Professor Jason Arday - plagiarism etc

LemonJam

fancythat

LemonJam

fancythat

His resignation is very far from the end of the matter.

What is your meaning and implication fancythat?

See Galaxy post before mine.

Plus there will be books.
Films.
More media coverage. etc

I dont think you really need me to explain.

I'm not clear which Galaxy post you are referring to. Thank you for your explanation.

Galaxy 10.34am
Sorry, I should have written her post before your question.

Lathyrus3

I totally agree that the scrutiny of the appointment process is the crucial thing.

Talked to my DS who is on such appointment boards. He agrees. It's the fault of the Uni.

Said: Cambridge have been very very good on encouraging diversity amongst the students. some stunning examples of your people admitted on less good A levels but turned out brilliantly.

BUT: they rushed to try and make their staff diverse. It takes time for people to filter through to graduate then post graduate then..the whole process...takes time.

It is actually very difficult to check everything, very complex, especially when as in this case there was apparently very good basis to appoint, but they didn't do their job. He is of the view - in his experience that in general however:

Just like it used to be for women going back... black people and other ethnic minorities often have to work harder and be "the best" to get where they have done if you go back to childhoods and count in prejudice which sadly still exists in schools and so on - (just as do some young people from other disadvantaged backgrounds), but they did reach out to them sooner historically.

and, especially in the Russell Group universities and Oxbridge especially -

There is still very much an old boys and sadly I mean old boys network going as to who gets in, ie someone's son or maybe daughter these days - are networked into the system by a back door.

Why was he singled out for scrutiny some say? Obviously because he was and is a complete fantasist whose credentials were under suspicion and being questioned. He got away with it for so long because of diversity initiatives where he was seen as the poster boy for black academics. Cambridge University used to be held in high regard. No longer after this debacle. I wonder how many more like him are employed there with no due diligence being adhered to. What about safeguarding of students. All of this needs further investigation and as somebody else said earlier it is not the last of the matter, just the beginning.

I totally agree that the scrutiny of the appointment process is the crucial thing.

I think you’re confusing books. The false book claim was a book that he claimed to have published with Palgrave MacMillan and added to his CV.
They have confirmed no such book was ever published by them.

As for the autobiography the publishers must be clapping their hands. Of course they’ll keep him on board. It’ll be a sellout!

eazybee

Jason Arday is the author of his own misfortune. He has brought academia into disrepute through his own lack of ability, resorting to plagiarism to complete his PhD and resorting to ever more extreme claims about his other achievements to boost his standing. His resignation letter, thought to be AI generated, blames others for his downfall, not himself.
Cambridge and Arday blame John Moores University for failing to monitor his PhD sufficiently when he was clearly not up to standard. Cambridge is wholly to blame for appointing someone with limited practical experience to such a prestigious post without stringent checks.
Obviously, never apologise, never explain. Seems to be the order of the day.

I am in total agreement with you. All this fuss around the person has enabled all the universities involved in granting degrees for substandard work and appointing him to posts with out due diligence to hide behind him.

They are the ones that should be under scrutiny. Even on this thread everyone wants to discuss the details of the ex-professor and all posts trying to widen the discussion to talk about the responsibilities of the universities are ignored. Very Daily Mail.

People are saying “why was he singled out for scrutiny” but it occurs to me that we don’t actually know if he was “singled out” to begin with.
Did the journalist contact other academics to discuss their work? Were they happy to discuss their work with him and have it reported on, as normal. Academics generally hope that notice will be taken if their work.

Or was the unusually hostile response to a normal query the reason for the arousal if curiosity and further checks.

That’s journalist practice. The sense that something is not normal and might merit investigation.
Maybe a singling out. Perhaps more than one reason for it to happen. And as it turns out a good journalistic instinct for something being wrong.

Yesterday, publisher Simon & Schuster - which is set to publish Arday's memoir later this month - defended Arday in a statement to AFP news agency. "We are proud to publish Professor Jason Arday. We have worked closely with him... and can speak to the professionalism and integrity he has brought to every stage of the publication”.

So his book was written and planned to be published some time ago and his publishers are supportive.

Cambridge University: "While we are fully aware of the public commentary and concerns around this matter, it remains vital that any process is thorough and adheres to both university policies and employment law. "We also fully recognise that there is a person at the centre of this situation, and we continue to provide support to him.”

All that seems fair enough in all the circumstances.

The fact remains that the intense scrutiny directed at Arday has been justified and validated; who instigated it, and there were several, is immaterial.

Jason Arday's story is the gift that goes on giving. Though I feel a bit sorry for him. He should have been shown the door a lot earlier than this and is now a subject of sheer mockery.

I blame Cambridge University and the other educational institutions which accelerated his rise through the DEI process and feel it is inherently racist to hold persons of 'other ethnicities' to a lower standard so they may be thus exposed to derision.

Can't help enjoying the discomfiture of delusional institutions though.

Primrose 11.19- I don't have a problem with you Oreo or anyone who feels what Chapman has written is irrelevant. The questions Chapman raises will be of interest to some and not others as is clear.

We all know what Arday has been accused of and we all know he has resigned.

westendgirl

My concern is why this particular person was picked out for intense scrutiny on this thread in the first place.
When I posted the previous post I had seen and heard that the person in question had resigned.Made me wonder if perhaps this thread should be doing the same.

Thats my concern too westendgirl alongside why he was picked out for intense scrutiny by Cafnas and then by intense scrutiny main stream media. It's such a contrast with how Julian Young was treated.

Oreo

LemonJam copying swathes of what one fellow academic says about it isn’t relevant to the case that Arday fabricated many things and is accused of plagiarism.

Quite right Oreo.

fancythat

LemonJam

fancythat

His resignation is very far from the end of the matter.

What is your meaning and implication fancythat?

See Galaxy post before mine.

Plus there will be books.
Films.
More media coverage. etc

I dont think you really need me to explain.

I'm not clear which Galaxy post you are referring to. Thank you for your explanation.

LemonJam

fancythat

His resignation is very far from the end of the matter.

What is your meaning and implication fancythat?

See Galaxy post before mine.

Plus there will be books.
Films.
More media coverage. etc

I dont think you really need me to explain.

LemonJam

Oreo

LemonJam copying swathes of what one fellow academic says about it isn’t relevant to the case that Arday fabricated many things and is accused of plagiarism.

Oreo- its entirely in your discretion whether you wish to engage in any of the issues Chapman puts forward.

You may think what Chapman has written is not relevant and thats ok also.

Thank you😂

LemonJam

Greyduster

^There are numerous questions that need answering. Although I do now have the answer to one particular question!
One question is whether we want to live in a society where the police are used against journalists doing their job, whether we want to live in a society where public faith in institutions is eroded^.

This.

There is no evidence that the police are used against journalists doing their jobs. There is no evidence journalists have been prevented from doing their job at all in this case.

Since the Met have admitted they were wrong it appears that they were actually wrong to tell the journalist to back off.
And no, we do not want to live in a country which stops journalists from doing their jobs.

Oreo

LemonJam copying swathes of what one fellow academic says about it isn’t relevant to the case that Arday fabricated many things and is accused of plagiarism.

Oreo- its entirely in your discretion whether you wish to engage in any of the issues Chapman puts forward.

You may think what Chapman has written is not relevant and thats ok also.

I stand corrected Rosie51- I had not seen the commissioner state that- ie the police should jot have got involved.

eazybee

I agree with you Galaxy. It is not for one person to decide that a thread has run its course, and I do not support the most recent summing-up. Threads generally peter out when interest fades, and at the moment Arday is a topic of concern.
Arday has been found to be unsuitable for the prestigious post he has been awarded, for a variety of reasons. Cambridge has generally been regarded as a pinnacle of excellence, although I fear that perception is slipping.
The discussion about his appointment is valid, but there are inhibitions about what may be safely said, particularly when false information is presented as fact.

I wonder and hope, that all Universities are now making sure that it hasn’t happened at their uni and will be more careful in the future?

LemonJam copying swathes of what one fellow academic says about it isn’t relevant to the case that Arday fabricated many things and is accused of plagiarism.

eazybee

Jason Arday is the author of his own misfortune. He has brought academia into disrepute through his own lack of ability, resorting to plagiarism to complete his PhD and resorting to ever more extreme claims about his other achievements to boost his standing. His resignation letter, thought to be AI generated, blames others for his downfall, not himself.
Cambridge and Arday blame John Moores University for failing to monitor his PhD sufficiently when he was clearly not up to standard. Cambridge is wholly to blame for appointing someone with limited practical experience to such a prestigious post without stringent checks.
Obviously, never apologise, never explain. Seems to be the order of the day.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Added to that, who gets to be a Cambridge Professor from a university like John Moores? Genuine question as I assumed you needed top notch credentials.
He seems a Walter Mitty character who was there at the right time for a Cambridge interview as I have read now that Cambridge had been accused of not having enough ethnic diversity amongst the Dons.Which probably means they turned a blind eye to not checking his false CV.Unbelievably!
It’s fine to increase a diversity policy but the applicant must be just as good as any other applicant and due diligence done on the truthfulness of his claims.

LemonJam

Galaxy

There are numerous questions that need answering. Although I do now have the answer to one particular question!
One question is whether we want to live in a society where the police are used against journalists doing their job, whether we want to live in a society where public faith in institutions is eroded.

We do live in a society where police do their job.

The police received a complaint, investigated and then responded to said journalist not to contact Arday directly. Doing their job properly and appropriately.

If the subject matter is public faith in academic institutions a journalist should be directing questions to the academic institutions directly. The public interest in the institutions is more legitimately investigated by scrutinising and seeking evidence from the institutions evidently.

That is not the police against journalists doing their job at all.

LemonJam the police have now admitted it was wrong of them to investigate for 4 months and then tell the journalist not to contact Arday again.

www.lbc.co.uk/article/met-commissioner-police-investigation-jason-arday-5Hjdfgk_2/

I agree with you Galaxy. It is not for one person to decide that a thread has run its course, and I do not support the most recent summing-up. Threads generally peter out when interest fades, and at the moment Arday is a topic of concern.
Arday has been found to be unsuitable for the prestigious post he has been awarded, for a variety of reasons. Cambridge has generally been regarded as a pinnacle of excellence, although I fear that perception is slipping.
The discussion about his appointment is valid, but there are inhibitions about what may be safely said, particularly when false information is presented as fact.

Lathyrus3

I m waiting for the retraction of the raise accusation against David Latchman.

I think we’ll both be waiting a long time😬

Forever, I expect.