Discussion on the issue of plagiarism started with a post focussing on Arday a couple of weeks ago. Cambridge University initially resisted investigation, an issue in itself that merits debate, but now is investigating. Not just the level of support made available too Cfanas recently and since his appointment but the original appointment process in the first place. It appears there may have been insufficient screening, promotion before Arday was ready, that he may not have had the calibre of qualifications and published research papers as might be normally expected etc.
There is a real risk that the University made the appointment to demonstrate values of DEI - however if Arday was not ready or fit for post he was rendered vulnerable to such claims made by Cafnas, who, as an earlier poster described, is a person with an axe to grind - ie on racist theory.
The chemistry of the various ingredients has lead to a tragic end for Arday- all parties contributing.
Media attention once Cafnas brought the plagiarism claim to main stream media attention focussed on Arday - rightly or wrongly- there are differing opinions- for the next couple of weeks. Then there was an announcement that Arday had been found dead. A time for respect and we all feel sad for him and for his loved ones left behind.
That pause has stopped the relentless focus solely on Arday - has provided the opportunity to take a breath and reflect on all the circumstances that lead to his death- as the tragic affair was not all of his making. If he had not been promoted when he was at such a young age and trust into the media spotlight things may have been very different. The reasons for that recruitment lie at the heart of this story and are likely to relate to DEI values.
DEI values lie at the heart of Cafnas's racial theory and his axe to grind. Opinions differ but some posters feel DEI lies at the heart of the main stream media interest in Arday and how they pursued the story- not merely the claim of plagiarism or that he fabulated any claims in his life. Being seen to follow DEI values may lie at the heart of the University decision to recruit Arday and encourage media attention on the appointment.
Arday's family made a statement that in there view there hd been a campaign of racial harassment against him. Politicians, academics, journalists and many say there are lessons to be learned. There are. Some posters have an interest in the set of circumstances. It's fine if other posters dont share such an interest, feel the discussion is going round and round- yes it is- but they can choose not to participate?
Nathan Cafnas- who brought the claim of plagiarism accusation against Arday to main stream media attention has now decided to appeal the previous court judgement where he lost his case suing Cambridge University. The reasons for his case will most likely recapture make main stream media interest and links to Jason Arday. By that stage there may be lessons learned information available.
The story is likely to continue going round and the discussion involving Arday, the University, Cafnas and DEI values, that is where does DEI stand in British academia and society at large today. How can we protect equality regardless of skin colour but not positive discriminate in a way that leads to adverse outcomes or even death?
Personally I don't see this as apportioning blame more a case of reflecting on all the ingredients that lead to the current set of circumstances, what lessons are there, so it becomes clear how to apportion accountability and to preserve DEI in an appropriate, fit for purpose way.