The Jason Arday scandal, part deux

I understand quotes being taken out of context does happen, and I freely admit not knowing anything about him or his work.

Having said that, I cannot imagine a context in which the person who said this is not racist:

“[under a meritocracy, black people would] disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment"

If you know of the wider context that makes that seemingly textbook racist statement un-racist, please can you explain? I mean that genuinely.

I don’t seek racism, other isms or general offence everywhere. Far from it. But to me, if that statement is not racist then nothing is.

Agreed. His extraordinary history of being nonverbal and so on made him stand out. I’m sure the fact he was black was considered the cherry on the cake. But it would not have been nearly enough by itself to get him into that remarkable position.

Wasn't he stating Harvard's research findings so not actually sharing his own personal thoughts?

That (selected) extract wasn't part of his research. It's been picked up, sensationalised and run with. Yes, you're right, you're not viewing it in the context of his study.

How could Harvard's research findings show that though? It's a hypothesis and a loaded one at that - an imponderable, basically.

Well said. People denying the racist motivation behind a lot of the discourse around Arday lack credibility just as much as those claiming racism is all there was to this.

I cba to trawl back but I thought someone had posted the full paragraph?

He hasn’t written anything racist. He has just examined evidence published by others about differences in IQ between populations and the philosophical foundations of DEI as a natural endpoint of Liberalism. It’s all very academic stuff. I suggest you actually at least watch some interviews.

IQ is not a neutral concept.

To be clear, I do think the reasons behind JA's appointment were dubious. I do think there was a case to be answered by him, by LJM, and by Cambridge. I do think there are lessons that ought to be learnt here that I suspect won't be. But I'm not going to talk myself into endorsing certain views that I do think are racist because of my opinions on the broader story and its implications, and the last few pages of this thread have gone quite a bit further down the heterodox rabbit=hole than I personally would.

BTW Cofnas has stated that his evidence about Arday was supplied to him by an anonymous Cambridge academic. We also know that the TES had the story well before and it was spiked by legal threats, Classic attack the messenger stuff.

You’re free to challenge IQ as a concept. Cofnas, from what I’ve seen of him would be happy to explore IQ as an explanatory variable in predicting elite academic performance. 11plus test performance seems to predict A levels and Alevels seem to predict University performance etc. It’s all up for debate. Looking the evidence doesn’t make you a racist.

An anonymous Cambridge coward. Mind you, that just shows how far the DEI rot has set in when employees are too frightened to go public. It all makes a mockery out of meritocracy. The whole of HE needs to be reviewed. It was bad enough with all the free Palestine trend on campuses. Corrupt as hell - the lot of it.

But in essence, he wasn’t unqualified was he?

For the role of professor yes. As has been said repeatedly they usually need far more than a PhD.

He had qualifications, if that's what you mean. Not ones that would normally get you a professorship, even if his PhD had been beyond reproach.

Is there a qualification higher than PhD then?

Well yes, for a professorship you would usually need an outstanding track record of internationally recognized research, one monograph at the very least, significant success in attracting funding, evidenced impact, experience in some senior roles in the department....

So there are qualifications, from GCSE to PhD. But if you think about job requirements, they don't just ask you for your GCSE/A level/degree results, do they?

It's as though you think at some point we'll concede ok, you're right, after you get a PhD you never had to do anything else in academia and nor indeed could you, and this unlocks every door! But that's just not the case.

Dear lord, there’s no hope then. Let’s all be vile to each other. Oh, hang on, that’s no way to live either is it? I’ll going to stick with being as decent as I possibly can. There’s enough mean spirited shit out there to sink the titanic.

To qualify for the role Jason Arday held at Cambridge a candidate would normally have published a great deal more academic work than he had.
There would also be no questions to be answered about the high quality of the work produced (which is clearly not the case with Arday.)

Ok, so he wasn’t qualified but in your opinion, he didn’t have the attributes to be a professor. So this line of enquiry has got us no where unless we can actually ask the people who appointed him and, at this time, we can’t.

Sorry WAS qualified

No it's not 'in my opinion', it's the way professorial appointments work in pretty much every case except this very high profile one.

no he WASN'T qualified! He had the basic qualification of a PhD, without which you can scarcely teach a first-year survey class. That is not enough!

Let's say, @SevenYellowHammers , that you are applying for a role that specifies 4 GCSEs at grade C or above, plus substantial retail experience, good knowledge of Excel and other systems, demonstrable record of excellent customer service and a full clean driving licence. You've got the GCSEs and the driving licence, but you've never had a job before or used Microsoft. Would you say you were qualified for the role?

Sorry, I just cannot think how to explain this any better in the face of your insistence that a PhD (even a good and not plagiarised one) qualifies anyone to be a Professor.

You’re referring to muscle twitch fibres, that part is true. The link of that to people of West African origin is highly contentious when it comes to performance in sport because there are so many other considerations to be taken into account with a nation’s success. I’m no scientist btw but used to share an office with one who was very clear about this. But don’t take my word for it, do check it out yourself. In a nutshell it’s grossly oversimplified to say West African people are genetically good sprinters.