Professor Jason Arday - plagiarism etc

Also from what I can see The Guardian did its own investigations and produced more of the falsehoods.

When I say They are not part of his story I mean the person who exposed him is not really a part of Ardys own story unless it is a false exposure.

What Vofnas did and the type of person he is is Cofnas’s story I think.People are justified in pretty much all the criticisms of his beliefs and his writings .

But U genuinely don’t understand how it has any relevance to what Ardy has done.
His falsehoods are falsehoods regardless of who discovers the truth. They are not really any part of his story. They could be anyone. In that case irrelevant.

I’m not sure what people are saying or wanting here.

Questions can only come from those who are broadly in sympathy with the questioned? Whether background or thrust of argument.

Questions can only come from official sources.

Questions from those known to be hostile should be discounted and ignored.

People who are thought of as bad shouldn’t be allowed to question those perceived as good?

I suppose I just see truth as truth regardless of who.

I still think that the focus for all this should be on the university, not Jason Arday, a clever man but with very serious mental issues.

Cofnas is part of the story because of what happened to him in 2024 at Cambridge university so IMO it is relevant to this particular event. Whereas the Times reporters who did an excellent (and better job IMO) of exposing Arday did not have a relevant backstory. But happy for anyone to disagree, it's just my opinion!

Im in agreement with Monica.

If the information is true and factual it’s irrelevant who reveals that.

It only becomes relevant if the information is false, surely.

M0nica

The character of the person who reveals awkward and embarrassing information is irrelevant if what they reveal is accurate and significant.

Of course it is, Monica except when something about that person is relevant to the subject being discussed and in the case of Cafnas, it was very relevant and of interest (at least to some people).

The character of the person who reveals awkward and embarrassing information is irrelevant if what they reveal is accurate and significant.

"Or willing to turn a blind eye in the pursuit of diversity but in this case it has come back to bite them. Hard."

If this was the case then whoever was responsible for the appointment needs to go on diversity training because they clearly don't understand what it is about.
Nathan Cafnas, who was one of the people to question Arday's qualifications for the post IMO demonstrated why diversity training is so important to ensure fairness and equality. When there are people around with the racist views that Cafnas holds it is important to have a proper understanding of what good recruitment and selection looks like and to have practices that underpin that practice. Cafnas deserved to lose his post.

"In a 2024 blog post titled "A Guide for the Hereditarian Revolution," former Cambridge philosophy researcher Nathan Cofnas claimed that under a true meritocracy based purely on academic qualifications, the number of Black professors at elite institutions like Harvard would "approach zero per cent," and Black people would "disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment".

Well no, as the Cafnas attacks were so very, very, virulent, exceptionally so, and relevant pages ago

but tbh I think we have covered that, (several times) it's now on page 13!

LemonJam

I agree Wyloow3 but accept the question of why him and not others is not of particular interest to the majority on this thread.

I also accept there is little interest in any discussion of the reasons why Cafnas chose to scrutinise Arday particularly, how his motivation maybe driven by his racist beliefs, any interest in Cafnas academic history, the reasons why Cambridge University sacked Cafnas and the reasons why Cafnas lost his court case against Cambridge University.

Isnt that an example of whataboutery?

Top post foxie

Look, its still happening for example that the "old boy" network is alive and kicking in some appointments in academia.

Or simply, because of limitations of time to do due diligence, and appointment is made from with in the department - or someone known well by someone in that department.

Pinning it always on diversity of one kind or another is what I really object to on this thread

It's quite straightforward to me - Cambridge made a massive and culpable mistake in this appointment, this time it was diversity:

it's a huge lesson for them and indeed all universities, and so much the better the lesson coming from one of the Russell Group.

But the other issues I alluded to above can prevent "outsiders" of one kind or another being appointed: and that includes gender and race which I think does need a balance.

.... and this is where the issues of time for due diligence really really matters.

It would be best imo for a person specifically appointed to do in depth searches to prepare the ground, not an academic unless they really have the search skills and time.

I think some of it is to do with diversity but I also think there us something about some people who are able to say a lot whilst actually saying nothing at all, I think he was probably one of these people. Russel Brand operates a similar technique.

foxie48

Allsorts of course Arday is at fault, I'm certainly not defending him and have made that clear in my posts. If the university had made his appointment conditional on a few simple checks, it could have avoided this mess entirely. I've sat on more interview panels that I care to remember but appointments were always made subject to satisfactory checks and some applicants were found to have told lies on their CVs so their appointment was not confirmed. There does have to be an element of trust but it's pretty easy to find out if someone has been a visiting professor or not and any decent PhD supervisor should have been able to spot plagiarism that was as obvious as Arday's seems to have been. It seems a lot of people have been both lazy and sloppy!

Or willing to turn a blind eye in the pursuit of diversity but in this case it has come back to bite them. Hard.

Allsorts of course Arday is at fault, I'm certainly not defending him and have made that clear in my posts. If the university had made his appointment conditional on a few simple checks, it could have avoided this mess entirely. I've sat on more interview panels that I care to remember but appointments were always made subject to satisfactory checks and some applicants were found to have told lies on their CVs so their appointment was not confirmed. There does have to be an element of trust but it's pretty easy to find out if someone has been a visiting professor or not and any decent PhD supervisor should have been able to spot plagiarism that was as obvious as Arday's seems to have been. It seems a lot of people have been both lazy and sloppy!

He is still fault, he is a liar, the Cambridge elite who orchestrated this should be investigated and removed. Unlikely to be the first time it's happened. Is this going on at all Universities?

No, not recently Galaxy but I have no doubt that the recruitment and selection practices in some universities are extremely suspect. My concern is that DEI is being condemned rather than the misuse of practices that underpin it. Unfortunately few people seem to understand what good DEI practice looks like.

But have you been in universities lately foxie, people have been raising concerns about the culture in many universities for some time, I could have predicted with 100 % accuracy the 'slogans' I heard in my latest visit.

What about the other universities where he worked and their recruiting practices? It seems the tip of a big iceberg. Im sure there are many similar stories yet to be heard. Not just in the educational sector.

I spent part of my career as a member of a team responsible for training senior management in educational establishments in recruitment and selection. My work was always concerned with ensuring that recruitment and selection was fair, it was never about promoting one group of people over another or giving anyone an unfair advantage but it was about eradicating bias. DEI is not about promoting black people unfairly, it is about giving everyone an equal opportunity for success regardless of race, gender, age, religion or background and tbh I am furious that an institution like Cambridge university does not adhere to good recruitment practices because it tarnishes all their appointments. Arday should never have been appointed, he's clearly told lies about his background but he won't be the first or the last to tell lies, Cambridge U, however, should have checked his credentials properly as they should for every appointment.

I did read it properly! It is my faith in universities that is the issue not my faith in you.

I agree with you Foxie, I can understand why they want more black lecturers but there would be well-qualified black candidates who'd worked hard on their PhDs & would have made good professors.

They wanted the "too good to be true" candidate who had a Learning Disability, educational disadvantage, & the kitchen sink of equalities buzzwords & still had managed to suceed. Only - they should have checked that it was true.

Galaxy please read my post properly,
"I doubt many universities would consider it acceptable to have women's studies taught by an all male team."

Sorry random brackets

I for various reasons have been involved second hand with 2 universities, one a former poly and one a russel group uni ( I would say on the evidence I have seen I would pick the former over the latter every time).