Jason Arday dead

[ThisWiseRobin]

Just putting this out there, but just heared.A sad end to a whole sorry mess.

So, in summary.

Arday was not the victim, but he was the perpetrator of a fraud. He claimed to have published works which did not exist. He took credit for many fictitious achievements. There are students now tens of thousands in debt who dreamt of a Cambridge, or other universities’, degree, who now have a bogus qualification and who can never get these years back.

He failed to turn up to lectures, and when students called his bluff he had them denounced as racists. He put the police and heavy-handed threatening lawyers on to a liberal journalist. He was not a pawn in this, he was the instigator.

His death, whilst tragic, was completely avoidable.

batshit contribution

"works that did not exist"?
"bogus qualifications"?
"failing to turn up to lectures"?

where do you get these "facts" from?

I think, in fairness to those who signed the petition, Cofnas is an outspoken racist and Arday had been cleared of plagiarism by the university.

At that point, with that information to hand, it could easily have been a racist witch hunt.

But there are people who are still stuck at that point, despite later revelations. There are also people who will accuse those, who are interested in the later revelations, of racism.

I’m saying there’s fairly widespread understanding that black people’s hair has a history and significance that has been politicised. See work and school dress codes for evidence on how natural hair and traditional styles are policed for black people. The pp appeared to be claiming ‘DEI’ was harmful and should be abandoned. My point is that things like the understanding of hair as a political issue are from the same equity lens she’s decrying and that we can’t have one without the other. A misunderstanding or misapplication of equity doesn’t mean equity should be abandoned. And equity doesn’t mean perfect equality either - they’re not interchangeable terms.

I’ve not seen any evidence that degrees he taught on are now regarded as ‘bogus’ to be fair, and more than one person has would have been involved in any undergrad or graduate programme. More an issue for any PhD students, but again I haven’t seen any evidence on how many (if any) he supervised. Probably not the 35 claimed in the Carter Ruck letter.

whilst it’s an absolute tragedy, it sets an uncomfortable precedent if we can’t call someone out on their falsifying or exaggerating of information, in case of the psychological impact on the perpetrator. I know of at least two public “academics “ who are currently in an ongoing process of lying, exaggerating and falsifying their qualifications and abilities and I have no doubt that this is having a massive impact on the people they claim to help and a hugely detrimental impact on academia itself. I haven’t called them out on it (yet).
Should I?
I don’t know.
This case opens up a very uncomfortable can of worms and I can’t help thinking the book deal was what tipped this tragic story over the edge.

Yes! I'd say absolutely call them out if you know they're lying and it's impacting other people. I really can't understand why it's "kind" to ignore that sort of thing.

When people call something a racist witch hunt, they should ask themselves some simple questions.

If a racist man sees a black person committing a crime and reports said crime, was his intention motivated by racism?

Does that mean the crime is no longer a crime?

Roehampton is far from elite 😂😂😂
I did a PGCE there s a mature student /the school of education was a shambles even then (a few years before JA. mercifully.
If anything, even he with his nonsense none -science would have raised the calibre of teaching and ‘academic’ rigour..

I wonder if Burnham’s ridiculous focus on Arday, when far greater crimes have happened to others and been ignored, is a soft sell or testing the water for a crack down on the media.

There’s a call from someone at Cambridge to investigate the media (passing the buck there) and if I had to guess Starmer would have been all over that with an excuse to censor.

AB might be more cautious, he’s seen what happened to his predecessor after all. But it’s a no thanks, look at what led to a fantasist in such a highly academic job instead.

Absolutely, but this was more along the lines of ‘racist man accuses black person of wrongdoing that they have already been cleared of twice ‘

This whole sorry affair may have ended better if it had been exposed in the Times Higher Ed as it would have been without the police and lawyer intervention.

I think part of the issue here is that allegations about JA’s PhD and some papers had been investigated and resolved. Clearly not to the satisfaction of his detractors. Fair for Cofnas to set out his stall, fair for others to say these claims had already been dealt with and you’re only drawing attention because you’re angry with Cambridge.

Clearly the biographical details and the availability of material made this a more accessible story, but those aren’t even fraud for the most part.

If you have evidence of fraud/misconduct and these haven’t been investigated, and people are being harmed, you should call it out. But if you’re targeting an individual because of a grievance, maybe not - or maybe, depending on the circumstances. Only you know the facts. But I don’t think the psychological impact on the individual is the issue here, it’s about the entirety of the process.

Is he racist? He is definitely offensive but is he actually racist!

If people are offended, that is their right but then he too has the right to offend.

Whether or not people want to state a racist man exposed the JA plagiarism is a moot point.

This does not detract from the actions of JA nor does it detract from the sheer stupidity of Cambridge not to have performed any due diligence in this appointment.

You assert it’s a ‘batshit contribution’ and then seek evidence, after you’ve made an accusation.

Arday claimed to have been mute until age 11 and illiterate until 18. He claimed, too, that he had suffered from various medical conditions throughout his life, including autism, epilepsy, locked-in syndrome, testicular cancer, and a brain tumor.

He was, by his own account, a world-class endurance athlete who had racked up a variety of impressive feats, including running 600 miles in six days.

He claimed to have received a book advance of 1.4 million in unspecified currency for his memoir.

I could go on.

I wouldn't bother replying to posts like that. If they read the thread before posting they would have seen the evidence that they think doesn't exist or are determined too ignore.

You’re right, of course.

Just posters with an axe to grind.

This. Cofnas wasn't a lone voice, he was just more able to raise it as he's in Belgium not here.

fair point, having seen the reply above.

In a moment of light relief.

Louise Haigh (the convicted fraudster, now spent) signed off on a nationwide emergency wildfire alert widely criticised as unnecessary.

Ms Haigh, who oversees the Cabinet Office, is understood to have approved the alert, sent out on Friday to millions of phones across England and Wales warning that wildfires could be caused by barbecues and fireworks.

Shame it didnt go off a few years ago - she might have found her missing phone more quickly…

Yes, I would say Cofnas is racist, based on his assertion that in a meritocracy black people wouldn't occupy any prominent positions outside of entertainment and sports.

It doesn't detract from the actions of JA, however it did set people up to automatically defend him.

None of that is evidence of the things you claimed though.

Again, I would argue that people can find that offensive but that isn’t racist.

Have you heard of Candace Owen’s and her views on meritocracy? Or her views on who are the most murderous people in America and using statistics to make such a claim?

Again, people need to realise you can find something offensive and distasteful but that doesn’t simply mean it’s automatically racist.

Cofnas thinks black people are genetically less intelligent than other races. The evidence doesn’t support this assertion, but it’s his view that he should be allowed to say that out loud even if it’s controversial. He is a racist, and we should be able to say that out loud. I’m not offended, because his assertion doesn’t bear scrutiny.

I struggle to take you seriously.

Suggest we disengage.

I read the blog post leading up to the assertion and it didn’t logically follow from what he had said. Therefore I assume that it came from a place of bigotry.