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...

People get scammed because they don't ask "Is this too good to be true? Is this claim plausible?", including having organs stolen and losing life savings.

Hundreds of pro cyclists were affected adversely by the doping scandal. There are several Tours de France where some of the podium placings now have "none" next to them instead of a name because figured out who the legitimate winner was was too hard. Clean cyclists missed prize money and medals that should have been theirs because people didn't want to disbelieve in or challenge Lance Armstrong's miracle return to form after cancer.

Critical thinking, which very much means saying "hang on, this story is too good to be true", is necessary both to be human and be humane. Critical thinking is what separates humans from animals and Large Language Models (commonly misomered as "AI". My critical thinking skills give me my humanity. And my critical thinking skills allow me to see where one must be cruel to be kind.

If Lance Armstrong had killed himself, would you have slurred the UCI doping investigators and the cycling press as a "baying pack"?

When I talked about men committing suicide as a way of avoiding consequences, attitudes like yours are part of why they do it.

I want the heads to roll of the people in positions of power who should have said "wait, what? that isn't possible!" long before Arday backed himself into a corner he couldn't back out of, but didn't because they saw him as exploitable.

The DM have relentlessly posted stories about Jason Arday. Daily for no apparent reason, rehashing the same story for clickbait. Its media level bullying and the coverage was disproportionate.

Yet the news he has been found dead is buried well down their newsfeed.

Grim beyond words

Are Mumsnetters to be banned from posting about something if the DM covers it?

Let’s be honest MN hates the DM but what about all the other papers that also covered the plagiarism extensively?

yes it’s sad, but you can’t blame newspapers for covering a fantasist and wanting to get at the truth, that’s their job

The role of SM is to get information out there, but yes, like any SM outlet there are always keyboard warriors, but there are also a lot of people talking sense, that some will agree with and some will disagree.

But to me , and I am probably going to get really flamed for this, Jason also plays a part, he chose to lie, he chose to set solicitors, and the police, onto people rather than admit that some stuff he had done was not as it should be. He chose to continue denying even though proof was available, until he couldn’t deny any longer. And you can’t blame his autism, the fact that he is ND does not mean that as a professor he should know what’s right and wrong.

And yes Cambridge, and the other universities, also played a part in the row, they should have checked better and the system needs looking at. And also to me Jason’s family plays a part, where were they in supporting him? Perhaps advising him to tell the truth? Why did they allow such lies on his CV? Who knows? No one and we will never know probably

No one person or organisation is at fault here, it’s a combination of a lot of things that appears to have resulted in an awful ending, and I say that as I have not seen anything formal that’s says he took his own life, that’s an assumption at the moment and again part of the bigger issue. People assume something and SM, including this site, then seem to accept it as gospel

Thoughts to Arday’s family and friends. What an awful end to a life, in an already really sad situation.

The preceding institutional scandal held a mirror up to several very complex issues and will still have to be investigated. The outcome ought to have consequences for change at multiple universities and individuals.
There would seem to have been avoided professional responsibilities and racism and ableism involved at many points, alongside personal exploitation for institutional PR, in order to have got to all of these difficult questions being raised publicly, and going back for years.

Yes - I posted previously at the very very start of these threads (thread 1) that there there is an extraordinarily high risk of people with autism developing bipolar, schizophrenia and other MH issues that can manifest as telling lies and creating fantasy personas about themselves. As high as 6x more prevalent than in the general population. This is fact.

I said in that post that I was concerned that his behaviour and everything he has said and done MAY have been a result of such a MH condition but that those around him - family who benefited from his career trajectory and celebrity, and those at Cambridge seeking a DEI success story who had disregarded normal process in hiring him - had possibly ignored the signs that he needed a psychiatric intervention and support because it did not suit them, I was worried that, behind his fantastic lies, there was a vulnerable autistic man who had been both groomed by the system and facilitated by it because they needed a poster boy.

To then abandon him - and it now seems obvious that there was at least something going on with him - and to not ensure he was looked after and kept safe after his resignation and as the US book launch date approached- is a damning inditement of Cambridge, the publishing industry, the media system that BOTH of those rely on, and quite possibly the family who benefitted directly from his celebrity and income.

I didn’t ‘claim’ he had underlying MH issues - I suggested that he MAY have had - I am sorry no one kills themself because they are in a good place so YES I will now state that he very fucking obviously had underlying MH issues. BUT this is not BLAMING HIM, it is pointing out that he was profoundly let down by every single person around him who had the opportunity to intervene or stop the roller coaster over the last 8 years.

Sorry if my opinion offends you - but there is a dead man here and in the wake of his death there are serious questions for Cambridge in particular to answer. They owed him a duty of care, and they owe each of the students he taught and whose education and careers were negatively impacted some sort of apology and compensation because they, too, were let down.

Watching the news last night, various people were being interviewed about the tragic ending of JA’s life. One was Jolyan Maugham (excuse spelling if it’s wrong), supporter of JA and founder of the Good Law Project, the other was the Baron Cohen guy (can’t remember his full name) who’s a leading authority at Cambridge on autism and is also a supporter of JA.

What is clear is that they were both in touch with Jason on an almost daily basis and Baron Cohen had spoken with him that morning. So he was being supported. However, what was also clear was their blind refusal to accept that academia had played any part in this sorry affair. BC illustrated the point when he reiterated that his PhD was genuine and well deserved as JMU had investigated the plagiarism claims and exonerated him. He, as an authority on ND said that autistic students don’t understand or see why this can be viewed as wrong so allowances have to be made. Isn’t this the issue here?

JA was elevated beyond his capabilities. He was lauded and amplified and presented to the public in a fanfare of publicity, appeared on tv shows, podcasts, radio stations etc. and because someone scratched their head and said “hang on a minute” this doesn’t add up, let’s have a closer look the whole circus began.

Apparently some outfit, “The Times Education” (yet again can’t remember and cba to look up atm) was the first to start the ball rolling. They aren’t connected to The Times newspaper and as their name suggests are all about education, academia etc. If their inquiries had been dealt with by Cambridge this wouldn’t have been picked up on by the MSM.

i don’t doubt there will be much covering of backs, deflecting blame and outlandish claims of racism. Judging by the two being interviewed last night there’ll be no acceptance that their ridiculous, flawed ideology led to this outcome.

Jolyon Maugham was on news last night visibly shaken. Good Law Project have been editing the open letter defending him including the removal of several academics.

Unfortunately I think most of the news focus wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the open letter

This hadn’t occurred to me - that it might have been the massive activism of on the part of GLP that fuelled this. That it might have been dealt with more discretely if they hadn’t made this a huge race issue and egged it all on.

Can we get this clear.

The legitimate scrutiny of Jason Arday was thr result of plagiarism, lying, and a defense of DEI which resulted in any querying I'd Jason's statements being met with accusations of racism. This was not a smear campaign based on Jason's race.

Watching the BBC last night it was shocking to hear a number of campaigners being allowed to cast both the media and knowledgeable academics as racists determined to hound a back man.

I think the campaigners need to have a good look at themselves using a poor fantasists death as a means of promoting their societal agenda.

In terms of support I feel that having peers phoning you who support the DEI agenda was maybe wrong. Why didn't these people suggest serious mental health care on the NHS (emergency drop in service, mental health care emergency staff) as this where this poor man was at. Instead thr racist hounding narrative was held on unitl thr end which serves no one.

Spot on @mids2019 .

It was shocking but not surprising I saw that. I’ve given up on the BBC they are a totally biased non credible reporter. I say this as someone who worked for them 30 years ago they are now not the same organisation and are extremely woke with an agenda.

They reported that poor boy as ending up in the crocodile pit when he was thrown in, their reporting is terrible and not trustworthy.

It sounds like a number of universities and employers did not offer duty of care including Cambraidge. For Jason to work at Cambridge for 3 years and his immediate management to not notice thr lying and and also poor job performance is looking implausible. Maybe the tragedy could have been averted by a member if staff having thr courage to say ' Jason we have concerns and I fhink it is in everyone's benefit for you stand aside for 6 months and we heavily advice you seek clinical help' maybe Cambridge could have worked with that and maybe gently moved Jason into a less high profile role where he could continue to get support for any MH issue which underlined the fantasise (compulsive lying)

You can't frame suicide as a consequence of exposure. The consequence Jason Arday faced was his voluntary resignation from his post and the prospect of an independent inquiry into his hiring. Other consequences were institutions and individuals coming forward to refute that he had worked/volunteered/represented them.

His untimely death is not a direct consequence of the interest in his history and claims. Until the inquest is concluded it won't be clear why he died when he did. Certainly his resignation statement gave no indication that he was foreseeing it.

This subject is wider than Jason Arday. If an institution like Cambridge University can be found to have hired someone in error, that's worrying for all HE institutions.

We can't have a situation where nobody speaks for fear that someone may take their own life.

@mids2019 There was a long interview with a friend on the Stephen Nolan show last night and he squarely put the blame on the media. Mostly the newspapers. This seemed utterly naive and biased. He suggested the media attention was too great but did not really recognise “media” is not just the print media. It’s very much blaming those who wanted answers and I’m not sure why racism was coming into it either. The decision to promote him and believe his cv was not racist but suited a narrative. So does it mean no one can criticise a black person now? Even when it’s fair comment on policies and practices? DEI agenda is clearly the issue here and Cambridge have been incredibly stupid. It would also make me wonder whether their employment practices were legal. Was he truly the best candidate? Would they stand up to scrutiny?

The autism comments are very interesting.

Indeed.
And to say as someone did upthread that Cambridge had done nothing to address staff diversity is just not true. I was there in the 1980s and almost all the students were white, as were almost all the lecturers (Britain was around 95% white at the time). Out of perhaps fifteen traching staff I had contact with as an undergraduate, 2 were women (and iirc, one of those was part time). Things have changed massively since.

Moreover, it's not the job of elite institutions to resolve problems that begin much further down the chain. It's not the job of universities to make societies look equal by scrupulously admitting students and appointing staff to tick boxes relating to sex, gender, disability, ethnic background or social class.

Nobody expects a premier league football team to ensure that x% of the squad is autistic/ is Asian/ has mobility problems, because the job of a premier league football team is to win matches and ultimately top the league.

Similarly, elite academic institutions exist to produce groundbreaking research that helps to make the world a better place. To do that, they need academics who already have a proven record, because it's not the job of those institutions to bring people up to a speed that they may not be capable of attaining. Same with students. If the problems are structural, the work needs to start back at the beginning, rather than expecting universities to slap sticking plasters over the issue so we can all pretend it's all okay - while research standards slip and the job we pay universities to do (underpin civilisational progress) isn't done as well as it should be.

That's the conversation we need to have: why do children from different backgrounds start school at such different levels, and what can we do about it?

He set the police on journalists and hired lawyers.
The journalist never approached him and police have since said they were wrong in their actions against the journalist.
He should have held his hands up, he knew he’d spun a web of lies.
The GLP seems to have fuelled the situation.
Hiring CR and doing a book was a big misjudgment.
Why Cambridge never checked his background is a huge issue and they are looking less credible by the day. They wanted it to be true to suit their DEI obsession.
A very sorry saga all round.
The brakes should have been put on long before it came to this though.
He could have stepped away a long time ago as he knew his appointment was built on a pack of lies. Being lauded and on hefty wage is not worth it as at some point it would collapse that was inevitable.

If we let it rest, then he has died for nothing and the same thing could happen again.

You have to look at the wider picture with cases like this, tragic as they are.

I don't thing stepping in while JA was in employment and asking him to step back a bit, or finding another role for him would have worked. In the RG University where I work, challenging academic performance or behaviour often results in lengthy grievances, long term sick leave, accusations of discrimination and ultimately expensive employment tribunal claims or large settlement agreements, sometimes into 6 figures.

He was a ruined man at the end. Think about his employ!ent future at 41. Presumably Jason could not continue a career in academia and going for a job academic role he would have to produce a CV. Would it be that Jason would be looking at a life of UC and disability benefits of he had not significant wealth to fall back on?.I think the prosaic notion of being virtually unemployable for a period would have weighed heavily on him.

Good point.

How did you extrapolate that from my post? I am posting on MN myself about it.

I was making a point about irresponsible reporting by the media, the DM driving an agenda getting people worked up about an issue that really didnt merit the level of attention they were pouring into it, with zero consideration for the human being at the other end. I didnt click on a single one of the DM stories but saw the headlines/his pic being used day in day to tear the man down. He was facing real life consequences and didnt need the intense focus he endured.

I think these threads have finally made me realise that all humanity on mumsnet is lost. Yes he lied, no it's not racist inherently to question that, to hold institutions to account etc but anybody who can't see that he is not the first to have been accused of plagiarism or embellished achievements on his CV and yet somehow is the first to have been subjected to this level of scrutiny and media attention - he was literally humiliated on the world stage for lying on his CV and people lapped it up - and to think about why that may be - well I can't help you honestly. And all the people positively delighting in his downfall so they can rally against DEI etc - oh yes no racists to be seen here - absolutely not at all. Just asking legitimate questions. Sure.

I would not defend his actions - they were wrong. But he was not afforded the same grace as white male academics in the same position.

He was used and abused by the establishment to show: 'look how unracist we are' which is of course in itself, racist - disgusting.

The media furore about this was completely disproportionate to his wrongdoing so yes the media should be held to account. This outcome was completely predictable. His poor family.