Merged Arday life and death

[Elaedith]

Any evidence he was a cheat, given an investigation by Cambridge hasn't even started yet?

Yes, examination of his thesis compared to the primary one he plagiarized. And you can easily find this online.

 

[catsmate]

No, it is not 'made up'. Hacks finding former schoolfriends of Arday, claim he joked and laughed; others confirmed he barely spoke at all and was sent for speech therapy. Just because a detractor claims Arday was never autistic at all is hardly proof, just hearsay. You have taken it for granted he was a fraud without any real evidence.

But if he was awarded a PhD and appointed as a professor then there is nothing fake about that either. A far-right racist eugenicist, Nathan Cofnas, singled out Arday for the same reasons Woody Brown is attacked (see Jadebox' msg, above); a belief higher education is reserved for non-disabled people from privileged demographics - for example, those who have had expensive education - and you should be questioning Cofnas' motives.

Woody Brown has a Master's in English from Stanford and now he is doing a Creative Writing doctorate.

Deal with it.

You haven't addressed the people (not just "hacks") who show that this case is one of fraud.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, examination of his thesis compared to the primary one he plagiarized. And you can easily find this online.

Completely untrue. Of his 401 page thesis, there was a `literature review` in which the supposed offending paragraphs appear (less than 5% of the entire thing). The investigative review at John Moores Liverpool Uni, determined this was more to do with error of form than anything nefarious, such as cheating.

So a massive lie circulated by all the usual culprits, including Suella Bravermann who announced on X/Twitter that she had written to Cambridge to demand Arday`s students all received a refund of their fees. There was ONE former student (on Reddit FFS) claiming Arday gave him a worse grade than he expected:: 70% instead of 75%. One (claimed) dissatisfied student on Reddit.

Reddit be like, you click on what looks like an interesting topic and then, when you realise it is full of Year 10 high school students, you back out of the room s-l-o-w-ly because the last thing they want to hear is an adult voice or anything sensible. People believe any old crap they read on line. Sad.

 

[Matthew Best]

Is the Guardian part of the "vicious right wing media" that brought about Arday's downfall?

Playbooks, plagiarism and a pig’s head: new claims surrounding a star Cambridge professor

Jason Arday was regarded as an academic superstar, but then questions about his work prompted scrutiny of his backstory and counterclaims of racism

www.theguardian.com

They suggest he lied about a pig's head being sent to his parents' house; they also say his claims of being attacked at the University were not backed up by any evidence, and contradicted by what evidence there was.

"When Arday was asked about his claims by the Guardian, he stood by them. “To be honest with you, I thought you’d just believe me,” he said."

 

[Vixen]

Is the Guardian part of the "vicious right wing media" that brought about Arday's downfall?

Playbooks, plagiarism and a pig’s head: new claims surrounding a star Cambridge professor

Jason Arday was regarded as an academic superstar, but then questions about his work prompted scrutiny of his backstory and counterclaims of racism

www.theguardian.com

They suggest he lied about a pig's head being sent to his parents' house; they also say his claims of being attacked at the University were not backed up by any evidence, and contradicted by what evidence there was.

"When Arday was asked about his claims by the Guardian, he stood by them. “To be honest with you, I thought you’d just believe me,” he said."

Yes, it is believed by some that the GUARDIAN joining in with the appalling and horrific bullying was one of the last straws for Arday.

 

[Matthew Best]

It is believed by some? Who?

 

[Elaedith]

Completely untrue. Of his 401 page thesis, there was a `literature review` in which the supposed offending paragraphs appear (less than 5% of the entire thing). The investigative review at John Moores Liverpool Uni, determined this was more to do with error of form than anything nefarious, such as cheating.

So a massive lie circulated by all the usual culprits, including Suella Bravermann who announced on X/Twitter that she had written to Cambridge to demand Arday`s students all received a refund of their fees. There was ONE former student (on Reddit FFS) claiming Arday gave him a worse grade than he expected:: 70% instead of 75%. One (claimed) dissatisfied student on Reddit.

Reddit be like, you click on what looks like an interesting topic and then, when you realise it is full of Year 10 high school students, you back out of the room s-l-o-w-ly because the last thing they want to hear is an adult voice or anything sensible. People believe any old crap they read on line. Sad.

You are the one believing any old thing you read online. You have clearly not looked at the thesis. The claim that it only involves a small percentage of the literature review is misinformation being circulated online. (This is probably starting to get off-topic).

 

[Mojo]

It is believed by some? Who?

"A lot of people are saying..."

 

[theprestige]

Yes, it is believed by some that the GUARDIAN joining in with the appalling and horrific bullying was one of the last straws for Arday.

Arday had given interviews to the Guardian before.

 

[Vixen]

You are the one believing any old thing you read online. You have clearly not looked at the thesis. The claim that it only involves a small percentage of the literature review is misinformation being circulated online. (This is probably starting to get off-topic).

AIUI the `literature review` is not dissimilar to a bibliography. The ideas expressed in Arday`s thesis are his own, hence why it is not considered plagiarism. The literature review doesn`t form the body of his work. You should be looking at Cofnas and his machinations rather than his chosen victim, chosen because of who he is.

 

[dann]

No, it is not 'made up'. Hacks finding former schoolfriends of Arday, claim he joked and laughed; others confirmed he barely spoke at all and was sent for speech therapy. Just because a detractor claims Arday was never autistic at all is hardly proof, just hearsay. You have taken it for granted he was a fraud without any real evidence.
But if he was awarded a PhD and appointed as a professor then there is nothing fake about that either. A far-right racist eugenicist, Nathan Cofnas, singled out Arday for the same reasons Woody Brown is attacked (see Jadebox' msg, above); a belief higher education is reserved for non-disabled people from privileged demographics - for example, those who have had expensive education - and you should be questioning Cofnas' motives.
Woody Brown has a Master's in English from Stanford and now he is doing a Creative Writing doctorate.
Deal with it.

I suspect it was more about race than anything else. He didn't think people who weren't white and/or Jewish belonged in academia:

Nathan Cofnas: Academic career (Wikipedia)
His arguments in the article reflected his broader view that there is "legitimate science on race differences"; in this case, that Jews have higher IQ scores on average.[9]
(...)
In February 2024, Cofnas wrote a blog post arguing for hereditarianism and advocating for scientific racism (which he termed "race realism").[2] He argued that in a meritocratic system, black people "would disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment" and "Harvard faculty would be recruited from the best of the best students, which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent".[3]

 

[Matthew Best]

I can look at Cofnas and make a decision about his motives, and I can also look at Arday and make a decision about him. The two decisions don't have to be related. When I look at Arday, I can't help wondering about certain things we now know:

Arday's book proposal says he was struck by a car in his teens and as a result spent several months in a coma, while his parents were told he would never recover, all of which he was aware of because he was suffering from locked-in syndrome. He then miraculously recovered, and spent an entire year relearning everything - how to walk and talk, for example. But none of this was thought to be worth putting in the book - too boring, perhaps? The proposal also claimed that that he had a tumour in his testicle, which he also miraculously survived, but the book moved the tumour to his brain for some reason.

His book stated that he was beaten up by a gang of thugs at the age of 18, which caused him to have lifelong epileptic seizures. The thugs were arrested, but Arday nobly told the judge at their trial that they should not be imprisoned. This caused them to have an epiphany, turn their lives around and enrol in further education where - in an amazing coincidence - they were taught by Arday himself. One of them then asked Arday to be godfather to his child. In other news I can sell you London Bridge for a bargain price.

 

[zooterkin]

AIUI the `literature review` is not dissimilar to a bibliography. The ideas expressed in Arday`s thesis are his own, hence why it is not considered plagiarism. The literature review doesn`t form the body of his work. You should be looking at Cofnas and his machinations rather than his chosen victim, chosen because of who he is.

AU,YUW. A bibliography is simply a list of sources; a literature review is what the title suggests. An overview and discussion of papers and other sources relevant to the topic of the dissertation, setting the context for what will follow. There will necessarily be relevant quotes from those works, but they should only be a small percentage of the review, and the review itself will only be a part of the dissertation as a whole.

 

[theprestige]

You should be looking at Cofnas and his machinations rather than his chosen victim, chosen because of who he is.

Your argument seems to be that everyone at Columbia is a plagiarist and a fantasist, and that Arday was singled out because he happened to be a black plagiarist and fantasist.

---

To me it seems obvious that Arday was indeed "chosen because of who he is". By Columbia. All Cofnas et al. did was notice that choice, and report on the content of the character of a man who was chosen for the color of his skin.

---

Anyway, what's your freedom of speech argument, here? People should be prohibited from reporting on plagiarists, fantasists, and the Universities that elevate them because of their race, because of their race?

Or should the prohibition against such speech be based on concern that a person of low character may choose the coward's exit if exposed?

 

[jadebox]

There is no law, honestly written which will demand that you further a destructive and criminal lie; which is what you're alleging here.

Even if true, that would not have stopped the threat (or filing) of lawsuits and accusations of not supporting the disabled.

 

[Pixel42]

To me it seems obvious that Arday was indeed "chosen because of who he is". By Columbia.

I think you mean Cambridge. Cambridge, UK.

 

[theprestige]

I think you mean Cambridge. Cambridge, UK.

Challenging my narrative is harmful to me. You've probably broken a few laws, here.

But yes, I mean Cambridge, UK. Sorry for the confusion. All those prestigious universities look the same to me.

 

[theprestige]

I suspect it was more about race than anything else. He didn't think people who weren't white and/or Jewish belonged in academia:

It was certainly more about race than anything else, on the part of the University.

 

[Vixen]

You haven't addressed the people (not just "hacks") who show that this case is one of fraud.

Fraud is monetary or pecuniary gain by intent to deceive. You don't know whether Arday was ever in a car crash or not. You are just assuming he's lying, and even if he was, it doesn't count as fraud. Before laying into someone because you don't believe their story, perhaps stop to think whether the problem lies with you, not them.

 

[Vixen]

In both cases, you keep appealing to their academic credentials as evidence of merit.

Given the circumstances of each of these degrees and appointments, the overall effect is to degrade the reputation and value of the academic credentials, not bolster the reputation of the recipients.

That Columbia awarded a PhD and a professorship to Arday beclowns Columbia. It doesn't elevate Arday.

That Stanford awarded a Master's to Brown similarly beclowns Stanford, without elevating Brown.

Deal with it.

I didn't say it was merited. I said Arday's and Brown's academic qualifications are not fake. They are properly accredited qualifications from respectable educational institutions. If you think someone like Arday or Brown receiving their degrees is 'beclowning' maybe it is your values that need adjusting.

Can't see you moaning about the dim Prince Charles and his Oxford degree, largely written by his Protection Officer, some claim.