Jason Arday found dead today.

Sorry again to sound bleak but I just dont know if that can happen in such a charged environment.

Maremia

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, Arday's friend and former colleague, agrees that the Cambridge investigation should go ahead
but
that Arday faced racial abuse and the 'lightening rod for a culture war on diversity equality and inclusion'.

Absolutely the enquiry has to go ahead.

To make sure the right questions are asked and the right measures taken for the future.

An open and independent enquiry may exonarate bith Jason Ardy and Cambridge.

Or it may find that Cambridge ( and other university) procedures were flawed.

But then at least the questions asked will be based on facts and truth and not prejudice and opinion.

petra

Listening to an academic this morning who pointed out that, Cambridge were racist in their decision to give jayson a professorship by lowering their criteria for a pass.
He also pointed out that what other professions have done the same? The Law society, Doctors, pilots, all for diversity.

What academic was that, Petra?

Although his death was a tragedy for his family and he probably received more media attention than was warranted (and some of it racially motivated) it's important not to suspend our critical faculties regarding his cv, his various claims to achievement and Cambridge University's appointments process, etc., and the possible relevance of diversity policies.

Listening to an academic this morning who pointed out that, Cambridge were racist in their decision to give jayson a professorship by lowering their criteria for a pass.
He also pointed out that what other professions have done the same? The Law society, Doctors, pilots, all for diversity.

Oops, meant to quote Galaxy from 10.41

I am sorry to go back to it but is the guardian now far right. It probably is considering the de valuing of that term.

Naturally, as a Guardian reader, I can't consider it to be 'far right' ( a term which, despite your constant assertion that it's meaningless still can be associated with a particular world/political view) while it still publishes articles by journalists such Owen Jones (love him or hate him), John Harris, George Monbiot and Aditya Chakraborty. I still think it's Centrist with journalists leaning both to the right and the left.

It's hopelessly neoliberal (rightwing) on economics, but then, there isn't a single mainstream newspaper which isn't.

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, Arday's friend and former colleague, agrees that the Cambridge investigation should go ahead
but
that Arday faced racial abuse and the 'lightening rod for a culture war on diversity equality and inclusion'.

Sorry but that is deeply irresponsible, I am sorry to go back to it but is the guardian now far right. It probably is considering the de valuing of that term.
Are some of his students included in that? I have seen deeply concerning posts(not on here) against some of the students who raised concerns.

Stand Up to Racism is organising a vigil in his memory at the steps of the National Gallery.
They say 'For more than a week, the rightwing press, politicians and the far right have hounded Jason with the most vicious racism.'

Iam64

Primrose53

Oreo

Well Lathyrus it gives them someone to blame and reinforces the ‘it’s all about race’ argument when in fact it would be just the same if JA had been white, everyone would have been bemused that all the outlandish claims had been swallowed whole.
I think this discussion is just going around in circles now tho as we all have our own views on it.

It HAS gone round in circles and it seems this has been done deliberately to deflect.

The thread is about an individual who has passed away and we all acknowledge that this is very sad, especially for his family left behind. I’m not going over all the huge false claims he made or the alleged plagiarism because that has been done over and over again. However, if he had been truthful in the first place he might well still be here.

JA took his own life as a result of the intense media reporting of allegations he lied about his personal and professional life. However, if he’d been truthful in the first place he might well still be here

. I’m uncomfortable with the suggestion JA is the author of his own downfall. Cambridge University had set in process to investigate the concerns. It seems indecent to apportion blame in the aftermath of him taking his life and before the conclusion of the inquiry.

There would have been nothing to report if his claims were proved true but come on, many of them were outrageous. The media can’t be blamed for everything although I do agree that often it goes well over the top.

I won’t be arguing with any of that LemonJam it sounds very sensible analysis to me, but I will wait and see what happens now as I have said all I need to say at the moment.😃

Oreo IME it is normal practice for organisations to wash their dirty linen in private, which is why it is so unusual for an employee to receive this degree of media attention.The BBC has been forced to explain it's conduct when an employee has been found to have committed some wrongdoing, but then again it is publicly funded.The University of Cambridge is a publically funded, autonomous collegiate institution rather than fully state-funded or state-owned so I'm unsure of it's position but I have no doubt that it will be examining it's recruitment and selection procedures (and so it should). They employed Cofnas in 2022 despite his controversial and racist ideas about genetics being published in 2019 and it took a lot of complaints by students to lead to his dismissal in 2024 so it's not the first time there have been questions asked about it's recruitment methods.

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.

It is a bit like 'victim blaming' on a Thread about discussing his passing.

It may make all universities a bit more careful about appointments for the future.

I’m not convinced that any of the universities that JA worked at will want to say that he shouldn’t have been in the post he was in, especially Cambridge.They say they will investigate it all but in the end, if they say their appointing panel was inappropriate or incompetent or lacking in any way then it brings the university into disrepute.

I believe threads are about what people want to discuss and share that are relevant to the subject. If posters want to discuss the background to the sad death of Jason Arday, IMO that is pertinent. I find the comment "However, if he had been truthful in the first place he might well still be here" rather harsh in the circumstances, particularly as no one actually knows the full circumstances of his death.
In this world many people tell lies, pad out their CV's, plagiarise other's work and are promoted above their capability but I've never known of anyone receiving the media attention that this man attracted and the reasons why this happened are, IMO, worthy of further scrutiny.

Primrose53

Oreo

Well Lathyrus it gives them someone to blame and reinforces the ‘it’s all about race’ argument when in fact it would be just the same if JA had been white, everyone would have been bemused that all the outlandish claims had been swallowed whole.
I think this discussion is just going around in circles now tho as we all have our own views on it.

It HAS gone round in circles and it seems this has been done deliberately to deflect.

The thread is about an individual who has passed away and we all acknowledge that this is very sad, especially for his family left behind. I’m not going over all the huge false claims he made or the alleged plagiarism because that has been done over and over again. However, if he had been truthful in the first place he might well still be here.

JA took his own life as a result of the intense media reporting of allegations he lied about his personal and professional life. However, if he’d been truthful in the first place he might well still be here

. I’m uncomfortable with the suggestion JA is the author of his own downfall. Cambridge University had set in process to investigate the concerns. It seems indecent to apportion blame in the aftermath of him taking his life and before the conclusion of the inquiry.

Cambridge University says it continued to provide Arday with extensive mental health support, including screening RACIST emails and post.

Oreo

Well Lathyrus it gives them someone to blame and reinforces the ‘it’s all about race’ argument when in fact it would be just the same if JA had been white, everyone would have been bemused that all the outlandish claims had been swallowed whole.
I think this discussion is just going around in circles now tho as we all have our own views on it.

It HAS gone round in circles and it seems this has been done deliberately to deflect.

The thread is about an individual who has passed away and we all acknowledge that this is very sad, especially for his family left behind. I’m not going over all the huge false claims he made or the alleged plagiarism because that has been done over and over again. However, if he had been truthful in the first place he might well still be here.

Doodle take no notice of that vile comment, she has the problem.
As for those ramblings about the way Americans used to call black people Boy, what relevance has this to do with this case, nothing!

Doodledog, your comments here sound as if you may want a little witch hunt of your own.
(Sorry - my phone won’t copy nested quotes). Can you explain that comment please? Which witches do I want hunted, and why? I am saying what I’ve said all along - that ‘race card’ comments are both unsubstantiated and inappropriate. If that’s a ‘witch hunt’ in your book, I’d be interested to know why.

Counts was only interested in playing the 'race card' against a black professor.

That’s because he has an axe to grind.
If a whistle blower reveals something that needs seriously checking out then we don’t usually worry if we don’t like them or their views do we?
Once that was in the public eye then journalists unearthed other claims which needed a veracity check.