Jason Arday found dead today.

fancythat

Simplification of the whole thing, by anyone, does no one any favours.

Neither does posting reams and reams of quotes, links, thoughts and making the water even more muddy.

Wyllow3

Whitewavemark2

wyllow3 mentions class as being part of the positive discrimination programme.

She is correct.

But I understand it to be the only group who are helped with this and not race.

Not so. I just checked and looked it up as regards both Oxford and Cambridge.

"Both the central universities and individual colleges run special schemes to support Black students. While admissions policies are centrally regulated and do not use US-style racial preference quotas, both Oxford and Cambridge co-fund targeted outreach, transition mentoring, and financial scholarships. Individual colleges also implement unique local partnerships and funding"

"Target Oxbridge: A free, high-profile mentoring and development program for Black African and Caribbean students (and mixed-race students with Black heritage). It is co-funded and heavily backed by both the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford, helping hundreds of students secure offers through residential visits, workshops, and coaching"

The infirmation adds that different colleges "specific colleges take the lead on regional or demographic outreach.

what is comes down to unless a family makes special enquiries is what happened to me - a teacher gets involved, knowing what is possible

My son teaches at another Russel Group Uni, and they have a well funded outreach programme that goes into schools basically making sure that students and teachers know all - whatever the background, are welcome, and clearly to make sure there are no cultural blocks in student and teachers minds.

I stand corrected. My understanding came from an article by Seun Matiluko.

This, of course, is what is and should be, at the heart of good DEI practice. If data is showing that a particular group of people are under-represented it is good practice to try to increase participation by providing resources like out reach programmes, access provision and other ways of offering targeted support eg to someone with a disability. However, it is illegal to employ on the basis of positive discrimination, however, if two candidates are equally suitable it is not illegal to employ one if he/she is from an under-represented group. My friend's daughter had a good physics degree from a Russell group uni and was accepted on a women's only graduate programme but she had finished that she had to compete equally for a permanent position. All perfectly legal.

I loathe the guardian due to similar reasons to you, the gender debate and I had concerns about antisemitism as well. But in this case I dont think they did anything wrong. And I am sure you will think this sounds superior but I think it is important to support the speech of the press we dont like. I dont actually read the guardian much but for some reason i saw that article. I actually despite its bizarre moments thought it a good piece of investigative journalism, and one that demonstrated independence of reporting (suggesting that the claims of harassment were not verifiable 0must have been a very difficult thing for it to do I would have thought). I highlighted the guardian on here because there were numerous mentions of the mail and the telegraph and what I felt were excuses for the guardian as they came in later. You are probably entirely accurate that I denigrate the left, it is easier i find to denigrate those who you used to belong to, because it feels so personal when they take a direction that horrifies you.
You will just have to brace yourself here because this is going to sound like I am trying to do the 'neutral' thing again but I think that there is pushing of biases from both sides - dei stuff and its racist stuff.
To be very bleak I see absolutely no way to move forward in the general discussion (I dont mean on GN but rather out in the real world)

It makes sense from a Universities POV. They may have high moral ideals and made a dreadful mistake - as in what happened to 'Arday:

But they are also trying to grab "the best and brightest" from under represented groups.

I didn't do particularly well, it was all a bit much, I'm not an academic, but it sounds like support levels as well as filtering is much better now.

Whitewavemark2

wyllow3 mentions class as being part of the positive discrimination programme.

She is correct.

But I understand it to be the only group who are helped with this and not race.

Not so. I just checked and looked it up as regards both Oxford and Cambridge.

"Both the central universities and individual colleges run special schemes to support Black students. While admissions policies are centrally regulated and do not use US-style racial preference quotas, both Oxford and Cambridge co-fund targeted outreach, transition mentoring, and financial scholarships. Individual colleges also implement unique local partnerships and funding"

"Target Oxbridge: A free, high-profile mentoring and development program for Black African and Caribbean students (and mixed-race students with Black heritage). It is co-funded and heavily backed by both the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford, helping hundreds of students secure offers through residential visits, workshops, and coaching"

The infirmation adds that different colleges "specific colleges take the lead on regional or demographic outreach.

what is comes down to unless a family makes special enquiries is what happened to me - a teacher gets involved, knowing what is possible

My son teaches at another Russel Group Uni, and they have a well funded outreach programme that goes into schools basically making sure that students and teachers know all - whatever the background, are welcome, and clearly to make sure there are no cultural blocks in student and teachers minds.

Galaxy

What are you talking about doodledog, I am not unbiased, I loathe the guardian but will continue to support its reporting and investigations. I dont blame the guardian in the slightest. I dont think the press did anything wrong. But if people are going to blame the press then the guardian is part of it us my point. We disagree on the cause of the tragedy ( and thinking their is one cause is not in my view a good idea) I dont think asking questions about claims is a mistake. I think much of the discussion of ardy on here has been condescending and racist but in a different way to you that it all.

Fair enough, but I think you are misunderstanding me (perfectly possibly my fault).

I am not saying there is one 'fault' - I am saying that my personal issue with the situation is the way that people are willing to use a situation like this to push their own biases (eg DEI).

I don't understand how you can simultaneously both loathe and support the Guardian - if you could explain that I might understand more of your stance on a lot of posts where you seem to me to be denigrating what you define as 'the left' and at the same time claiming to be more neutral than the rest of us. Why does the fact that the Guardian is part of the press need pointing out, do you think? Do you think others can't see that?

I am completely biased, I loathe identity politics and have been very clear on the damage I think is done by the constant dividing of people into groups based on one characteristic. My personal beef ( and of course I think that is principled) is the assumptions of those who think the attention was racist, as claimed directly against a poster on this thread.

What are you talking about doodledog, I am not unbiased, I loathe the guardian but will continue to support its reporting and investigations. I dont blame the guardian in the slightest. I dont think the press did anything wrong. But if people are going to blame the press then the guardian is part of it us my point. We disagree on the cause of the tragedy ( and thinking their is one cause is not in my view a good idea) I dont think asking questions about claims is a mistake. I think much of the discussion of ardy on here has been condescending and racist but in a different way to you that it all.

Galaxy

I can only report what the guardian stated. It isnt controversial, it's just talking about what the guardian published. I can dig out the link if you want. I couldn't really work out whether I felt it was good journalism or quite bizarre.

And others can only point out what the Mail or other sources stated. Not everyone has time or inclination to read numerous newspapers.

I'm not sure why you seem so determined to blame the Graun for this? I stopped reading it (after having done so since my father had it delivered when I was a child) because of its stance of trans issues which I saw as antifeminist, but that doesn't make my views any more or less valid than those of people who read other sources.

I realise that you will see that as biased of me, and maybe it is, but there are times when bias and principle intersect, and I don't see a problem with that. Constantly pointing out how fair and unbiased you see yourself as being isn't ever going to make others less so - and the repeated suggestion that this is the case is ironic, really. Nobody with any sense of principle is above bias, are they?

My personal beef is (as ever) less with the papers themselves than with the trotting out of their assumptions - 'the race card', 'the fault of DEI' and so on that have appeared on social media, including here. Basically the seizing of an opportunity to make racist and condescending assumptions about both JA himself, Cambridge University and academic recruitment processes by people who have little or no experience of any of it.

I said some time ago (when JA was still alive) that the story wasn't over, and you suggested that unless it were to take on the significance of a Greek myth then we (collectively) already knew as much as we would ever do. That has been shown to be very wrong, and for all we know, there is more to be discovered still.

Whether the Guardian, the Mail or the Beano reports it is neither here nor there - it is who grasps which nettle and how they comment on SM (including the likes of GN) that will determine how the remaining survivors of this debacle will get through. I sincerely hope that there have been the 'lessons learned' that so many seem to despise as a concept. Sometimes people do come to understand that their superior assumptions have a real impact on actual people and they start to rein them in.

foxie48

Oreo Under the 2010 Equality act ,positive discrimination is generally illegal in the UK when used in recruitment and selection. There seems to be a huge amount of misunderstanding about what DEI policies are about. It is not about favouring one group of people unfairly over another, it is about ensuring a fair chance for everyone regardless of race, disability or gender.
"The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people in Britain from discrimination, harassment, and victimisation in the workplace and wider society. It came into force on October 1, 2010, combining over 116 separate anti-discrimination laws—such as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Disability Discrimination Act 1995—into a single unified legal framework."

Yes, that is what I am arguing.

wyllow3 mentions class as being part of the positive discrimination programme.

She is correct.

But I understand it to be the only group who are helped with this and not race.

Oreo Under the 2010 Equality act ,positive discrimination is generally illegal in the UK when used in recruitment and selection. There seems to be a huge amount of misunderstanding about what DEI policies are about. It is not about favouring one group of people unfairly over another, it is about ensuring a fair chance for everyone regardless of race, disability or gender.
"The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people in Britain from discrimination, harassment, and victimisation in the workplace and wider society. It came into force on October 1, 2010, combining over 116 separate anti-discrimination laws—such as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Disability Discrimination Act 1995—into a single unified legal framework."

I am interested in all the confident assertions that positive discrimination in favour of black people was what gave Jarday his professorship.

Does anyone have a reference to this apparent “fact”? Or is it simply something you have read in the media?

As I’m avoiding the news the only reason why I recognised his name was because a thread was started on here albeit not being a thread that I read.

He may have exaggerated his earnings from the book and he would have been on a high salary. However his family will be without his financial contribution for a good many years. It’s not just about that though. It’s people wanting to show their support.

Primrose53- He's dead.

Thank you for the info 25 Avalon- popped can give quite and anonymously if they so wish 👍

25Avalon

There is a fundraiser for Jason Arday’s family which currently stands at £40,000

Bit odd as he must have been loaded after getting what he says was £1.4 million for his latest book. I guess people want to do something they feel is positive. I often give to appeals on Just Giving.

There is a fundraiser for Jason Arday’s family which currently stands at £40,000

👏 👏 👏

Accusations against Arday:

1) Plagiarism in his PhD thesis and research data anomalies- investigation outcome awaited. Allegation raised by Nathan Cafnas, a race realist who believes there should be no black people in senior academic roles. This triggered journalistic enquiry initiated by The Telegraph headline Cambridge diversity poster boy in plagiarism row and intense scrutiny into all areas of Arday's life, in order to find discrepancies in any and/or all claims he had made in his books etc, including- not exhaustive:

1) Arday had claimed he was diagnosed with autism age 3 and was none verbal till age 11, unable to read and write till 18, ran 600 miles in 6 days and that he had claimed to raise £5 million for charity and had been subject to intimidation on campus and at home at times.

The type of journalistic enquiry to such claims- journalists sought primary school childhood peers as 'witnesses' from 30 years prior. 2 'witnesses' came forward to disprove Arday's claims as far as I am aware, or at least read about. One, currently an online influencer, a year younger and in a class year belowArday at primary school, said that Arday was 'verbal and a class clown'. Others, in the same class, same age said that was not the case, that they recalled Arday was exactly as he had described. The parent of one of these 'witnesses' indicated she had been a teaching assistant in Arday's primary school and what he had said was correct. She could recall reading stories to him in the class room and supporting him. Arday could make sounds, and some words out of context but the few words he could make did not string together to make sense. Arday had claimed to be 'none verbal' not that he was silent. In NHS CHC terms, communication as described by the adult who assisted Arday in the classroom would be deemed none verbal as described by Arday.

This type of approach was applied across other claims.

Outcome of independent investigation into Cafnas's plagiarism allegations in PHD thesis - as far as I am aware is not yet publicly available.

What is clear is that Arday did not respond well to the onslaught of media response requests in all these aspects of his life. He became defensive. He dissembled. He no doubt saw his photo on front covers of various newspapers day by day with headlines such as 'plagiarist professor', 'professor poster boy' etc. etc. His way of trying to get a journalist off his back was to make a report to the police. Many called Arday out for doing so accusing Arday of stopping a journalist going about his legitimate enquiries.

On line and Granset posters were questioning did Arday really have a brain tumour, did he really have a stroke around the time he published his PHD? Was he really this or really that. Was 'playing the race card'? Curiosity is human but the majority of us we would have known nothing about Arday, just as most of us knew nothing about all recent white professors accused of plagiarism if it wasn't for the main stream media breaking the story and then choosing to scrutinise Arday forensically in the way they did.

Do we have right of entry to scrutiny a person's life in this way because they are in the public eye? If it is that was the sole reason Arday was singled out for this level of intense scrutiny. Thats is, not because he was black but solely because he was in the public eye. Other white University professors, who have been accused and actually found guilty of plagiarism and far more serious concerns were not treated in the same way. Did not have their health status, CV, every academic appointment etc etc scrutinised in the same way. Was that because they were white or solely because they were not in the public eye. We know of at least one of those white professors with plagiarism accusation upheld that was more assertive with the press, quite litigious, media savvy and used university right to privacy protocols to stop the press publishing unsavoury details about them. Arday did not imply such tactics or behaviours. neither did the university come to his aid to help him understand such tactics when dealing with the media whilst Arday was still their employee. Arday was on his own.

1) Was Arday a liar who duped and maniplutlated the system over and over, at every step of the way, with every single academic and job application, in every academic examination at each stage, with falsehoods with a false story of triumph over adversity from primary school to date? Or was he merely prevailing fantasist - though such a pattern of behaviour highly noticeable at all stages by those around him and likely to be called out much earlier. If a sophisticated liar with a concerted repeated pattern of deceit would take a robust and manipulative character to pull off.

2) Or was Arday the victim of the same system which has led to an ambitious man, promoted too soon, being caught in the cross fire of the agents of both liberal types who have exploited him, the right wing figures guilty of scapegoating him and catapulted into the spotlight the mainstream press- from which all on line vitriolic onslaught will follow as night follows day.

Journalistic investigation has not 'proved' 1).

The jury is out on 2) as we await academic plagiarism independent investigation, and investigation into Cambridge University recruitment and selection processes etc. etc.

We all of course have our own biases and varying beliefs regarding DEI which play out in our personal response to this tragic affair.

I think all of us do recognise and agree the outcome is sad and is what we have in common and what makes us human despite our different takes in our posts.

Positive discrimination needs to be seen in the light of the negative background noise that many ethnic minority people have had to contend with for decades. If administered properly I do think that it can be value neutral with the positive and negative aspects in balance.

However it is very hard indeed to get that right. I am hoping that we are moving into a new phase soon where the principles of fairness and equality will no longer need bolstering by these policies.

It has been and still is a slow process.

That’s right Oreo.
Positive discrimination is exactly what it was.

Just imagine the outrage if it applied to white candidates to the exclusion of others?

He was appointed using ‘positive discrimination’ utter madness for any university never mind one such as Cambridge.
That’s what diversity mantras gets you.
Imagine it being used for surgeons and consultants! I’m not entirely serious there btw but prestigious professions will I hope be very careful in the future, in their hurry to tick boxes.

Your last sentence is sensible…fit for the post in every way that matters.