To compare and contrast coverage and outcome of the Jason Arday scandal with that of Cambridge plagiarist William O'Reilly

[OneArtfulUmberSquid]

Partly due to being an academic, the slow news season and the sensationalism, like many people I've been following the Jason Arday story and have been appalled by the scale of the fabulation and the abysmal lack of due diligence by Cambridge when they appointed him - I've also been appalled by how he was presented by the University when he was hired in terms of the emphasis on his back story and what he represented rather than his scholarship.

It's interesting to compare/contrast with the case of William O'Reilly - who was caught plagiarising his own undergrad students' essays and was then found to have plagiarised other scholars' work a number of times before...see https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/27433

He also threatened to sue student journalists for exposing him - not as bad as Arday calling the police, but still pretty risible
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/26105

A further issue relates to his witness for the accused in a rape case despite being involved in the investigation.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/feb/22/cambridge-university-sexual-misconduct-cases
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/18747

I'd be interested to know what anyone else thinks of the two cases in terms of academic misconduct and outcomes, particularly anyone who works in Cambridge. O'Reilly claimed that the scrutinising of his work was due to homophobia.

More here but behind a paywall
https://www.ft.com/content/ae7f16ae-95ab-4aae-a676-0748e3e61b6d?shareType=nongift&syn-25a6b1a6=1

I don't believe anything he said about himself. And it's not obvious to me that that is the case.

What on earth- were you there during his diagnosis?Discrediting the private details of an individual’s disability on a public forum when you have zero proof is hugely abelist and just vile.

His PhD was riddled with chunks of plagairised text.
He had a back story that was, quite literally, incredible.
His research output was paltry.
Complaints about his teaching were shut down with cries of 'racist!'
Lawyers and the police were sicced on people who tried to investigate.

And Cambridge appointed him, and walked him about in front of the media like a prize pony.

Remember the shitstorm that blew up over The Salt Path? People really, really, really dislike bing lied to. Add a world-leading institution that should have known better into the mix and it's no surprise that the storm goes nuclear.

It's not obvious to you ? Oh, you're an assessor of autism , are you.. You should have made it clear you were a professor of psychiatry with years of research behind you and I wouldn't have taken issue with you..

I think the man was a manipulative fantasist, who gamed institutions' stupidity.

I am not taking anything he said at face value, why would I, at this point.

There were talks of a very large advance of £1.4m which reflected his "incredible story". The publishers would likely have contractual terms governing the payment so the pressure on him would have been enormous and so very stressful. The book deal was probably the step too far. The media coverage would go away but legal wranglings are more protracted.

The book deal was probably the step too far.

The Salt Path scandal took off because the exposé coincided with the release of the film of the book starring Gillian Anderson & Jason Isaacs.

Given the claims he's made about himself that have been proven to be lies, I don't think it unreasonable that people might now question all claims he's made about himself.

I have no idea if he was autistic or not. But he had shown himself to have no qualms about furthering his qualifications and career by spurious and unethical means, so it's certainly possible that he also lied about his autism/mutism/illiteracy for fame and and advantage.

Belle Gibson's recipe book apparently has some great recipes in it (so I've read - I didn't buy it or into the whole 'wellness' crap). It was a best-seller based on her bullshit story of curing herself of terminal brain cancer - and when she was outed, it turned out that it wasn't just the terminal brain cancer that was bullshit. Her childhood memories, her family dynamics, her brother having autism, all of it was bullshit. But all those lies garnered unwarranted sympathy and praise for overcoming such difficult circumstances.

I think you need to watch what you are saying. It's a bit of a stretch.. Simon Baron Cohen has just come on TV to say Arday was subjected.to horroble levels of scrutiny. I'm inclined to believe hom over you. Or perhaps you think you know more than professor SBC.

Yes, he really played the academic institutions like a fiddle, knowing all the right buttons to press.

Unfortunately he went too far and the truth came out because there's still plenty of people who care about the truth. So in the end it didn't do him any good.

There seems to be an assumption that Jason Arday’s sad end was as a result of stress caused by recent press coverage, but it may be more to do with what might have happened next. Maybe he hoped that his resignation would put a stop to the Cambridge investigation and whatever that might uncover, but Cambridge said it would continue. Maybe he knew the autobiography contained multiple inaccuracies and tried to stop its publication, but the publisher refused. Maybe he feared legal action. Maybe at least some of the recent revelations were news to his loved ones and those relationships have been harmed. There is almost certainly a lot going on that is not in the public domain and imo any take along the lines of ‘man hounded to death by racist tabloids’ is a bit speculative to say the least.

I sincerely hope all these claims by posters are scrutinised to the same level and his family sue.

Yes, he was subjected to 'horrible levels of scrutiny'. That's because he told so many outlandish stories about his background and achievements, some of which were totally ludicrous and demonstrably false.

Why would I take SBC'Ss word for it, when he was previously denying that JA was a liar and a fantasist. And he had accepted everything JA said at face value, even though it was at least 90% bullshit?

If he had been subjected to correct levels of scrutiny at the proper time - i.e.when being hired - it wouldn't have come to this.

I think most people have also encountered incidents which feel slightly suspect when it comes to matters adjacent to DEI.

If your company hires eight apprentices to an office in a very white area, and only one of them is white, it’s difficult to not feel that their race, religion or culture has played a part in the hiring process.

When special recognition is given every quarter to a select few colleagues, it’s difficult not to notice that the noisiest members of the Pride Network are always top of the list.

Arday was earning a hell of a lot of money. He was a fraudster and a fantasist. He tried to get those who questioned him sacked and arrested. I think the public perception of him is actually quite tempered - most think he’s a bit of a chancer who was enabled by those around him because of his race. I actually think it’s a lot worse than that and he hasn’t been held personally to account enough.

This is such a strange post.

I'm not "making claims". I'm saying I don't believe all the things he said about himself are true (because so many of them have be shown to be false).

Simon Baron Cohen has just come on TV to say Arday was subjected.to horrible levels of scrutiny.

Did Simon Baron-Cohen explain why he first of all signed the ludicrous GLP petition in support of Arday & then removed his name? It can't have been very nice for Arday to have his friend & colleague diss him so publicly.

I would sooner believe Sacha Baron Cohen than Simon Baron Cohen.

And I think you’re a fool.

You're logic is shit. X and Y are true therefore Z is true as well. Do me a favour. Dont ever get a job where where thr principles of logic come jnto play for all our sakes.

Personally I hope his family are ordered to pay back every penny Arday defrauded out of others as a result of his lies.

I said I didn't know if he had austism or not. Not my call. I don't care. However, I can understand people questioning it and other claims he's made given the large number of lies he has told about himself.

I think you need to dial it back a bit with the 'you need to watch what you're saying.'

I'm sure there will be therapists, school teachers, childhood friends, childhood neighbours who will be happy to confirm his claims. SBC says that Arday was subject to horrible levels of scrutiny, yet no real scrutiny for the plagiarism, or poor quality lectures, poor quality papers, or the litany of lies about himself.

Yes, SBC does not come out of this well - signing the GLP open letter of ‘unwavering support’ for Jason, then asking to have his name removed. And now positioning himself as the caring friend, ugh.

I don’t think it’s particularly questionable logic to approach the claims of a proven liar with scepticism.