To think 'academic freedom' and whistleblower punishment are misused in those protesting the suspension of Nathan Cofnas

Re point (a), is it alleged that he failed to do work he was supposed to, or merely that he also did additional work he wasn't hired to do? Because only the former would be grounds for disciplinary action.

I've watched a couple of interviews with Cofnas in the past few days - he has a very strange screen filter which makes his forehead look like it's clipped-on, Lego style. Very odd

All of which said, I do think the way to defeat bad ideas is to pick them apart, rather than to prevent people saying them. Because often the greatest leaps forward are people saying controversial things e.g. Galileo. Academic freedom is important. And the suspicion is that Ghent have created a bit of a pretext now the heat is on, despite knowing who Cornas was and what he thinks before appointing him (at which time they explicitly cited academic freedom)..

Isn't Cofnas right to the extent that he talks about the existence of a racial hierarchy of intelligence? Surely the significant differences in mean intelligence between races is a long-established fact? This is particularly true in the US (where he's from) where there's a 15 point (i.e. about one standard deviation) difference between the black mean (85) and the white mean (100). One consequence of which is that, because of the bell curve, there's a tail effect which means that a black person is one tenth as likely to be the top 1%. Which, when you factor in population numbers, would mean that fewer than one in a hundred of people in the top 1% are black. (Which actually accords with Harvard's own study, which they were forced to disclose in proceedings bought by Asian students, and which conceded that the number of black students they take would be vastly smaller if admission was decided on academics alone.)

Where Cofnas goes wrong is that he has decided that the IQ difference is due to genetics. In support of which he relies on old studies with poor methodology, and overlooks much better evidence which has effectively discredited his hypothesis for most serious academics in the field, who point towards to environmental factors e.g. parental education, nutrition, etc.. (There are other areas, too, such as the idea that admission should be based on academics/IQ alone, or that the removal of positive discrimination leaves a level playing field.)

It's hard not to conclude that his defence of heredetism is driven by racism (it's too gross to simply be poor scholarship by someone so experienced in academia). And, as such, not to suspect that him going after Arday was (at least in part) motivated by the same (even if what he said i.e. that Arday was a grossly under-qualified diversity hire fantasist and plagiarist, is true).

It's like the police stopping a disproportionate number of black boys. That's almost certainly racist, but it doesn't mean that the ones they do catch with knives are innocent.

Yes, it’s a real question as I would like to understand why you think NC being Jewish makes him easy pickings. Are you are saying it does in the same way JA was exposed because he was black, ie not at all?

Both Arday and Cofnas were/are not suited to academic work.

Final two.

Part three.

Part two of the letter.

Here is the letter. It's clear as day why he has been suspended.

University of Ghent are well within their rights to suspend and fire him if they choose to do so. He was hired to study the future of liberalism and has gone out and claimed that he is effectively studying eugenics. Imagine if we all lied about our job roles, but not only told a white lie such as inflating out title but told an egregious lie which brings our employer into serious disrepute. Anyone defending Cofnas is either a bigot or isn't paying attention to the story. The man is seriously sinister.

Is this a real question? In what way was Jason Arday's race relevant to his fraudulent activity being exposed?

Please can you explain in what way you think him being Jewish has made him easy pickings? How has his treatment been different than if he was not Jewish?

Your thread is about his suspension, not his fellowship.

They can issue whatever lost they want, there is no criminal culpability for the names on that list. A defamation case can't be filed so all that's left is to insist those journalists are cancelled, which would come as no surprise.

He's Jewish so easy pickings. I take it all those who said the same about Arday being subjected to racism will have no objections to my (simple) assertion.

How do you view CRT?

You didn't say anything about Arday's actions, I am saying that they are similar enough to cofnas to be able to draw a comparision, and if you are saying that he brought this on himself then surely the same should be said about Arday.

Who's hounding Cofnas?

I posted who was hounding cofnas.
The same as those that "hounded" Arday, but again are we holding one side to a higher level than the other?
Remember that Arday's supporters have also released a list of journolists that they consider responsible for his death.

I think not adhering to his contract couldn't have been known beforehand, and it's fair enough to be suspended from any job if you're not doing what you're hired for.

I did post most was known not all, so this cover your first sentence.

I can't find enough about the hiring of cofnas but it would still have needed to be reviewed by the board or whomever does that in universities.

I wouldn't see Arday's views as being as extremist as Cofnay's

this is more in relation to your openning post of

"My position as an academic invited to sign the letter of protest against his suspension is that academic freedom/freedom of speech is not unlimited, for example if it involves slander or seeks to assert racial supremacy."

Arday's research is based on CRT, or white people bad (very short form).
Which is an acceptable view in academia but that doesn't make it any less racist.

If it is your opinion that cofnas has brought this on himself, then shouldn't you also be saying the same for Arday, it was his actions that put him in the limelight and he has actively at times courted fame and set the police and laywers on the press for trying to expose him.

As for whether cofnas has support or not, should this be an allowable reason for allowing people, press and some academics to hound him?
Or is it only bad because its Arday?

And as devil's advocate it could be said that cofna's views are the the opposite side of the race coin to Arday's.

That's a really interesting observation: to put it very simply, the critical race theory framework which Arday uses, works from the assumption that a country like the UK, for example, is organised around white supremacy, and that white people are always already racist.

So yes, it could be seen to be a kind of mirror image to Cofnas' theory of white supremacy in intelligence etc.

[This summary is reductive, I know, but this is a message-board not a peer-reviewed journal.]