Professor Jason Arday - plagiarism etc

Just as it's important not to see racism in everything where it doesn't exist it is equally important to be open to the possibility of racism where it potentially exists. Now that would be equal.

Agreed LemonJam but there is no racism on this thread.

Oreo - I read your comment to Wyllow3 "You see racism in everything Wyllow3" and then wrote my post.

I know .

Lathyrus3

How interesting Wyllow that you have drawn an unfavourable comparison with the case of allegations of research fraud against the Jewish professor, David Latchman.

I wonder why you felt the comparison was appropriate given that it was not for plagiarism?

Yes an interesting choice given there must be plenty of white plagiarists that could have been cited.

I just came across this article from a fellow academic Robert Chapman titled *Jason Arday Deserves Our Solidarity"*: This is so regardless of any mistakes and despite the need for accountability" ROBERT CHAPMAN AUG 01, 2026- available on line in full. Some excerpts:

………"To be sure, at first glance, the allegations appear serious. The blog that initiated the controversy presents passages from Arday’s PhD thesis, found through plagiarism software, alongside passages from the earlier work of Paula Zwozdiak-Myers. While he cites her work regularly throughout, these passages appear to have been copied verbatim or with only minor alterations, without citation. The (CAFNAS) blog suggests that without this purportedly stolen work, his research would have very little merit—something I will argue is highly misleading. It’s worth noting right off that the blog was written by Nathan Cofnas, whose criticisms of Arday sit within a broader body of work opposing diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, not to mention defending race science. That context helps explain why this thesis became the subject of a public campaign rather than simply an issue for the institutions involved. That said, my argument doesn’t depend on dismissing Cofnas’s politics. Even if every allegation were accurate—something I will contest—the more important question is not whether some passages require correction, but why they have become the basis for a sustained campaign extending far beyond the thesis itself".

How serious is it?
"First, even assuming the allegations about his thesis are substantially correct, they do not imply Arday plagiarised significant parts of original findings…"

Chapman later goes on to say:

Extenuating circumstances
The circumstances under which any thesis was written are also important. Arday is not only autistic but has spoken publicly about developing a brain tumour during his PhD while also having to work full time to pay the bills. Shortly after passing his viva, he then suffered a stroke that resulted in substantial memory loss, including of the viva. Working a full time job while completing a PhD, while hard, would not normally be mitigating, but a brain tumour plainly would. Of course, I do not know whether formal mitigating circumstances were submitted. But these are precisely the kinds of issues examiners consider and discuss, whether formally or informally, when assessing whether a thesis should pass (not to mention any subsequent investigation). After all, it is easy to imagine how mistakes might be made under such circumstances. But none of this context is mentioned in the blog or subsequent news reports. Ultimately, a PhD is an examination that candidates either pass or fail. Some theses are more polished, and can be published as books without much editing; others pass despite being much rougher, including because candidates have less support or have faced exceptional personal circumstances. Examiners routinely weigh such factors when deciding whether work has met the required standard. Clearly, Arday’s examiners, who may know things that we don’t, decided that his thesis did meet the standard. To be clear, none of this would simply excuse plagiarism if instances are definitely proven. It does, however, make the suggestion that this is a uniquely shocking case, worthy of a sustained public campaign, extremely difficult to sustain.

MawsRosie

^Is it a mere co-incidence that *no fuss was made on GN made at all about Professor David Latchman, (The Master of Birkbeck, University of London, and a top geneticist at University College London (UCL) in the 2018-2018 scandal. It was in all the papers of course but no one picked on it to specially feature. He was white^
That is a shameful accusation.
I have no idea what scandal you are talking about but perhaps because my DH had died shortly before that I had other preoccupations.
As indeed may others.
To accuse the membership odd GN of racism by omission puts you on very shaky ground. .

That was eight years ago; perhaps many current posters were not on Gransnet then? Or, as MawsRosie says, occupied with their own problems.

Without trawling through all the posts from that time, it would be difficult to know anyway.

I have come across at least three people who fantasised and were believed, two professionally and one socially.

Today, with the rise of AI, this is an increasing problem.

Robert Chapman then reflects:

Why did this become a national story

The more important question is not why a thesis might need corrections or the quality of one scholar’s research. Universities deal with such matters regularly after all. The real question is why this particular case became national news for days on end, especially from rightwing outlets. I think the answer clearly lies less in the thesis itself than in what Arday represents. As Penny Rabiger discusses, universities have become central to political arguments about diversity, equity and inclusion, and high-profile Black academics who speak publicly about educational inequality have increasingly become symbolic figures, and targets, in those debates.

Seen in that light, the focus on the thesis makes it possible for those opposed to greater inclusion to suggest that Arday’s success is not genuinely deserved but instead reflects institutional commitments to diversity. Whether or not anyone states that conclusion explicitly, it fits neatly into existing conservative and far right narratives about so-called “woke” universities. That helps explain why what would ordinarily have remained an academic matter instead became national news.

This becomes clear when we again contrast it to the case of Julian Young (who, as far as I am aware, is white). With Young, there was no attempt to scour everything he had ever written or question every public statement he had ever made, to seek to make him look like a liar. He was rightly held to account, explained his errors and made corrections, and then everyone moved on. By contrast, the discussion with Arday has not remained focused on the thesis, or even the rest of his academic work which has now been scoured. Instead, attention instantly expanded to questioning Arday’s charitable fundraising, his personal history and, perhaps most disturbingly, even his medical history and childhood language delay. Notably, taking her cue from Cofnas, who was the first to do this in his original blog, anti-trans campaigner Kathleen Stock has been among those amplifying this more personal line of discrediting.

Personally I strongly disagree with Cofnas’ and Stock’s politics. But whatever one’s views of their wider politics questioning a disabled person’s account of their own medical or developmental history goes well beyond any legitimate discussion of academic standards. At that point, the controversy is no longer simply about plagiarism, but an attempt to undermine the credibility and moral character of a public figure, in highly disturbing ways

I think it's quite easy to do if you're saving verbatim chunks of research papers on your computer to return to with the intent to refer to those ideas in the piece you are writing - it's a way of note taking. However, it's risky as it's easy to mistakenly copy and paste it instead of summarizing/analysing it to refer to in your writing while obviously quite correctly referencing the author. What surprises me is people not running their work through some sort of plagiarism detection program before publishing if they use this method of keeping notes.

And finally summarises and emphasises:

Solidarity

As I’ve indicated, academic integrity matters, and genuine mistakes should be corrected, as they often are. But academic integrity also depends on fairness, consistency and due process. It cannot become something enforced selectively according to a person’s ethnicity, identity or public prominence. Nor should allegations concerning scholarship become an excuse to attack someone’s disability, life history or credibility in unrelated areas

Arday deserves our full and unabashed solidarity, not because anyone is beyond accountability or making mistakes but because he is a human being, entitled to fairness, dignity, and due process Whatever the outcome of any inquiry, no one should be subjected to an ideologically driven campaign that seeks to reduce a person’s whole life and work to a political battleground.

Ultimately, what is happening to Arday is not just about one individual. It is about the conditions under which all academics live and work. If Arday’s character, history, and life’s work can be discredited by an ideologically motivated campaign against him due to what he symbolises: a Black, disabled working class man who has made it into the highest levels of university, then without solidarity, nobody but the most privileged is immune. This is not just a dispute about academic integrity, then but a warning about how politically motivated attacks can function to intimidate, isolate, and delegitimise scholars whose mere presence challenges the deeply entrenched hierarchies of British academia

Was A1 sotware available in the year Arday completed his PHD- the subject of Cafnas claims?

I don’t think any of that matters a fig LemonJam if all the claims by the Professor are total bunkum.He seems to fantasise with the truth about everything he does.Which does incline people to question absolutely everything he says!
Academics are very prone to infighting amongst themselves and even publicly diss each other, but this case goes further than plagiarism of thesis work in any case.

I'm much more concerned about the lies spouted by country leaders being left unchallenged & uncorrected...

Trump, Putin & Johnson (the top 3 that spring to mind) have regulary & frequently told such obvious whoppers that everyone knows are outright lies, but never seem to be addressed publically...

Surely these should be top & centre of all media publications & programs until they are apologised for & corrected by the said liar...

I was responsible many years ago for providing plagiarism software to all UK universities - he could and should have been caught out years ago - it's unbelievable he still has a post in any academic institution

I can be concerned about anyone in a responsible position who has made a career by telling very many lies, Political Leaders, MPs, Academics, and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.

I absolutely agree Genevieve4 - they should be more of a focus. Cafnas claims against Arday are of little comparative importance and will be duly investigated. The amount of press attention is disproportionate.

LemonJam

Was A1 sotware available in the year Arday completed his PHD- the subject of Cafnas claims?

I didn't say it was.
What I said was that is is an increasing problem with the rise of AI.

Because someone is autistic does not mean they are not highly intelligent or even without cunning and the means to deceive.

I feel no 'solidarity' with this person because I am impartial; however, it is concerning that the lives of others can be impacted by such fantasists.

The amount of press attention is disproportionate.

I dont think it is when this is a Cambridge University Professor.

And so many things he says, now need to be looked at.

JenniRen

LemonJam

Was A1 sotware available in the year Arday completed his PHD- the subject of Cafnas claims?

I didn't say it was.
What I said was that is is an increasing problem with the rise of AI.

Because someone is autistic does not mean they are not highly intelligent or even without cunning and the means to deceive.

I feel no 'solidarity' with this person because I am impartial; however, it is concerning that the lives of others can be impacted by such fantasists.

My 15.28 post was in response to Jess20 15.25 post.

I agree with Jess20 that it's a good thing now for PHD students to run their theses through A1 software as a check but didn't think A1 was available when Arday did his PHD thesis.

And like you JenniRen- I remain impartial until full facts known.

"My 15.28 post was in response to Jess20 15.25 post."

Oh, ok, misunderstood.

I bet a lot of people are now frantically running around trying to cover their arses.
He must have had some real dirt on and control over people to get away with this for so long.

Al la Epstein type tactics.

This sort of thing will get worse with AI.

JenniRen

"My 15.28 post was in response to Jess20 15.25 post."

Oh, ok, misunderstood.

No worries 😊

Wyllow3

I don't consider my post offensive, but I am open to you reporting it Primrose. (Truly).

If we read what Lemonjam is reporting and the still needed disintangements, then there is a "lot more to the story"

It is offensive because you are targeting me as the OP and accusing me of saying things I did not say. It was not intended to “mock or demean” as you accuse me of.

I repeat, an apology would be in order.

Primrose53

Wyllow3

I don't consider my post offensive, but I am open to you reporting it Primrose. (Truly).

If we read what Lemonjam is reporting and the still needed disintangements, then there is a "lot more to the story"

It is offensive because you are targeting me as the OP and accusing me of saying things I did not say. It was not intended to “mock or demean” as you accuse me of.

I repeat, an apology would be in order.

I have reread the OP it seems a perfectly straight forwrad presentation of the facts.

Bear in mind that in the papers today, someone was accused and convicted for claiming a whole series of degrees, including a Cambridge degree, which he did to have, to hold senior (non-medical) posts in the NHS. There have been cases where people have claimed fictitious medical qualifications to hold medical posts. These cases come up regularly.

This case has caught the public attention because he managed to fool a Cambridge University Faculty and because so many of his fictitious non-academic claims are so extreme. I cannot see what his past medical history has to do with it. The faults lie entirely with the university for not carrying out a full due diligence checks on him before they appointed him.