The problem has always been clear. Ivy claims expertise in one specific area of epistemological research (and Ivy's chosen specialist subject of 'how to bullshit convincingly' should resonate with quite a number of people). But Ivy is using PhD credentials to raid disciplinary boundaries, including those of the physical sciences on which Ivy has no qualifications and expertise - and is representing these views under the mantra of 'Dr Ivy', as if the mere PhD qualification in an entirely unrelated field is enough to lend credibility. It isn't. For a specialist on BS, this is quite revealing as it's disingenuous to say the least.
Interdisciplinary research is important within academia, but there needs to be a connection and dialogue between those disciplines. Ivy is pushing that to its absolute limit, and laying claim to results, conclusions and arguments that are beyond Ivy's ken.
This is what the appraisal takes issue with. HE courses are taught by specialists in very specific disciplines. Ivy has gone beyond that, and is teaching material that Ivy is unqualified to teach. Dropping the ethics and teaching the epistemology that's within Ivy's remit should be the obvious solution. But Ivy's response is predictable, that this should be accounted for not by a university's concern for its own reputation and scholarly expertise, but as some form of 'phobia'.
You gotta hand it to Ivy. In the chosen specialist field of 'how to bullshit convincingly', these employers have got themselves a winner ...