Tolkien fundamentalists, like any fundamentalists, read into their text the world they themselves long for and then claim it is the only true reading and, indeed, a blueprint for the real world.
Fundamentalisms are reactions to a modernity in which a group perceives themselves to have lost power and authority. They retreat into an imagined mythic past that they assert is more legitimately real than the world around them.
With LotR, it's *literally* mythic, ironically.
With most Tolkien fundamentalists, it's pointless to quite Tolkien to them--they already "know" that Tolkien was talking about Italians when he mentioned brown skin, and they care not for your heretical interpretation.
I am hereby requesting that when you see something that seems too wild to be true and also confirms your priors, you stop and consider if your initial reading is correct, or if there's something else going on here.
On first glance, this looks like a job posting for free teaching labor. But is it?
The text is boilerplate, it doesn't specify what the teaching load is or any other responsibilities of the position, and it says twice that they won't pay you a dime.
So what's up?
It's probably a courtesy appointment for an outside-funded researcher so they can be on the books as an adviser and get grad students in their lab. UCLA likely has to post it even though they aren't doing an actual search.
This can't be stressed enough--don't repeat Evangelicals' claims that they read the Bible "literally." They have an interpretation just like any other Christians do; they just describe that interpretation as the literal meaning and people tend to say ok, I guess so?
It's a neat trick that fools people into thinking that Evangelicalism is more authoritative than it actually is--"well, they're just reading what the Bible says, I guess they're more serious about it than Christians who put their own spin on it."
No. Just no.
It's why, in American journalism, "devout" is more often used to describe politically/culturally conservative Christians, or why reporters don't feel it necessary to specify what *kind* of Christian is behind the latest racist/sexist/etc law/policy/etc.
Dickens had a sensitivity reader--her name was Eliza Davis, and she helped him understand (after the fact) that his portrayals of Jews were antisemitic. He even changed some text in later editions.
Dickens didn't think of himself as antisemitic until she showed him the problem.
Kneejerk reactions against sensitivity readers are mostly rooted in contempt at the idea that white authors, and especially white dudes, have anything to learn from anyone else.
And also in the cartoonish notion that a sensitivity read constitutes censorship rather than wisdom.