On behalf of Dean Brouhaha thank you for agreeing to participate in the evaluation of lecturer Montgomery Ward in his position as a .4 time base Faculty Advisor for the Dismal Studies Program. The committee is being asked to evaluate Dr. Ward based on the materials he has provided and your knowledge of hiser (sic) work from your close interaction at SDSU. Please find attached: his job description.
Also attached: is the standard lecturer periodic evaluation form. Since Montgomery does not teach in this position please disregard references to student course evaluation which do not apply and assess his based on her job description.
We are asking you to review his/her materials and meet with the other committee members no later than April 12th to complete her evaluation.
Signed, etc.
You can't make stuff this good up. Beyond the problem of having to make a completely arbitrary decision regarding which gender pronoun to use for the name "Montgomery," I am apparently also supposed to decide what his/her position actually is. Can that second paragraph be serious? "Since Montgomery does not teach in this position please disregard references to student course evaluation[s] which do not apply" --or, for that matter, even exist!
So I'm supposed to evaluate someone of ambiguous (or ambivalent!) gender, who's not a lecturer, using the standard lecturer evaluation form, by comparing the job he (or she!) is doing teaching nothing at all, to another description for a different position altogether.
It would be laughable if it weren't word-for-word true.
I may send back an empty document with "N/A" under each of the questions--including the one asking for my name.
No comments:
Post a Comment