I have just finished writing a draft of my discipline’s response to Watson’s comments on our rejected DAC. The peevish and petulant posture adopted in his DAC response by our purported president propagated a dazzling parade of preposterous perorations and propositions. Of course, I had to respond to them.
His comments are overwhelmingly disingenuous, incorrect, or just plain uninformed. In several places Watson’s letter conflates contractual conditions of employment with criteria for promotion, tenure, and retention, ignores the contract outright, or misstates specific sections. His comments and questions about the DACs are often based on erroneous readings (or willful distortions). His comments and questions about research demonstrate a woeful lack of knowledge about how scholars in the social sciences or humanities conduct research.
What a monumental waste of time.
Post a Comment