Who made quite public claims about an alleged condition.
I'm aware, but my point was the lack of specificity; Christmas lights designed to flash wouldn't be included in that accommodation as written.
None have been reported.
By saying that they can't be exposed to flashing lights. Photosensitive epilepsy might be the most well known disability requiring that accommodation, but it is not in fact the only one. Someone with sensory processing issues (common in autism) could also not handle flashing lights well.
I'm curious to know why you are confident Arday never asked for accommodations based on an actual documented diagnosis. Seems like an open question.
I'm not 100% certain, sure. But I've noticed a pattern, and I know which way to bet. Seems kind of obvious.
His most obvious lies are grandiose, like going from totally mute to highly literate in a short time period, or running way too many marathons while injured.
So he's pledged to beg the question.
At this point, I only believe that because there's evidence. So far, no evidence that he was autistic.
Any accommodation would remain in his file. What would never have been in his file whether during the recruitment phase nor subsequent employment is why such an accomodation was made. There would never have been any 3rd party independent medical documentation that he had autism or any other disability in his file. And Cambridge would have had no legal bases for obtaining such documentation nor Arday have any legal obligation to provide such verification. Unless his estate has such documentation and wishes to make it available there isn't going to be any confirmation of his claimed autism.
I would say he has a track record of exaggerating his achievements and obstacles overcome. My best guess is that he was actually ASD, but not actually mute. That he was actually a runner, but did not set back-to-back ultramarathon records. That he did actually put together a Ph.D. dissertation, but didn't actually come up with original ideas or language.
He has a track record of lying, not just exaggerating.
I think that is highly likely the case, but how I can I know? IMHO, he has a record of reliability that requires ordinary evidence for even his most ordinary claims.
The review will indeed look into what the University knew, or thought it new. But it explicitly will not look into Arday himself. From your link:
That sounds fair, but one of the major problems here is that an elite institution failed to exercise even mild skepticism about Arday's various (often outlandish) claims. Cambridge are pretty much off the hook regarding medical conditions due to applicable employee privacy laws, but that still leaves plenty of unsupported claims along with creative autobiographical writing passing itself off as research.
You don't seem to fully appreciate what combining signals of different wavelengths does. A 50Hz fluorescent tube light (in Europe) combined with a 60Hz monitor, can result in a 10 Hz component that can trigger epilepsy. That was more common in older CRT monitors, but some medical machines and other equipment still have them, and less pronounced in modern LCD, but it's there. Albeit in the latter case in the form of fainter bands of light racing up or down the monitor.
Given that his Ph.D. dissertation and his other qualifications are fairly questionable and arguably fraudulent, Cambridge is preemptively failing to hold itself accountable as an elite institution charged with knowledge production and dissemination.