Jason Arday, Cambridge Plagiarist, thread two

[Angeruish]

We are nearing our 1000-post limit on the original thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5561878-jason-arday-cambridge-plagiarist?reply=153910946

I have now removed the question mark after "plagiarist".

I can't believe the sequel will be as good as the original, but you never know...

There has to be scrutiny of public figures in general. We cannot function otherwise (I have to admit Prince Andrew may have had a wobble). However if Cambridge had removed him from his role with a suspicion about his mental health problems there possibly would have been an outrage about the racist decision. No one could win.

the money spent on Carter Rick could have been spent supporting this poor man.

I really disagree that this happened because of ‘woke silencing’. It happened because Cambridge had absolutely failed to address its lack of staff diversity and therefore leapt, rubbing its hands, towards a human sticking plaster who could solve all their problems in one fell swoop as long as they didn’t look too closely at a backstory that any idiot would not only question, but recognise as the work of a very unstable person.

Cambridge has blood on its hands.

It's never anyone else's fault that someone takes their own life but everyone who contributed to the nastiness towards the person has played a part in pushing them towards it.

I did comment on this thread and I feel bad about that. I think Cambridge need investigated.

Very sad news. He obviously wasn't supported and has been let down by the episode. I understand why he felt how he felt.

That's what the online and real life bullies of children who take their own life must think too.
Shame on you.

Desperately sad news and I hope his family will be cared for and supported.

Nobody would have wanted it to end this way (well, maybe apart from a few rabid racists) but I'm not going to cry crocodile tears over it either. Nor am I going to say 'poor man'.

He appears to have spun a web of lies for years, presenting himself as a superhero physically and educationally. Nobody could question him or they were threatened. I think it's fair to wonder whether he killed himself because of media and social media pressure or because his lies had caught up with him and he didn't want to be here for the fallout.

All the institutions who gave him positions must ask themselves some serious questions. Why were they so willing to appoint someone whose claims were, in many cases, frankly un-believable? Why were they willing to dismiss hard evidence? Why were they willing to dismiss all

DEI doesn't fall apart from one bad apple, as JA was referred to in an earlier post. It comes under scrutiny when certain characteristics are valued over suitability. As mentioned before on this thread, it's become prevalent in the arts as well as education, particularly HE. The E in DEI stands for Equality. It should mean that no candidate who is qualified and suitable for the role is discounted on the basis of race, gender, sexuality or any other characteristic. But to some institutions, academic and others, it has become an imperative to demonstrate not that they discriminate but that inclusion counts for more than qualifications or ability. Although they would deny that, and assert that their appointees were of course the best people for the job.

I hope that the issues which have come under the spotlight from this aren't now allowed to be dismissed out of 'respect for the dead'. A lot of people have a lot of questions to answer.

1. Women are not responsible for what men do.
2. Using suicide as a way of avoiding the consequences of one's actions is very much male pattern behaviour and is a form of male pattern violence. This is why a lot of male prisoners commit suicide.

Neither of the above points make this any less of a tragedy for Arday's family, nor do they absolve Cambridge and JMU of their responsibilities to ensure that candidates for academic positions are fit to hold the post. Someone like Arday should be getting mental health support, not being used as a pawn to improve an institution's EDI score. Making a fantasist a professor of anything was as irresponsible as locking an alcoholic in a distillery.

Cambridge and JMU took someone vulnerable and exploited him.

For God's sake. Anyone with any sensitivity at all can crack under pressure. That's like blaming people who died from Covid for their own deaths.

Professors are public figures. It's not "bullying" to ask questions about whether a public figure is fit to hold office. If Cambridge and Liverpool JMU had done their jobs properly, there'd have been no questions to ask.

Did you miss the bit where that poster laid the blame at Cambridge's feet?

So what? Her post claimed he must have had "underlying mental health issues" to do that.

All the institutions who gave him positions must ask themselves some serious questions. Why were they so willing to appoint someone whose claims were, in many cases, frankly un-believable? Why were they willing to dismiss hard evidence? Why were they willing to dismiss all

Sorry, someone called and I got distracted and didn't realise I hadn't finished the sentence. It should have read 'Why were they willing to dismiss all complaints as racism?'

That poster wasn't blaming him for having MH problems, unless you are suggesting that MH patients are to blame for being mentally-ill? If you think that, then "I can't be your friend" is the most polite way that I can think of to word my reaction.

I know someone who died of Covid whilst weakened by cancer, and someone else who was very healthy, yet ended up in hospital from Covid. Neither of those people are to blame for their medical outcomes, yet the former's cancer contributed substantially to his death.

Kehinde Andrew’s on again tonight and claimed it was all racism and managed to blame racism on the reason he, himself, has been made redundant from his post at Birmingham City Uni. Doesn’t mention that there were too few enrolments on his Black studies course.

It’s very sad that JA has lost his life but the events leading up to it weren’t down to racism.

We've been asking the same about the grooming gangs in Rotherham for years and been met with silence.

The answer is: the "lanyard class" of petty bureaucrats have ensured that workers are more terrified of being accused of racism than they are of hurting people by keeping quiet.

This is the wisest post since the tragic news.

I have to say that as an academic manager who has had a lot of posts at various RG and other institutions - tho not Cambridge - one’s ‘backstory’ is not really the criteria on which a job is offered. Particularly a professorial role: you would be looking for potential excellence, existing prestige, grants and publications, teaching and supervisory experience etc. And now a thorough inquiry does need to happen, and if it turn out he was hired on the basis of ‘backstory’ heads should roll. I have trouble believing anyone - particularly a mute until 11, illiterate until 18 autistic working class black man - could plausibly have achieved what it takes to make a Cambridge prof aged 37 - e.g. to have examined 35 external PhDs seems unbelievable. And plus all the other accolades (pro footballer, charity fundraiser etc). But if he was appointed on the basis of his genuine academic achievements then the other lies (or not) are kind of irrelevant. What’s clear is that a vulnerable person allowed themselves to be exploited for both their own validation other people’s egos and it has ended up with them dead. This is not the first nor last time this will happen.

You do seem to have trouble reading simple statements.

She is brushing away his suicide after mass attention as being a case of oh, well, he must have had underlying problems. Also absolving herself and these massive public threads from being part of any contributing factors in his death.

I'll refer you to my other posts on this, particularly:

Professors are public figures. It's not "bullying" to ask questions about whether a public figure is fit to hold office. If Cambridge and Liverpool JMU had done their jobs properly, there'd have been no questions to ask.

and:

1. Women are not responsible for what men do.
2. Using suicide as a way of avoiding the consequences of one's actions is very much male pattern behaviour and is a form of male pattern violence. This is why a lot of male prisoners commit suicide.

Neither of the above points make this any less of a tragedy for Arday's family, nor do they absolve Cambridge and JMU of their responsibilities to ensure that candidates for academic positions are fit to hold the post. Someone like Arday should be getting mental health support, not being used as a pawn to improve an institution's EDI score. Making a fantasist a professor of anything was as irresponsible as locking an alcoholic in a distillery.

Cambridge and JMU took someone vulnerable and exploited him.

You are blaming the women of this board for a man's actions. You are essentially saying that people making implausible claims shouldn't have those claims scrutinised in case they commit suicide. That same refusal to look too closely at things that are too good to be true is how people get scammed out of their life savings and it is why Lance Armstrong got away with doping for so long.

Congrats, you lack humanity.

He was not an innocent child getting picked on for no reason.

He was a grown man in his forties, a public figure, who chose to lie about his past, his qualifications, his job positions, his level of disability at various points in his life and who knows what else. He put all that information out in the public domain.

He took other people's work and passed it off as his own. He made his decision to not just lie once but over and over again.

He eventually got caught out and people began to ask questions. When he got caught out did he do the right thing and admit it? No. Instead he called his accusers racist, and in some cases got the police involved, in others sent legal letters. He accused students who complained about the poor level of teaching and supervision etc racist.

He continued to lie about anything and everything despite knowing that it was undoubtedly all going to come out at some point.

Did he think about quitting then, whilst he was ahead? No.

Instead he got a lucrative book deal on the basis of his unbelievable back story and continued to lie whilst going on various programmes and podcasts etc. He was more than happy to do that and take the fees from those things along with his considerable wage from Cambridge.

So when it did come out the unravelling of his lies was always going to be very public and immense. He knew that as he'd created the immense amount of lies in the first place, and he'd made those lies not just to a few select academics but to the world at large.

He had choices. He could have admitted he'd stretched the truth on some things, lied on others and faced the consequences of his decisions. He chose not to do that.

So no, the decisions he made at the end of his life, like everything else he chose to do in his life, is on him, not anyone else and any shame in this whole sorry saga is certainly not mine to bear.

Tragic outcome. Well done baying pack, hope you're happy about your bullying of and obsession with this man - and that your 'legitimate concerns' have been answered. This whole episode has been completely sickening. RIP Jason Arday.

He was a clearly troubled person and honestly, just let it rest. He's dead, what more do you want? Many many many white men have done the same and worse than he did and suffered nothing like these consequences