Professor Jason Arday - plagiarism etc

Wyllow3 please do not try to explain neurodiversity to me.

Unless of course you are a psychologist or expert in the subject. Then I will consider your post.

Iam64 I agree.

I am out for the day now, will return later.

Granny Gravy Sigh. I wasn't trying to negate your experiences, my DGS age 14 is mildly autistic but fits into mainstream education well enough.

I have worked in the education field as a Community Education Officer and assessments with others whether it was possible for some people in a home for quite several autistic adults, could actually manage the general classes:

My DiL is a children's speech therapist who works solely with autistic children.

The ones she sees have no language and cannot maintain eye contact more than fleetingly nor ever be touched, and her job is to find the bridge into speech so they can at least communicate need. Whether they can then go on to understand "self and other" clearly is uncertain.

I am no more a psychologist than others with relevant experiences who have commented here and do not claim to be, just drawing on the experiences that I do have.

edit a typo "quite severely not quite several" I had to make the decision as in being the gatekeeper whether it was possible. One got complaints from other class members sometimes for quite trivial matters, like not liking another person!

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.

Still waiting. 😉

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

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

false

I think this is disrupting the flow of conversation. May I suggest either report me to the moderators or allow the flow of conversation on the topic to continue.

May I suggest you apologise for your errors so that anyone reading the thread can be assured of the truth.

Then the conversation can flow on the basis of fact and opinion rather than false information.

A simple admission of your error would make clear the truth.

Or thinking about it. Perhaps on a thread that is essentially about falsehood and fantasy it’s intended to see peoples different levels of tolerance of false information and how comfortable they feel about using it.

Some more detail from fellow academic Robert Chapman’s article on the matter - adds to the debate at least even if posters disagree with Chapman’s views and the views of the 10,000 that have signed the petition in solidarity of Arday:

……..*It is worth noting here that some of Arday’s critics have sought to frame him as not worthy of his job*. The aim for some seems to be to get him fired, on the basis that they see his research as not up to the standards required for Cambridge. There are several things to say in response. First, candidates are not selected just by virtue of their research. Many things are taken into account, such as the specific needs of a department at a given time, whether they are a good teacher from the student perspective, their interview presentation, whether they seem like a nice person to work with, their references, and so on. It is not irregular for chosen candidates to excel more in some of these areas than others. In fact that is very typical. Second, even if the worst allegations against Arday’s research did turn out to be true, it is far from clear that this would make his research uniquely bad within the context of Cambridge. After all, Arday’s initial accuser, Cofnas, was also a Cambridge academic, despite him having produced highly controversial and dubious research on race and IQ. Cambridge also defended Cofnas in light of complaints about his writings.

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.

interesting to see

Wyllow3

I think this is disrupting the flow of conversation. May I suggest either report me to the moderators or allow the flow of conversation on the topic to continue.

Why is it so hard to apologise? The thread can then continue unhindered.

Lathyrus3

Or thinking about it. Perhaps on a thread that is essentially about falsehood and fantasy it’s intended to see peoples different levels of tolerance of false information and how comfortable they feel about using it.

I do notice on this forum, that peoples' tolerance for any sort of bad behaviour, does vary by a surprising amount.

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.

Ah fancythat that’s true.

Integrity is so important to me I have little tolerance for the employment of falsehood and deception.

A very comprehensive post there, Lemonjam. Much food for thought. It does raise the question "why him and not others"

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.

Along with the question of the appointment to the Professorship.

Why him and not others?

Both questions need to be asked and answered- truthfully.

Surely this thread has overrun its time .I think Lemon Jam's post is the ideal summing up, just and fair.

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.

Although I now have another question. Is it OK for people to decide when a thread has run its course. My answer would be no.

As the story is still unfolding, I imagine there is a lot more to be said especially about the apparent lapses in due diligence and inclusivity issues at one of our major academic institutions - and no doubt elsewhere.

Especially when they want it ended either way a post that they agree with😂

Lathyrus3

Especially when they want it ended either way a post that they agree with😂