Merged Arday life and death

[SpuriusMaximus]

I would also add before someone else misrepresents it that Étienne Klein did get criticised for plagiarism since 2016, but it was for his pop-sci books for kids, not his PhD or any papers (which AFAIK he had none after his PhD.) It's basically the equivalent of someone saying that, dunno, Bill Nye the science guy copied a part of his script. It maybe cause for a copyright lawsuit, but it's no reason for the university to look into that, and nobody asked or expected them to.

And he lost his job at the Institute for Advanced Studies for Science and Technology in 2017 (very next year) over it anyway. It wasn't in any papers published for them, but they weren't gonna take flak for him anyway.

When the allegations of plagiarism in his actual PhD thesis were made in 2024, the university ON ITS OWN immediately launched an investigation that pored over it and other sources line by line, and actually discovered MORE plagiarism than Arrêt Sur Images had discovered instead of defending him. Arrêt Sur Images found plagiarism on 20% of the pages of his thesis, the university found it on two thirds of pages. (Note that that doesn't mean the percentage of the text, just on how many pages it occurred.) And they promptly annulled his PhD at the end of that investigation.

And almost immediately after that, he lost his job at the CEA too over it.

THAT is how the system works as designed.

 

[Vixen]

"How dare they talk about someone black and make us have to make it all about racism. And besides, she's a TERF, and even worse, she's white!"

Oh dear.

 

[Vixen]

So was O. J. Simpson.

Please stop with the trite tu quoque and non sequitur logical fallacies. It's extremely boring. Elizabeth Holmes and OJ Simpson have sweet FA to do with this issue. No connection whatsoever.

 

[Elaedith]

For the umpty-ninth time he was CLEARED.

Then there needs to be an investigation into why he was cleared, when the evidence clearly shows plagiarism.

 

[Vixen]

I think there is a link between Arday and the murder of Henry Nowak, whereby the white British public are increasingly incensed by any form of DEI and preferential treatment of ethnic minorities. There are a lot of social media commentators and journalists who have found that stirring up anger makes them money and so they find instances where they can stir up that anger, increasing the chances of such a story going viral and there being a pile on.

For example;

I was reported to police over the Arday case. I was just doing my job

My investigation into alleged plagiarism was undertaken seriously – journalistic enquiries should not be a matter for Scotland Yard, writes THE reporter Jack Grove

www.timeshighereducation.com

"At Times Higher Education, we cover stories of this sort frequently: in June a French science communicator was stripped of his PhD and we covered the matter. That article attracted little complaint"

A French man plagiarising is not news worthy. A black man at Cambridge is.

Other than the intense right wing interest in the issue, I am not sure they are quite the same. In the Nowak case, people were incensed (rightly IMV) by the cop saying, "I don't think you have, mate" in response to Nowak saying, "I've been stabbed".

This brought out the Tommy Robinson 'two-tier justice' brigade, some believe heavily backed by US far right figures.

This Arday issue is about the responsibilities of the UK press and their culture of being able to destroy a person, in Arday's case, by an astonishing >240 articles in mainstream press and reputable rags such as THE SPECTATOR - in a very short period of time - in which ALLEGED 'fraud' became somehow real, with Arday painted as a latter day Walter Mitty character. We then discover the key person behind the campaign is a Thiel-backed 'race realist' and avowed eugenicist - Nathan Cofnas - sponsored by wealthy sinister far right groups with an agenda.

 

[Vixen]

Then there needs to be an investigation into why he was cleared, when the evidence clearly shows plagiarism.

Cambridge Uni opened one. The press should have let them do their job.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Cambridge Uni opened one. The press should have let them do their job.

That's akin to saying that the press should have let the White House investigate Nixon in the Watergate debacle

 

[Elaedith]

Cambridge Uni opened one. The press should have let them do their job.

They only opened one when the negative publicity reached the point that somebody high up decided their image would be damaged more by defending Arday than by investigating him. It is their fault that it ever had to reach that point. Universities should care about truth, not short-term image building.

 

[Vixen]

That's akin to saying that the press should have let the White House investigate Nixon in the Watergate debacle

It's important to note that Nixon is a public servant and public figure. Arday in most northern European countries would have been entitled to be treated as a private individual entitled to privacy concerning his private life, with allegations about his professional activities dealt with as 'pending' until such time they were confirmed.

 

[Vixen]

They only opened one when the negative publicity reached the point that somebody high up decided their image would be damaged more by defending Arday than by investigating him. It is their fault that it ever had to reach that point. Universities should care about truth, not short-term image building.

Institutions like Cambridge University have rigorous set recruitment, interview and appraisal policies. They are designed to prevent nepotism - people hiring relatives, friends or doing 'a favour for a neighbour's son or daughter'. or even current staff - and to comply with Employment Law protocols, so I am confident Arday's selection process was fair. This process would involve sifting through applications to weed out those that do not meet the required minimum qualifications or proven experience. Arday had a bona fide PhD and experience as a bona fide professor. He wasn't just given the job; he had to compete with three others who had also made the final interview stage. This interview was almost certainly a series of them, including by a panel. There is absolutely no way anyone said 'Oh we need a black dude'. However, being Sociologists, of course they would have been more conscious than average of the need to avoid prejudice or put up unnecessary barriers that aren't relevant.

 

[lionking]

It's important to note that Nixon is a public servant and public figure. Arday in most northern European countries would have been entitled to be treated as a private individual entitled to privacy concerning his private life, with allegations about his professional activities dealt with as 'pending' until such time they were confirmed.

Since when are professors not public servants and public figures?

 

[lionking]

Institutions like Cambridge University have rigorous set recruitment, interview and appraisal policies.

I’d like evidence for this. But even if they did, they failed to apply these policies in Aeday’s case.

 

[Vixen]

I’d like evidence for this. But even if they did, they failed to apply these policies in Aeday’s case.

This would mandate widespread public advertising of the vacancy. A pre-designed 'person specification', outsourced recruitment agencies, such as and including Linkedin, university noticeboards, etc. This is standard. In the UK there is no such thing as a 'DEI hire'.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Since when are professors not public servants and public figures?

I will disagree about them being public servants, unless it's a government-owned institution (local government counts.) But Arday definitely made himself a public figure, what with all those ridiculous claims to the press. That's not someone who was just looking for a quiet private life.

Plus, not being a public servant doesn't mean one can't be investigated by the press. That is the press's JOB. Especially TEH, whose whole thing is talking about higher education institutions and opportunities. Looking into what it takes to get a PhD in Liverpool is their thing.

Plus, Étienne Klein also wasn't a public servant at the time he wrote that plagiarised thesis. I'm pretty darned sure that students aren't public servants. (Even if Université Paris Cité is govenment owned.) So what? Nobody's gonna stop the press from reporting on it. Arrêt Sur Images wasn't in the wrong in any way for investigating it.

 

[Vixen]

I will disagree about public servants, unless it's a government-owned institution (local government counts.) But Arday definitely made himself a public figure, what with all those ridiculous claims to the press. That's not someone who was just looking for a quiet private life.

A politician in the UK is expected to be an upright citizen and is ipso facto required to provide his or her name and address to any constituent who requests it. All Members of Parliament are accountable for their behaviour. For example, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, was found to have embellished her CV in claiming she had been an Economist at the Bank of Scotland, when in reality, she had worked in Customer Services. Yes, the press did a mini-pile on, and she had to correct her fib. Likewise, there were questions about the then Cabinet Minister, Angela Rayner, about allegedly not having paid the correct tax on a house sale. This was all within the bounds of as to be expected for persons elected democratically by the public.

Arday AFAIAA may have come across as 'larger than life' but I can't see he has committed criminal fraud (until such time he was charged with it, which he never was). It's all a horrible witch hunt by individuals with sinister far right motives leading on journalists only too eager for a 'good story' and others, columnists with a track record, of a more ulterior motive, using it as right wing dog whistle garbage.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

A politician in the UK is expected to be an upright citizen and is ipso facto required to provide his or her name and address to any constituent who requests it. All Members of Parliament are accountable for their behaviour. For example, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, was found to have embellished her CV in claiming she had been an Economist at the Bank of Scotland, when in reality, she had worked in Customer Services. Yes, the press did a mini-pile on, and she had to correct her fib. Likewise there were questions about the then Cabinet Minister, Angela Rayner, about not having paid the correct tax on a house sale. This was all within the bounds of as to be expected for persons elected democratically by the public.

Arday AFAIAA may have come across as 'larger than life' but I can't see he has committed criminal fraud (until such time he was charged with it, which he never was). It's all a horrible witch hunt by individuals with sinister far right motives leading on journalists only too eager for a 'good story' and others, columnists with a track record, with a more ulterior motive, using it as right wing dog whistle garbage.

That seems like a meaningless distinction. Taylor Swift isn't employed by the government, but she still counts as a public figure as far as even slander or libel lawsuits go. (Those actually have different standards.) And it sure as all f doesn't mean she's then shielded from the press.

 

[Vixen]

That seems like a meaningless distinction. Taylor Swift isn't employed by the government, but she still counts as a public figure as far as even slander or libel lawsuits go. (Those actually have different standards.) And it sure as all f doesn't mean she's then shielded from the press.

The USA and the UK differ quite markedly on what the press and paparazzi can publish about 'public figures' such as celebrities like Taylor Swift. Here in Finland, it is against privacy laws to even provide the name of a defendant in a criminal trial even after he or she is convicted, save under the - extremely limited - grounds of 'public interest'. The UK does have strict press standards, which is why the pile on on Arday was disguised as 'deep concern about educational standards at Cambridge' and a shed load of columnists who can spout character assassination disguised as 'wry humour' or 'honest opinion' claiming to be only saying what the public thinks.

 

[angrysoba]

I agree but you have to look at, so to speak, the context. Much was made of his being black when he was appointed, he got a lot of attention because he was black and young(ish). It is sadly not surprising that he is being used - by some - as an example of why a black person shouldn't hold such positions. For others he is being used as an example of the rights' remarkably successful rebranding of their old strawman "political correctness" as "DEI". For some he has ceased to be an individual and become an avatar.

Yes, he did have a media profile to begin with and something of a fairy tale background (which has since become massively disputed of course).

I've thought of a very striking parallel from here in Japan and that is Haruko Obokata who claimed to have discovered a new process of creating STAP cells which would have revolutionized medical science.

Because she was a young woman in a male-dominated field in a male-dominated country in which sexist barriers are very real (seriously, Tokyo Medical School was even found out lowering the grades on women's scores to allow more men to become doctors and keep women out - this is about as anti-DEI as you can get!), and perhaps because she was not unattractive, she became a superstar!

Well, unfortunately, because the process was considered so simple, many labs attempted to replicate her claims, but were unable to do it. Over time, Obokata came under greater and greater scrutiny until it was found out that her papers were very clumsily slapped together from other papers. Plagiarized, in other words (or rather the same words, which is the problem)!

Her mentors, including a scientist from Harvard, stood by her against the accusations at first, her co-author even claimed to have created the STAP cells himself. But over time the truth was revealed. It even ended just as tragically as the Arday situation with Obokata's supervisor, Yoshiki Sasai committing suicide.

Link

Given the tragic end to the saga, was it the fault of other academics and journalists to investigate and expose Obokata?

No. In fact, surely they have a duty to expose her.

Does Sasai's suicide fall on the academics and journalists who exposed her?

No, surely not.

In fact, was Obokata responsible for Sasai's suicide?

Here, I would think most people would be more inclined to agree that she has culpability.

Why? Because she committed fraud, of course.

Now, here is a hypothetical question:

If, instead of Arday, someone else at Cambridge who had stuck by Arday had committed suicide, would we blame the press for it? Would it be the fault of the Times Higher Educational Supplement, or The Guardian or boo-hiss Nathan Cofnas?

I don't think so. I would think Arday would be seen as somewhat culpable in that case.

The reason why we think otherwise in this case is largely down to a kind of moral luck. It is difficult to disentangle the consequences of Arday's exposure from the earlier lack of exposure. And we have no idea how other people in the saga might end up dealing with the pressure.

 

[smartcooky]

Cambridge Uni opened one. The press should have let them do their job.

You expect the turkeys to vote for Christmas?

 

[dann]

We then discover the key person behind the campaign is a Thiel-backed 'race realist' and avowed eugenicist - Nathan Cofnas - sponsored by wealthy sinister far right groups with an agenda.

Aparna Nair on bsky, Aug 22, 2026
Meanwhile

In case somebody doesn't remember who Charles Murray is:
Charles Murray: Research (Wikipedia)
'Academic freedom?'
No, not really. It's just Murray defending one of his fans.

LilBaz on bsky, Aug 22, 2026
I see the racists & fascists of academia have decided to assemble to publicy identify themselves. Which is handy