It's not about being duped though, or feeling anxious about being accused of racism (although that does happen). In any organisation, and specifically in academia, everyone has a job to do, and calling out a colleague is a distraction.
There may be an audit department whose job is quality control, but except for the rare places where there is a culture of honest reflection that welcomes challenge, any incompetence / fraud tends to be accepted and covered up.
If it's a black person being incompetent, anyone who asks might be told they seem racist, but if it's a white person or an anonymous entity being incompetent, some other reason may be given, or none.
My lived experience (ha ha) includes several examples. The best is probably when I looked at a numerical report and said to my boss "the numbers don't add up". She told me to bury it. I persisted, and all that happened was I stayed in a junior role while nicer people were promoted above me. It was the same software that generated the Post Office scandal.
In an academic situation, my MSc supervisor was very difficult and I had to request a change of supervisor. The second supervisor gave me zero feedback, just marked my thesis as a merit. It was very very clear that everyone in the department was aware of the (white male) supervisor. I didn't raise a complaint: I picked up my certificate and did no further study.
Some of the objections to the scrutiny of Arday's appointment seem to be calling for equal opportunities to be incompetent. Really what we should be thinking about is the cultural norms around whistleblowing or quality control. The Cambridge Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice, might have some ideas around that as cultural norms her area of interest.