Merged Arday life and death

[Ziggurat]

If positive discrimination was illegal without exeptions, DEI would be illegal, and its not, its UK goverment policy (even if its not explicitly stated).

Being government policy doesn't mean it's legal. Government does stuff it's not legally allowed to do all the time.

 

[Nessie]

Let's use an extreme example. Suppose a journalist writes to Elon Musk and asks him about his extraordinary lies and fabulist claims, and the journalist gets an email from the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ police telling her to stop contacting Musk or else, would we not think it was an outrageous thing for the police to do?

Yes. I agree that would be excessive. That does not mean the point I make about the right to silence is invalid.

 

[Vixen]

Well, maybe John Moores Liverpool Uni [sic] cleared him of plagiarism and more fool them! They have egg on their faces, the stupid morons!

You don't have to take the word of racists that Arday plagiarized. This Substack from someone who is otherwise very sympathetic to Arday is emphatic that he DID plagiarize. Sorry, but it's true...

The Jason Arday Saga Is Terrible And Everyone Involved Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves

The whole thing makes me furious

gidmk.substack.com

No, no, no! The public do not get to determine guilt. The proper channels were opened but the cruel baying crowds and malicious right wing columnists - one of whom, Hartley-Brewer was a champion for Lucy Connolly - were given all the newspaper space they needed (238 articles in the mainstream press in two weeks!) to hang, draw and quarter their dreadlocked EDI prey. It's disgusting and shame on them all.

 

[ahhell]

I'd certainly agree that was part of it, and so was Arday's own extreme self promotion, but academic scandal is really not the kind of scandal the British press is normally interested in.

I think there are a couple of reasons why this one caught. Mostly the audacity of it all. Sure, most of it could have been true but if his biography was a super-hero origin story the audience would have balked at how over the top it was. And folks do like the high and mighty brought low, the faculty at Cambridge being so completely suckered by fairly obvious fraud is great for that.

 

[angrysoba]

It could be argued that Elon Musk is a public individual with public views. Arday was just a poxy lecturer, whom an avowed racist decided to go after. As an autistic person, Arday's sensibilities were likely extremely heightened by this badgering hack with 'questions', which to Arday could have felt exceedingly threatening to the core of his being. So much so, he attempted to appease matters - autistic persons are often people pleasers because they are aware they unwittingly make all kinds of faux pas, so are always conscious of the possibility of inadvertently breaching social mores - and adjusted the 300 miles in one month to 600, in an effort to mitigate the perceived terrible crime of exaggeration.

So yeah, getting Carter-Ruck onto TES - not the hack personally - might be OTT for a non-divergent person, but I can see Arday went into blind panic, and when the persecution continued killed himself in a fit of terror.

Why do you consider Jack Grove a badgering hack? And why was Jason Arday not a public figure?

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

 

[angrysoba]

No, no, no! The public do not get to determine guilt.

Then it is time for you to be quiet.

 

[Elaedith]

Lots of the press interest focused on the number of implausible stories that kept being uncovered. Unfortunately, those made a good story (much more interesting than academic scandals), and people kept finding more and more of them, which sustained the attention. Arday made these claims in media interviews, not as little lies told to a few friends and colleagues. He was meant to be an academic celebrity, and it backfired badly.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, no, no! The public do not get to determine guilt.

Depends what you mean by that.

If you mean that public opinion doesn't get to impose sanctions on Arday, you are correct. But that didn't happen. The public imposed no sanctions on him at all.

If you mean that the public has to believe whatever some authority figure tells them about his guilt, you're 100% wrong. The public are allowed to draw conclusions on their own.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes. I agree that would be excessive. That does not mean the point I make about the right to silence is invalid.

It would probably have been better if ordinary journalists had been able to get on with their job and ordinary academic institutions had done theirs properly. It really does feel as though the determination to keep everything quiet and shut everyone up was the problem.

Eventually the only people who will call out the nonsense are the people who themselves have apparently nothing to lose. People like Nathan Cofnas already knows what society thinks of him. He is not going to worry about people calling him racist.

The problem is that people who do worry about it decide to keep their own counsel. And then it goes horribly wrong for everyone except the racists who obviously won't be sorry if Arday kills himself.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think there are a couple of reasons why this one caught. Mostly the audacity of it all. Sure, most of it could have been true but if his biography was a super-hero origin story the audience would have balked at how over the top it was. And folks do like the high and mighty brought low, the faculty at Cambridge being so completely suckered by fairly obvious fraud is great for that.

 

[d4m10n]

It would probably have been better if ordinary journalists had been able to get on with their job and ordinary academic institutions had done theirs properly.

Cambridge was on notice that Arday was passing other people's work off as his own as early as 19 May 2023 but they chose to bury their heads.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Then it is time for you to be quiet.

Doesn't that apply to you too, then, and quite trivially at that?

 

[d4m10n]

Doesn't that apply to you too, then, and quite trivially at that?

Assuming they accept the principle they were challenging, yes.

I think it's fine for the public to determine guilt if we're talking about people who present themselves to the world as public intellectuals.

ETA:

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Yes. I agree that would be excessive. That does not mean the point I make about the right to silence is invalid.

Of course it doesn't. But luckily, unlike in your deranged fantasies, the press CAN'T arrest someone and force them into answering in an investigation. It only takes a "no comment" or even just not answering an email to assert your right to silence. I don't know in what delusional alternate universe you live, where someone asking for a comment in a polite email is violating your right to silence from the get-go. Is the press some kind of Holy Inquisition in that universe, or what?

I mean, even for the police, they ARE allowed to ask. Right to silence just means you don't have to answer. (And in the USA it only applies to criminal lawsuits. If you invoke the 5th in a CIVIL lawsuit, the jury are actually instructed to take that as an admission of guilt.)

TL;DR: find some other canard to keep hammering on, will ya? This one ain't impressing anyone, and it's getting boring

Like, at least come up with some sovereign citizen delusions for a change. Those are at least funny

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Assuming they accept the principle they were challenging, yes.

I think it's fine for the public to determine guilt if we're talking about people who present themselves to the world as public intellectuals.

Well, maybe not in a judicial sense, but yes you have the freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. You're allowed to think WTH you wish.

 

[angrysoba]

Doesn't that apply to you too, then, and quite trivially at that?

No it doesn’t because I am not making that the standard. But it seems to me if someone does then they should shut their face.

 

[angrysoba]

No. I was a lecturer at London University for six years and absolutely every student had an oral exam as part of every professional examination for their bachelor degree. Not always with an external examiner though.

sadly it seems that even the University of London has its share of frauds. Anyone remember this guy who presided over numerous papers containing frauds. He got away with it and blames the underlings of course, but doesn’t that only mean he was facilitating shoddy scholarship like Cambridge was with Arday?

Top geneticist ‘should resign’ over his team’s laboratory fraud

Professor responsible for ‘reckless’ failure to properly oversee researchers

www.theguardian.com

 

[theprestige]

Yes. I agree that would be excessive. That does not mean the point I make about the right to silence is invalid.

You have the right to keep silent yourself. You don't have the right to silence your critics.

 

[theprestige]

A lot of successful content creators and influencers never read their own comments sections or their own email inboxes. Purely because of the amount of soul-destroying communication comes in through those channels. From the haters who just pile on the abuse to the trolls that make a point of sexualizing everything they do, to the fans whose parasocial tendencies have gotten just a little too creepy.

They hire a manager or an assistant to filter all that stuff, for their own sanity, and so that they can keep up the motivation and energy that drives their success.

Once Cambridge resolved to make Arday a celebrity, at the very least they should have assigned him a TA whose entire job was to insulate him from direct contact with negative social media. The fact that Cambridge didn't have a social media/PR team assigned, to say things like "no comment" and "no interviews at this time" all day every day, was a huge screwup on their part.

 

[smartcooky]

If you invoke the 5th in a CIVIL lawsuit, the jury are actually instructed to take that as an admission of guilt.)

Not quite. They are instructed (in general terms only) that they are allowed to infer it as an admission of guilt, or that the person has something relevant to hide.