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 can dismiss someone's rudeness for describing autism as a 'label' and speaking so vaguely about 'research'. The majority of contemporary academic, peer-reviewed scientific studies conclude that the increase in numbers is due to a reduction in underdiagnosis, particularly of girls, women and people of colour because autism criteria were based primarily on white boys who presented with specific behaviours.

Thousands of children, young people and adults face huge challenges in everyday life that could be helped with a diagnosis, so being dismissed as 'wanting a label' is deeply insulting. It's also ableist because it acts to minimise/dismiss/delegitimise the reality of disabled lives.

Many autistic people and their families and organisations such as the National Autistic Society find the casual or critical discourse about 'labels' and 'over diagnosis' deeply harmful, particularly when expressed in such a suspicious and negative tone as @MeetMeOnTheCorner used - she says she 'doesn't care' about me - I'm not asking her to, but I'd hope for the sake of anyone around her who may be affected that she keeps her nasty rants to herself.

National Autistic Society on this - https://www.autism.org.uk/blog/challenging-misinformation-about-autism-using-evidence-to-correct-false-claims

If it's so 'concerning' for some of you, maybe engage with research rather than getting information from podcasts or playgrounds or columnists who ignore diagnostic frameworks or have no expertise in autism.

Some actual research

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10114511/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666776224000735

https://www.thetransmitter.org/spectrum/massive-u-k-study-finds-racial-ethnic-disparities-in-autism-diagnoses/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3808754/#s4

https://bmjgroup.com/rates-of-autism-in-girls-and-boys-may-be-more-equal-than-previously-thought/

https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/14175/

Thank you so much for telling the truth and showing us where to find more.