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

[keepcounsel]

Many posters have cited 'academic freedom' and 'freedom of expression' as well as 'witch-hunt' in terms of Nathan Cofnas being suspended from the University of Ghent. They've also represented the suspension as punishing a whistle-blower due to his being one of the first to publicly communicate concerns about Jason Arday and plagiarism/academic standards. 200+ academics have signed a letter of protest about the suspension and the American ambassador to Belgium as well as Trump have called for him to be re-hired.

The grounds for his appointment seem to be to work as a post-doc on a Professor's project, so not overseen by the University HR department or a committee in the way a lecturer/professorial appointment would happen.
The work/activities of the Professor in question - Bouke De Vries - had been subject to complaints from his colleagues. When colleagues and students protested about Cofnas being hired Ghent's Rector said dissenting opinions should be allowed in the University.

Ghent have now said the grounds for suspension are due to:

a. He didn't conduct the research he was hired for
[they said 'The projects you publicly and repeatedly associate with your affiliation at Gent University, most notably your
'Guide for the Hereditarian Revolution' which advocates for racial barriers and segregation, fall entirely outside the scope of your official research mandate.']

b. He violated the University's ethics code
['prohibits spreading ideas of racial superiority or inciting racial segregation.']

c. He made statements that violate Belgian anti-discrimination legislation

d. He made remarks about Jason Arday that violate Belgian Criminal Code concerning offences against a person's honour or reputation

e. He caused significant unrest in the workplace by advocating a purge of those academics he thought ideologically wrong

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.

What I have seen of Cofnas's research is appalling quality. I have no idea how he got competitive funding. Anyway he's clearly brought the uni into disrepute and it's only normal he should be suspended for breaking the terms of his contract.

"What I have seen of Cofnas's research is appalling quality. '

He was also previously at Cambridge. Perhaps a sign that academic rigour there is not as high as one would hope.

Before the tragedy I listened to Cofnas' YouTube interview and thought he had a very eerie vibe, just unpleasant, even if he were telling the truth about Arday's lies and plagiarism, obviously.
I also saw a man who was not well in the head - he is either autistic, or there is a different psychiatric diagnosis there, but he is not well in the head - the way he speaks, i.e. very slowly, searching for words, sideway glances, inward smiles, etc. etc.

Ok, I haven’t read any of his work, just some tedious non-academic piece that put a sciencey gloss on old fashioned racism. I was pretty surprised at comments elsewhere and on Mumsnet about him being unfairly suspended.
There’s a letter of petition about it, mainly male academics but a few hundred names.

From the Brussel's times

"UGent has defended its decision, stating that Cofnas was selected through a "procedurally correct" process that evaluated candidates based on qualifications like publications and expertise."
"While the university acknowledges that Cofnas's remarks are offensive to many, it maintains they do not violate legal standards or the institution's ethical code."

https://www.brusselstimes.com/2007046/ghent-university-under-fire-for-appointing-us-philosopher-with-ties-to-scientific-racism

But other than what is now adverse publicity what has actually changed from when they appointed him.

(All quotes are from letter of suspension)

Maybe Ghent are arguing that the change has been:

Cofnas was hired to work on a particular topic but has publicly said he's working on something else
'fundamentally inconsistent with the contractual scope of your employment and constitute a manifest violation of your professional obligations'

Cofnas has violated their ethics code through the nature and framing of his remarks about Arday - that he described him as 'mentally disabled' and a 'worthless scholar' as part of a crusade 'aimed at the systematic personal and professional
destruction of colleagues' and that suggests a disturbance of the peace and may violate the Belgian Criminal Code concerning offences against someone's honour or reputation

Cofnas has advocated a purge of academics who are not ideologically aligned to his racial science in the name of a 'hereditarian revolution' -
Ghent say that may be a threat to colleagues 'professional standing and personal dignity' and impacts the functioning of the University

Ghent should have known he'd be problematic but Arday dying and Cofnas's public statements in the wake of that caused such a furore that they've clearly set their legal team on looking at their options to get rid of him.

Cofnas was hired to work on a project by a Professor whose views on race have been subject to complaints and protests in the past. Some people describe the Rector of Ghent as a eugenicist, others a trans-humanist - eg in relation to this TED talk - so it's all a bit messy https://www.ted.com/talks/petra_desutter_tele_babies

I saw the interview with Starkey and thought Cofnas seemed a bit socially awkward, and the resentment and gleefulness about the 'vengeance' on Arday was deeply unpleasant.
Full version:

There's some clips in this shorter video https://youtube.com/shorts/ThywLnEyEds?si=zL6zz2MWBTitKrqW

I agree that it is all very messy.

But from what I can tell, most of what was in the letter was already known before Cofnas was employed by the university.

Which if nothing else, once again, shows up university morals surrounding employment as lacking.

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.

It could also be said that cofna is also experiecing a similar hounding to Arday in that he is IMO being made the person to blame for what happened to Arday.

However you look at this, when thought about critically the universities do not come out of this well.

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. But the attention he drew to himself via the Arday case probably led to a level of scrutiny that would not have existed otherwise.

My intimation is that he was more or less hired directly by Prof. Bouke de Vries to work on a specific project but if Cofnas had gone for an academic post that included substantial teaching and engagement with students (as lecturer/Professor) in such a reputable University as Ghent maybe he wouldn't have been appointed.

I wouldn't see Arday's views as being as extremist as Cofnay's - I ended up reading some of both their work today including Arday's PhD. It's not super strong but I can see why it might have passed - I understand the plagiarism is mainly to do with the literature review.

In terms of Cofnas being blamed - he seems to be delighted to be the public face of the Arday case - eg his triumphal hour long interview on how he 'brought down DEI' in Cambridge. I don't see the same hounding (unless the protests about and since his appointment can be seen as hounding).

Cofnas is very very well supported by American networks and think tanks (as well as the President) and I'm sure he'll be fine and platformed.

He had secured a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship. These are very hard to get, and subject to an extremely high level of competition (far more than Dr Arday faced, frankly). Around a 10-15% success rate. And the sponsoring institution is expected to cough up half the salary, so Cambridge were obviously committed. The Leverhulme ECF is evaluated and awarded by a series of senior academics as peer reviewrs, and is always at arm's length from the sponsoring institution.

So whatever Dr Cofnas has dome subsequently, Cambridge's hosting of Cofnas was after an extremely rigorous international competition. Again, an interesting comparison with Dr Arday's career ...

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.]

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?

I see the fact he secured a Leverhulme trotted out as 'evidence' of his achievement across a lot of right-wing and racist platforms.

I've never seen one of those articles mention that Leverhulme issued a public statement that criticised him for his publication of racist views while holding the Fellowship:
https://www.leverhulme.ac.uk/news/leverhulme-trust-statement
And of course it didn't end well for him seeing as he resigned and was fired from Cambridge while there.

How do you know what competition Arday faced in his interviews for his various positions? That he was appointed to successive posts indicates a greater degree of success than Cofnas who seems to have secured just one Early Career Fellowship, and then a post-doc as assistant to someone of the same ideological views for which the appointment process was called into question. He failed to be kept on as a researcher for the first - in fact, he was ignimonously fired from the unsalaried 'Research Associate' role which almost never happens, and has been suspended from the second.

Arday's research is based on CRT, or white people bad (very short form).
So short it's reductive. It's not how I view Critical Race Theory.

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.
I didn't say anything about Arday's actions. I do think his appointment was a mistake, and think his involvement of the police was awful. I think it's a different situation in that Cambridge seem to have appointed him partly on his back story, and created a lot of publicity that he presumably felt compelled to keep going. The thrust of his work was in no way as harmful as Cofnas - he certainly never advocated purging universities, nor claimed there's a racial hierarchy of intelligence.

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?
Who's hounding Cofnas?

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.

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.

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.

I don't view CRT as a singular 'thing' because a method or approach called CRT has been around for the past 50 years, and has influenced many fields. As such, many academics conduct research influenced by CRT without self-consciously aligning to it as a doctrine. Just as some scholars associated with CRT advocate intersectional thinking (so not just a focus on race), people who aren't working on race often draw on ideas or work first formulated within the context of CRT.

I've found some of its tenets useful in my research and supervision of researchers, for example in exploring how people experience inequality in everyday life, differential racialisation and how lived experience can challenge institutional narratives/norms. Some of those ideas are deployed in contexts and projects that are far from the cartoonish version of CRT - for example, one of my friends is an industrial designer and has drawn on some classic CRT tenets in developing new forms of products for wheelchair users in consultation with disabled people. My field is history of the built environment, and certainly some ideas originating in CRT are extremely helpful in looking at the history of planning legislation, zoning and architecture.

You said 'some people, press and some academics' are hounding Cofnas which is pretty vague - I was asking you to be more specific. Can you show some examples?

Has anyone cited Cofnas's religion as the reason he was awarded the Leverhulme?

Your thread is about his suspension, not his fellowship.

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?

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

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.

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

Part two of the letter.