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

An interesting article written by someone with autism. Well worth a read. Here's a snippet towards the end:
https://cartrarian.substack.com/p/jason-arday-lied-about-being-autistic

"Some serious questions now need answering. What did Cambridge verify before turning Arday into an international symbol of Black and autistic achievement? What did his other universities verify? What did publishers, broadcasters and journals verify? Who checked the extraordinary medical claims? Who checked the qualifications? Who checked the research? Why were obvious inconsistencies allowed to pass through prestigious institution after prestigious institution until repetition itself turned them into “fact”?

Those questions became more important after Jason Arday died. His death was tragic. It does not retroactively make false things true. It does not transform legitimate journalism into racism. It does not absolve Cambridge, publishers, universities or journals of their responsibilities. And it does not give anyone the right to smear journalists, academics or ordinary members of the public as racists and murderers because they refused to participate in a collective delusion. I did not question Jason Arday because he was Black. I questioned him because what he was saying did not make sense. I looked at the evidence. I found contradiction after contradiction. If your response to that is to call me a racist who participated in the “lynching” of a Black man, then you are not making an argument. .

The people who spent years talking about misinformation, institutional accountability, lived experience and speaking truth to power were presented with an almost perfect test of those principles. They failed. They chose the person over the evidence, identity over truth and political convenience over scrutiny. Then, when reality became impossible to ignore, they attacked the people who had bothered to look. That is the real scandal surrounding Jason Arday."

Someone who just describes themselves as autistic but are completely anonymous, only just joined X and substack and has only posted about Arday - don't you think you're being a bit naive?

Is what he wrote true or not?

I have no idea who the author of the piece is. But if you're saying I have to accept Arday's self account of his autism, why wouldn't I accept this person's self description? And he's referenced every assertion he made in the article with evidence. Are you saying that he's fabricated something? What exactly am I being naive about?

Who knows?

If someone is unwilling to adhere to some basic journalistic ethics by putting their name to their writing then I am unwilling to invest my time in reading such a long piece.

Does it even matter at this stage? He's dead, had learning difficulties according to his childhood SEN/teacher; was neurodiverse according to Baron-Cohen; and deeply vulnerable according to many people who knew him. If someone wants to spend their time challenging someone who died tragically young and has already been analysed to bits, they can - but I'm not the audience for it.

Well you suggested that the PP was naive for posting it as the user had only just joined X and didn't give their real name.

However the piece contains links to everything so you can look it up for yourself, so

1. no, I don't think it's 'naive' to pay attention to it
2. it reads exactly like something an autistic person would write. (Have you ever heard of 'weaponised autism'?)

Does it matter? I guess it might matter to an autistic person to have their condition misused to handwave away someone's complete incompetence at their job. I guess that could conceivably be annoying.

(Have you ever heard of 'weaponised autism'?)
Yes, I don't like that term

Does it matter? I guess it might matter to an autistic person to have their condition misused to handwave away someone's complete incompetence at their job. I guess that could conceivably be annoying.
I don't think that happened here.

I think it's naive to give a lot of credence to an anonymous article - and don't agree with a non-professional diagnosing or assessing someone's neurotype.

Since you have refused to even look at the referenced article because the author has chosen to remain anonymous, perhaps you would bother reading this one by a named author, Jane Wills, who just happens to be an early-retired Professor and Fellow of the British Academy drawing on experiences of caring for an adult son with severe autism with the ultimate goal of freeing the next generation from neurological harm.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-210449546

If you've heard of 'weaponised autism' then whether you like the term or not, you understand what it's describing.

I assume you know that 'argument from authority' is a logical fallacy. You're suggesting 'no argument because not from authority' which is similarly flawed. Arguments should be assessed on their own merits and this one is meticulously referenced so you can verify his claims for yourself.

It's fine to not agree with a non-professional diagnosing or assessing someone's neurotype, however the author isn't posting videos of Arday and inviting you to assess his level of eye contact or body language. He is posting Arday's own words about himself in a chronological order and assessing whether they are coherent and make sense. And they are not coherent and do not make sense.

For example: "What’s more telling is that when the host asks how Arday defines autism “there are several definitions and I wouldn’t want to be the font of all knowledge on autism but a universal definition is that autism is regarded as an intellectual disability which resides across a spectrum so there are several forms of autism and more generally the common feature in all of those forms of autism is a kind of intellectual disability which can affect cognitive development or neurodevelopment generally speaking”. This is false. This is an inaccurate definition of autism. In his own words, in a podcast for world autism day, Jason Arday is spreading misinformation about autism while he’s a professor at Cambridge and conducting research on, and with, autistic students. Arday’s definition of autism is mangled and wrong. Autism is not an intellectual disability, and intellectual disability is not the common defining feature of autism.[27][32][33] They are separate neurodevelopmental conditions which can co-occur. The diagnostic core of autism concerns persistent differences in social communication and reciprocal interaction alongside restricted, repetitive or inflexible patterns of behaviour and interests.[27][32][33]Intellectual ability among autistic people ranges from profound impairment to average or above-average intelligence. Arday has effectively taken features much closer to intellectual or global developmental disability and presented them as the universal defining characteristics of autism."

@OneArtfulUmberSquid That anonymous article says what most have said on here. Certainly the list of unanswered questions. It’s a bit of a joke when we are all anonymous on here. Just because a name isn’t attached, doesn’t mean views should be dismissed. I can quite see why someone doesn’t want personal attacks because of their piece if they are not paid to write it.

I think DEI is why he died. JA couldn't just get on with being a tutor as that is not why he was recruited - he was recruited as a figurehead proving the inclusiveness of the university - look how he was welcomed in by Cremen and IT WAS FILMED - that's not normal - he was also described as the FIRST BLACK PROFESSOR - not just a new employee with x, y, z expertise, 1,2,3,.....papers to their name - he was the 'best in the world' according to CREMEN - WTF - so poor guy was given a role he didn't ask for but probably felt he had to live up to - that is by being seen everywhere, talking publicly about racism, elaborating on his past, interviewed on tv etc etc because that is what Cremen expected of him - a huge expectation of an ordinary bloke.
And when the shit hit the fan Cambridge doubled down - where was his support, why weren't they helping him. Tragic.

@OneArtfulUmberSquid
You didn't acknowledge the images & links I provided earlier where any lay person can so that there is gross plagiarism so it seems you have a fixed view & probably don't like to be confused by facts but this is probably the most comprehensive & evidence article on the Arday Affair so far. That you won't even read it says it all really.

Was Jason Arday Actually Autistic?
What he lied about.
https://cartrarian.substack.com/p/jason-arday-lied-about-being-autistic#source-33

Gosh, that ^^ is detailed

I think superficial/erroneous DEI was at fault, the 'magic negro' trope was all-present. If Cambridge were serious about diversity and equity they wouldn't have treated and presented him the way they did.

I've already seen those images - I don't have to respond to every single post!

But he isn't posting on here - I have the right not to engage with an anonymous source and double-check their homework! You go for it if you want.

@OneArtfulUmberSquid On MN people quote things all the time to back up what they are saying. Obviously you cannot engage directly with the anonymous author but saying it’s not worth considering is a bit daft. It’s saying what many posters have thought!

I've said many times Arday clearly told mistruths - I don't want to keep picking over his bones. It isn't meaningful to me at this stage.

The tone of that article is unpleasant, dehumanising and offensive to me - eg 'ticked almost all the boxes most beloved of the left'. My DC is autistic and has been characterised as having a 'useful label' and 'ticking a box'.

@OneArtfulUmberSquid I’m really sorry but the uk now loves a good label and parents actively seek a diagnosis to get a label and special consideration! It’s a massive business now. In academia it probably is the left of politics because we know many academics are on the left! The boxes have been created and they are there to be ticked. I don’t like that at all but it’s a decent explanation as to why he was employed in this role at Cambridge. He did tick their boxes and they glossed over the academic ones!

It's offensive to call someone 'a good label', particularly given the woeful lack of services for many autistic children, teens and adults.

(following my other post) ...so please stop saying such hurtful things like people 'actively seek a diagnosis to get a label and special consideration' - having been told it's offensive, you could have stopped to think how many many many people (eg me) seek an assessment and hope for a diagnosis because their child is having really challenging problems in all manner of areas and they're desperate to understand what's going on and see what if anything they can do to alleviate some of their child's distress or difficulties navigating a world, education system etc that isn't designed for them.

If you don't think a child with a very impactful disability deserves special consideration, well I feel sorry for you that you seem to lack the compassion and insight that might make you just stop and think instead of spouting such venal rubbish.

Please stop calling a medical diagnosis a 'label'. I don't care what playground schoolgirl rubbish you listen to about special consideration for kids who you think don't deserve it but maybe keep your nasty attitude to yourself.

@OneArtfulUmberSquid There are degrees of disability. Of course parents and adults seek labels. You don’t have to agree with me but plenty of research is finding worrying trends and you are just one person. I’m not that interested in you. It’s besides the point.

'Plenty of research' 'worrying trends' - the usual vagaries

It’s bleeding into mainstream discussion. The diagnosis of Autism and ADHD and probably other conditions have broadened and more and more people are diagnosed.

The discourse that I am seeing on TV, hearing on podcasts, and reading in the news seems to focus on the harm this may cause to individuals, and the strain on society. Also these diagnoses can create an identity which is another complexity.

I don’t think you can dismiss @MeetMeOnTheCorner ’s comments out of hand. It’s clear that attitudes are changing and the explosion in diagnosis is drawing scrutiny and challenge.

I do hope that people who are profoundly affected don’t lose the support that they need. These social swings can be vicious.

Couldn’t agree more.

In many ways thanks to the widening diagnostic criteria, ND has got itself a self-ID problem. You can’t check medical records as part of a job vetting, so who knows what poor Arday had or didn’t.