“Translated to me, the underlined part that highlights the difference sounds like he was not hired on as a professor because of his knowledge or any other ‘scholarly’ designation or knowledge that would happen with a professor, he was just granted a job. It seems to me they are saying here he wouldn’t qualify as a professor.”
No, translated, the underlined part means that he was in a category of active professionals teaching in a professional school because the presence of such teachers is considered important to the professional training.
His was not an academic track and published academic journal articles were not part of the requirements. But in his case they did try to persuade him to make that transition and he chose not to. He probably knew he wouldn’t be any good at it; certainly didn’t want to expend the energy toward it.
He was not a professor but neither was he glorified TA. I agree that people exaggerate when they call him a professor of law. But you undermine your case when you compare him to the sessional lecturers employed to teach undergrads at slave wages.
Where exactly does it say that? I don't see anywhere a opinion based statement about "importance". The statement had two distinct points, 1. He was not hired based on part of an academic search process. 2. Said hiring did not have any scholarly research obligation. Everything else you are adding your own opinion as to the reasoning why.
But you undermine your case when you compare him to the sessional(sic) lecturers employed to teach undergrads at slave wages.
Which pretty much proves my point in all of my responses to you. None of the items here I said. You continue to frame your argument in the second person, yet only include your first person assumptions of the matter.
You seem to have a vested interest in continuing to push your misstatements and ignore or try to reason away the direct statements of the school instead of taking them at face values? What would your motivational desires be? (..and don't say the truth as you've already shown you are willing to make up what others have said in this situation.)
I’m the one who used the “glorified T.A.” phrase. What I meant was simply that he wasn’t much above the level of a T.A. I don’t think that’s a wantonly careless use of language. Give me any speech of Obama’s, and I can point out far less precise use of language than that.