800's puritan USA and is struggling to adjust to the future, ranging from names, LGBT rights, racial interactions, drug policy, and even technology (see the cable thread). 

I can see how it would be hard being raised with such values and trying to navigate the outside world, but you can't expect the world to bend to your culture.  It would make for a tough go. 

I tend to get embroiled here and elsewhere with "conservative" people, and I realized one day that it was because I grew up in one of those nurturing households with old-school conservative parents born in the '30s who were beautifully honest, generous, gentle, and terribly judgmental, and most of all, they were perpetually irritated and outraged by the facts of an evolving Western culture. 

Hair, rock'n'roll, TV, driving, clothes, jewelry (particularly on boys), language, outlook, careers, college majors, the military, staying up at night, Democrats, homosexuality, obesity, body parts showing, and yup, being referred to by their first names outside their peer group.  One of the first things my father said when meeting the woman who would become my wife was "We will not hire anybody with a tattoo."  It was a complete non sequitur since neither my wife nor I have tattoos; it was just something that had been galvanizing him as more and more people were sporting ink. He also did the same thing when meeting my friends after I defended my master's thesis.  My mother was upset one night at a Chinese buffet when her 6 and 8-year-old granddaughters bought lick-on tattoos from a gum-ball machine (mom also objected to them learning to belly-dance because it was not dignified and it was "sexual").  Once at a symphony orchestra concert, my father in a full business suit looked over the crowd and complained, "No one dresses up any more."  And the anecdotes can go on.

I guess the point is exactly what Kron says above.  People sometimes conflate their subjective viewpoints of ephemeral social conventions, often which were inculcated during childhood, with fixed ethics and aesthetics.  These folks will spend their lives resentfully telling everyone about their personal judgments----powerlessly, as it turns out.

I'm all for the casualization and slobification of Western culture.  If jammies are comfortable, particularly on an airplane, why not wear them?  Casualization makes dressing up cool again.  And slobification means we can relax, show off our new ink, and comfortably address each other in any respectful manner we choose. 

I think as we age many of us are in a similar boat on this.  My father was all about "clothes make the man", and had all sorts of old fashioned views (don't get me started about immigrants...).   It would not have been ok to address adults by their first name unless they were very familiar.  He was a product of his times.

However, I am impressed with how much my father's views have evolved over the years, and I feel he is much happier for it.  I'm sure he still thinks you should dress to impress and that tattoos have gone too far (he has one, but was a navy guy). I agree there is a time and place for that, but don't know that the airport is one. 

As I devolve into an old man I too think some trends are silly or stupid, like the jogging pants that are baggy, but tight around the ankles that were popular a few years ago (really?).  The difference, is that while I think they are stupid looking, I don't care that half my grad students wore them, as long as they don't make me.  So, instead of getting peeved, I have a chuckle.

I had someone contact me the other day about research collaboration and addressed me as "bro".  Dr. Sixteen and I agree that this is not the right way to address someone in this situation, but where I had a laugh, he would have gone red in the face. 

A laugh is good for the soul, going red in the face is not good for anything.

Yeah, I agree.  Usually, when I find myself judging other people, it's because I think their choices reflect on me and they are judging me. I decided I liked wearing a coat and tie to teach and spent some time trying to find things that I thought looked nice and doing it made me feel good. Great, but then I felt self conscious because most instructors don't wear ties and I worried that people thought I was putting on airs or being weird. I felt like I had to justify my choices (internally, I wasn't saying any of this out loud to anyone at work) which I then did by creating a narrative about everyone else being a lazy slob.

I can't pretend I'm totally over this, but I recognize now that it's all sort of pointless. Nobody is actually judging me-I'm wearing a coat and tie, not a Darth Vader suit. If anything, I should be happy to be in a profession where I can just wear what I want and everyone else can too.

[Wahoo Redux]

As I devolve into an old man I too think some trends are silly or stupid, like the jogging pants that are baggy, but tight around the ankles that were popular a few years ago (really?). 

Fashion fads are always stupid.  It is really amusing to watch my 15-y.o. nephew revolve through the brief fads of his local peer group----soap, energy drinks, sweatpants, and video games.  He was greatly offended when I pointed out that his new hairstyle (which evolved from a Justin Bieber-inspired mop to a plain old curly down-the-back-and-over-the-bangs mop) that he would have been a good hippie kid.  Oh no! Not the hippies!!!  Next time I saw him, he had cut his hair.

Part of getting old is realizing how stupid your own fashion choices were back in the day.  It amuses me endlessly that "the mullet" is coming back into fashion.  I'm waiting for Day Glow, Mtv, and Bubblicious to reconstitute. 

[Kron3007]

As I devolve into an old man I too think some trends are silly or stupid, like the jogging pants that are baggy, but tight around the ankles that were popular a few years ago (really?). 

Fashion fads are always stupid.  It is really amusing to watch my 15-y.o. nephew revolve through the brief fads of his local peer group----soap, energy drinks, sweatpants, and video games.  He was greatly offended when I pointed out that his new hairstyle (which evolved from a Justin Bieber-inspired mop to a plain old curly down-the-back-and-over-the-bangs mop) that he would have been a good hippie kid.  Oh no! Not the hippies!!!  Next time I saw him, he had cut his hair.

Part of getting old is realizing how stupid your own fashion choices were back in the day.  It amuses me endlessly that "the mullet" is coming back into fashion.  I'm waiting for Day Glow, Mtv, and Bubblicious to reconstitute. 

Yes, I was not innocent when I was young, speaking of mullets....


Apparently belly shirts for guys is a thing again too.  I heard it on the radio, but then had a few sightings at a music festival this summer.  That is one thing I didn't think would return.

[masonjones5711]

It's not uncommon for people in their 40s and 50s to prefer being addressed by their titles, especially in more traditional or hierarchical cultures. Personal preferences for addressing and being addressed can vary widely among individuals. Ultimately, it comes down to personal comfort and mutual respect in how people choose to address each other.

[bio-nonymous]

It's not uncommon for people in their 40s and 50s to prefer being addressed by their titles, especially in more traditional or hierarchical cultures. Personal preferences for addressing and being addressed can vary widely among individuals. Ultimately, it comes down to personal comfort and mutual respect in how people choose to address each other.

I have found that often younger professors prefer to be called by their honorifics so as to distinguish themselves further from their students, when they are often not that far from in age or appearance. In addition, as you mention, in certain cultures (i.e., a medical school campus), use of honorifics by students when addressing professors publicly or in formal communication, is mandated.

My own personal belief is that is it tiring with all the "Dr. You", "Dr. Them", "Dr. Who" all the time. In the basic sciences we are often more informal, and I offer that my grad students (those doing research in the lab) can call me by my first name, but it is still "Dr. Bio-Nonymous". But culture and setting obviously makes a difference...

[Juvenal]

When I was still in the classroom, I tried, tried, to get my students to use "Your Majesty," but somehow they (and my chair) never got with that program.