• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Arday life and death

I have to admit I'm open to the possibility that academia is full of plagiarists and fantasists, and that Arday was only singled out because of his race.

To be fair, we should probably subject everyone at Cambridge to the same level of scrutiny. I propose we start with all the admin and academics involved in elevating him to the professorship. We should also take a good look at his thesis review committee or whatever it's called.
 
I've never heard of anyone in the U.S. doing oral examinations for a bachelor's degree. I don't doubt that somewhere it might happen, but not within my personal experience. It's common to require an oral thesis defense for a Master's degree. And at my school, you had a series of oral examinations to qualify for the PhD program, and then an oral dissertation defense at the end.
 
From the linked blog, he says he was running a marathon almost every day for a month, starting at 3 am each run day.



One method that's been proposed, when there's a concern that an artistic work might have been AI-generated, rather than being an original work of the artist, is to ask for the work by-products.

A finished painting should have sketches and studies, some of them substantial works in their own right, as by-products. Same with a book. If it was written by a human, we should expect there to be multiple drafts, and correspondence between author, editor, and publisher along the way.

One could ask similar questions here. If his blog says he's running a marathon almost every day for a month, what else does it say? Does it have entries recording the original idea, the planning, the prep, the training? Does it have accounts of all the other fun runs and personal challenge runs he's done, since running seems to be such a big hobby for him?

When I was part of an avid bike riding community, it was considered de rigeur to post a photo of your bike in front of some road sign, landmark, or other point of interest along your latest ride. Does Arday post any selfies of himself, in the predawn light of various London neighborhoods, mid-run?

I'm not saying he has to post these things in his blog. It's perfectly legitimate not to. And if it were just that one claim - gym teacher and fitness freak runs a lot of marathons for personal satisfaction, but doesn't document much of the effort - I'd shrug and move on.

It's only when every single claim he makes in his self-narrative is on that level of accomplishment, that every single claim becomes suspect. The more impressive the claim, the more suspect it becomes. And once one claim turns out to be bogus, every other poorly-documented claim he's made loses all credibility.

There is no world where "I was lying about the other stuff, but the 30 marathons in 30 days was real" isn't a ridiculous excuse.

I know what you mean. We have an example of that in the village here. "All this (masterpiece-quality) wood carving in the church was done by two local ladies in the 19th century." "Really? So where's the rest of it? Nobody emerges from a chrysalis and produces this as their only work." Answer comes there none. I suspect the ladies commissioned it and presented it to the church and the story grew in the telling. But who knows.

Am I wrong to feel that when a fit young man, a trained athlete, jogs 27 miles, this isn't quite the same as "running a marathon"?
 
I know what you mean. We have an example of that in the village here. "All this (masterpiece-quality) wood carving in the church was done by two local ladies in the 19th century." "Really? So where's the rest of it? Nobody emerges from a chrysalis and produces this as their only work." Answer comes there none. I suspect the ladies commissioned it and presented it to the church and the story grew in the telling. But who knows.

Am I wrong to feel that when a fit young man, a trained athlete, jogs 27 miles, this isn't quite the same as "running a marathon"?
I don't think so, I'd expect something like, "I ran 27 miles, the equivalent of a marathon 30 days out of 35" Saying I ran a marathon, in my mind, implies a timed event with other competitors.
 
Am I wrong to feel that when a fit young man, a trained athlete, jogs 27 miles, this isn't quite the same as "running a marathon"?
I could go either way.

On the one hand, I tend to think it's the distance, not the time. On the other hand, "marathon" tends to invoke thoughts of something competitive, where making good time is an important part of the effort. Jogging a marathon-like distance doesn't have quite the same feel.

I can't find the story, but I seem to recall there was a long-distance runner who ran the length of South America, one marathon per day. But he was already an established runner with a documented body of work. And his journey was also documented as he undertook it.

So I come back to, if this were his only sensational claim. In that case, I'd say, "27 miles every day, that's like a marathon a day, man! Good on you!"
 
I believe he also claimed that it was part of some charity event, one would think there would be a record if so. What good would it do with out some publicity at the time? Regardless, given the rest of his resume, there is no reason to believe he walked a half a block or 30 marathons based on his claims.
 
I've never heard of anyone in the U.S. doing oral examinations for a bachelor's degree.
I did. So did everyone at my undergrad college. But that was one of the exceptional features of where I went to college. It's absolutely not the norm in the US.
 
I have to admit I'm open to the possibility that academia is full of plagiarists and fantasists, and that Arday was only singled out because of his race.
Yeah, I'm not sure the people who are attributing this all due to racism have really thought through the implications of their claim.
 
Yeah, I'm not sure the people who are attributing this all due to racism have really thought through the implications of their claim.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, there are quite a few black lecturers and even professors across the universities in Britain, and nobody else is reporting being threatened by masked men with knives or having pigs' heads sent to their families by racists who don't believe they should have their jobs.
 
"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Don't stick your head in the oven."

The more I think about it, the more I think there needs to be similarly invasive reporting on everyone at Cambridge involved in elevating him to such a sensational position as youngest professor etc.

It's obvious in hindsight that his origin story was never going to withstand even the most casual scrutiny. There's no way the memoir of a young black professor who's being celebrated for his academic success is not going to be picked over. There's no way his CV is going to be ignored. Cambridge encouraged him to let them put him in a fishbowl, for Cambridge's benefit.

I say it's obvious in hindsight. Part of being a senior academic or administrator at a prestigious university is to exercise foresight in such matters. It's clear Cambridge did not do their due diligence. Cambridge apparently did nothing to vet him before putting him on a pedestal and inviting the world to look at him. Cambridge apparently did nothing to insulate him from the negative aspects of public scrutiny in the social media age. Cambridge apparently did nothing to shield him from attacks or support him in his time of crisis. A crisis that Cambridge apparently engineered through what appears to be a colossal amount of carelessness and incompetence.

Of course all the usual suspects are lashing out at the press, for reporting the news of this conspiracy between Cambridge and Arday to publish nonsense as if it were truth. Really, their ire should be focused on Cambridge.



This is basically the story of Old Man Kangaroo, except that Dingo actually catches him, and nobody thinks to blame Nqong for engineering the tragedy. Make what you will of the convenient yellow journalism metaphor.

He was grey and he was woolly, and his pride was inordinate: he danced on a sandbank in the middle of Australia, and he went to the Big God Nqong.​
​
He went to Nqong at ten before dinner-time, saying, ‘Make me different from all other animals; make me popular and wonderfully run after by five this afternoon.’​
​
Up jumped Nqong from his bath in the salt-pan and shouted, ‘Yes, I will!’​
​
Nqong called Dingo —Yellow-Dog Dingo —always hungry, dusty in the sunshine, and showed him Kangaroo. Nqong said, ‘Dingo! Wake up, Dingo! Do you see that gentleman dancing on an ashpit? He wants to be popular and very truly run after. Dingo, make him so!’​
​
Up jumped Dingo —Yellow-Dog Dingo —and said, ‘What, that cat-rabbit?’​
​
Off ran Dingo —Yellow-Dog Dingo —always hungry, grinning like a coal-scuttle, —ran after Kangaroo.​
​
Off went the proud Kangaroo on his four little legs like a bunny.​
​
This, O Beloved of mine, ends the first part of the tale!​
 
Last edited:
"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Don't stick your head in the oven."

The more I think about it, the more I think there needs to be similarly invasive reporting on everyone at Cambridge involved in elevating him to such a sensational position as youngest professor etc.

It's obvious in hindsight that his origin story was never going to withstand even the most casual scrutiny. There's no way the memoir of a young black professor who's being celebrated for his academic success is not going to be picked over. There's no way his CV is going to be ignored. Cambridge encouraged him to let them put him in a fishbowl, for Cambridge's benefit.

I say it's obvious in hindsight. Part of being a senior academic or administrator at a prestigious university is to exercise foresight in such matters. It's clear Cambridge did not do their due diligence. Cambridge apparently did nothing to vet him before putting him on a pedestal and inviting the world to look at him. Cambridge apparently did nothing to insulate him from the negative aspects of public scrutiny in the social media age. Cambridge apparently did nothing to shield him from attacks or support him in his time of crisis. A crisis that Cambridge apparently engineered through what appears to be a colossal amount of carelessness and incompetence.

Of course all the usual suspects are lashing out at the press, for reporting the news of this conspiracy between Cambridge and Arday to publish nonsense as if it were truth. Really, their ire should be focused on Cambridge.


This, Cambridge is at fault not the press or racists. There is so much in his CV that would be extraordinary that anyone reading it should have figured that out. Maybe it was all possible but highly unlikely to be one person. The easiest way to fool someone is to tell them what they want to hear.



This is basically the story of Old Man Kangaroo, except that Dingo actually catches him, and nobody thinks to blame Nqong for engineering the tragedy. Make what you will of the convenient yellow journalism metaphor.

He was grey and he was woolly, and his pride was inordinate: he danced on a sandbank in the middle of Australia, and he went to the Big God Nqong.​
​
He went to Nqong at ten before dinner-time, saying, ‘Make me different from all other animals; make me popular and wonderfully run after by five this afternoon.’​
​
Up jumped Nqong from his bath in the salt-pan and shouted, ‘Yes, I will!’​
​
Nqong called Dingo —Yellow-Dog Dingo —always hungry, dusty in the sunshine, and showed him Kangaroo. Nqong said, ‘Dingo! Wake up, Dingo! Do you see that gentleman dancing on an ashpit? He wants to be popular and very truly run after. Dingo, make him so!’​
​
Up jumped Dingo —Yellow-Dog Dingo —and said, ‘What, that cat-rabbit?’​
​
Off ran Dingo —Yellow-Dog Dingo —always hungry, grinning like a coal-scuttle, —ran after Kangaroo.​
​
Off went the proud Kangaroo on his four little legs like a bunny.​
​
This, O Beloved of mine, ends the first part of the tale!​
No idea what any of that means though.
 
Last edited:
You can see a copy of the Turnitin report for Arday's thesis linked at the bottom of this substack article. The matches to Zwozdiak-Myers are mostly in the interpretation/discussion/implication sections, contrary to claims that they are in the literature review. These sections also contain extensive plagiarism of other sources. The plagiarism is the type often seen in student work, where citations taken from the plagiarised source appear within one continuous segment of matching text. This can make it appear that sources are acknowledged, but the pattern matching report flags that the sources are actually taken secondhand from an unattributed source. This is not a matter of using quotes without correct conventions.

One question is why this was not picked up when the thesis was examined, as Turnitin would have been in regular use by then.
At every institution I have studied or taught in, it was clear that a finding of plagiarism does not require intent (although intent is considered when determining penalties). There is no way an undergraduate essay should pass with this much unattributed content, let alone a PhD thesis.
 
Yeah, I'm not sure the people who are attributing this all due to racism have really thought through the implications of their claim.
I think there are some folks wanting to ascribe it all to racism but there are also some folks who want to dismiss that it plays a role at all. I'm sure some of the pile on is racist racisting. But there would have been a pile on regardless, maybe smaller but it would have been, most due the the shear audacity and scope of the lies.
 
No idea what any of that means though.
Rudyard Kipling wrote a bunch of short stories for his kids, giving fantastical explanations for how different animals got to be the way they are.

In the story of Old Man Kangaroo, he explains that the Kangaroo was originally a short-legged "cat-rabbit". He was very prideful, and demanded that the gods make him super popular. The god Nqong took his demand literally - "make me truly run after" - and set Dingo to chase him. In his desperate efforts to outrun the hangry dog, his legs ended up getting longer and longer, until he was no longer recognizeable, and his new deformed body became his permanent body.

He did outrun Dingo, who went away hungry.

It's a fun story, and also carries an implied moral lesson about wanting to be the center of attention. Old Man Kangaroo developed longer, more powerful legs, and survived his ordeal. Arday couldn't outrun the attention, and got caught and eaten, metaphorically.

Compare with, say Oliver North, who weathered the storm of his scandal, didn't take his own life, and found a post-scandal way to make a living and even return to the public eye. I attribute this to North having powerful friends with a vested interest in taking care of him during the dark times. It seems obvious to me that Cambridge offered no such haven for Arday.

If Arday were a little more clever, a little more cynical, and a little more resilient, he might have survived by switching sides. He could have dined out for years, on narratives of how Cambridge doesn't care about qualifications, and set him up for failure.
 
Last edited:
You can see a copy of the Turnitin report for Arday's thesis linked at the bottom of this substack article. The matches to Zwozdiak-Myers are mostly in the interpretation/discussion/implication sections, contrary to claims that they are in the literature review. These sections also contain extensive plagiarism of other sources. The plagiarism is the type often seen in student work, where citations taken from the plagiarised source appear within one continuous segment of matching text. This can make it appear that sources are acknowledged, but the pattern matching report flags that the sources are actually taken secondhand from an unattributed source. This is not a matter of using quotes without correct conventions.

One question is why this was not picked up when the thesis was examined, as Turnitin would have been in regular use by then.
At every institution I have studied or taught in, it was clear that a finding of plagiarism does not require intent (although intent is considered when determining penalties). There is no way an undergraduate essay should pass with this much unattributed content, let alone a PhD thesis.

Tangentially relevant story. When I was around 13, it was announced in our English class that a Scotland-wide essay competition was being run for our age group. (I think it was an annual event.) I felt obliged to go along with entering, because reasons, but didn't take it too seriously. I wasn't really trying to compete, never mind win. I mean, every 13-year-old in Scotland? The task was to retell a particular bible story in our own words. I knew the story well enough. I read the passage in the bible, and as it happened I had a Ladybird book which was a retelling of the same story, so I read that.

The essay was written under exam conditions, supervised by our English teacher, and written on to a special form provided. I sat down and started to write, just to get it done. Near the beginning I was thinking what to write next, and a two-sentence passage from the Ladybird book popped into my head. "A little maid! We do not even know her name, but the story of her sweet helpfulness has come down to us through the ages." I could have thought of something else, but I was only interested in getting something on the paper, so I wrote that down. I didn't even think it was fine prose - I thought it was twee and saccharine. I remember thinking, the judges will know about the Ladybird book and probably dump me for copying, but who cares.

All the rest of what I wrote was my own, to the best of my knowledge. I only realised afterwards that some of the girls had been taking it quite seriously, writing draft essays and memorising what they were going to write. One girl hadn't got to the end of the story in the time allowed and was quite upset. I shrugged.

A few weeks later the English teacher called me and my best friend to the front of the class. She turned to my friend first, congratulating her on having come fifth in the competition in the whole of Scotland. Then she turned to me, with a look of semi-incredulity on her face, and announced, "and you, my dear, have won!"

There were prizes, and a presentation, and worst of all the winning essay was published by the organisers. All I could think about was those two sentences. I think I confessed to my mother, who said, you read the Ladybird book, you've had it for years, you could easily have come up with these words without remembering where they were from. (But I did remember.) My piano teacher told me a long story about a music student accused of plagiarism in a composition exam, and it turned out he had heard the star student playing over his own composition in the college practice rooms, and picked up some phrases without realising it.

But nobody at school or in the organising society said anything. I could only conclude that the judges had not read the Ladybird book after all. Then a little time afterwards another girl in my class, someone I didn't like (and it was mutual), challenged me in conversation with a number of classmates, saying that I'd copied part of my essay from the Ladybird book. I opened my mouth to explain, and I think I was going to tell the truth, that I was just trying to get the damn essay written, the sentences just popped into my head, and I wrote them down out of sheer inertia. But I didn't get to say anything. Almost immediately several other girls shushed my challenger, indicating that she'd said something crass and improper. That was the end of it.

You can probably tell I have felt guilty about that for most of the past sixty years. But now I don't know what was in anyone else's mind. Did the judges realise there was plagiarism, but overlook it because it was only a tiny part of the essay (which was about an A4 page long). What about the teachers? Did all the other girls know, but simply thought it was bad form to point out my heinous sin? I still wonder if these sentences might have been what swung it for the judges to give me first place. I thought they were twee, but what did I know, an adult had written them and they had been published in a book. The shame of it!

This is all pretty trivial, and it was two sentences out of a page. And I was about thirteen. But I knew very well that it was wrong to copy someone else's work and pass it off as your own. I still wish I'd written something else at that point, and let the chips fall as they may.
 
If he was white it wouldn't have been such a global circus. Academics regularly fall from grace and are forgotten. This was all about the culture wars.
I don't know that this is true. I get that it's an easy assertion to make, but realistically the academic plagiarism isn't the lion's share of the issues. It's a big deal, absolutely, but it pales in comparison to the things Arday claims in the book that was scheduled to be put out soon.

If anything, I think it's largely blow-back on the academic side because Arday makes absolutely insane claims. It's clear they were either a complete liar or they had serious mental health problems (or both). And were they employed at some smaller university, or a backwater college, there wouldn't be all that much attention given to it at all other than "look at this loon".

But this happens to be the perfect ◊◊◊◊ storm. Here is a person who was hired by one of the absolute most prestigious universities in the entire world - home of the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics for goodness sakes, alma mater of Newton, and Hawking, and Turing! Most of the greatest minds of the restoration either attended or taught at Cambridge.

And Arday is eminently unsuited for the position they were given. Even overlooking their plagiarism and outlandish claims, they simply didn't have the chops for the role they were granted. Cambridge not only gave them a position they should never have had, Cambridge propped them up as an eminent authority, and a great mind.

There seems no good reason to think that Cambridge was somehow hoodwinked by Arday. Whether you like the image it paints or not, it seems very hard to deny that Cambridge gave Arday the position without the scrutiny that should have been expected, because increasing racial diversity was held as a goal of more import than the quality and reputation of the school.

It has the added unpleasant side effect of bringing added scrutiny to any professor who is a minority. It calls into question the integrity of the schools making the appointments as well as the quality of education being provided. That by no means implies that any minority professor is unqualified... but it absolutely weakens trust in the merit of anyone appointed within the last decade.

Cambridge placing looks and feels above their venerable reputation has ended up doing far more harm to minority academics than any amount of racist bemoaning could ever have accomplished.
 
It's a massive shock to me to realise this isn't a regular requirement for every degree.
I am not a doctor or anything remotely related to medical field.

That said, I think medical degrees often function differently than others. Most of the science degrees at the universities I'm familiar with didn't require any kind of thesis for a Bachelor's, and most only required a "thesis-light" research project for a Master's.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom