A sad casualty of DEI/Woke at Cambridge University

[bilby]

No, he wasn’t “harassed” because he was black. Arday was exposed for being a fraud...

...and then harrassed mercilessly for it because he was black.

He wasn't the first, and won't be the last, fraud at Cambridge.

But he was treated very differently from the others.

Who? Name any other Cambridge professor exposed as a fraud?

There is none.

He is the first.

Horsehit. The author of this article has counted five, just at Cambridge.

He is the first not to have his case quietly and successfully supressed, such that only those directly involved (or, like RetractionWatch, those with a particular interest in finding such cases) became aware of it; So you have (incorrectly) assumed his case to be the first.

Thereby falling for the hype and the hate. Well done.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It’s hard not to conclude that the real issue here is in fact the racist behavior of academics and administration at Cambridge.

Agreed, Arday was hired because of race.

Correction. I think Arday was hired on academic merit. His publications were of the level necessary to get a professiorial title. He was extremely intelligent and a good teacher.

The problem is that his academic work was plagiarised. It wasn't his indipendent thinking he was hired for. He stole the career from other people. Someone else should have been proffessor.

Where DEI and woke comes in is that, it is used as the narrative to explain why Arday wasn't screened at the standards we expect from a Cambridge professor. Ie, because he was black the white guys didn't dare question or investigate his background. I think that sounds plausuble.

He was also very autistic. That's true and verified. Which might have led people around him accept odd behaviour. And they might write off his compulsive lying as autistic exentricity? I don't know.

Either way, people around him, turned off their critical brains, for whatever reason, and that led to his hiring and the tragedy of his suicide

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, he wasn’t “harassed” because he was black. Arday was exposed for being a fraud...

...and then harrassed mercilessly for it because he was black.

He wasn't the first, and won't be the last, fraud at Cambridge.

But he was treated very differently from the others.

Who? Name any other Cambridge professor exposed as a fraud?

There is none.

He is the first.

Horsehit. The author of this article has counted five, just at Cambridge.

He is the first not to have his case quietly and successfully supressed, such that only those directly involved (or, like RetractionWatch, those with a particular interest in finding such cases) became aware of it; So you have (incorrectly) assumed his case to be the first.

Thereby falling for the hype and the hate. Well done.

Ok. Name them. Go on.

Professors making the odd mistake is not a scandal. Sorry. You are talking shit. That article is paywalled for me

 

[DrZoidberg]

The timing for Arday couldn't have been worse. Since his autobiography was planned to be realeased 25/8. The Scandal broke late July.

The publisher, reportedly, did force him to take out his most egregrious lies. That means, they already knew he was a compulsive liar and that much of the content was false. They chose to publish anyway.

That also looks bad for Simon & Schuster.

This story just gets worse and worse. At this point I don't give a fuck about his blackness. The degree of the violations of trust towards any institutions and anyone around him is beyond race. This is so extreme

 

[TV and credit cards]

Where is the harassment? Since when is scrutiny harassment? Seems like the more they dug, the more they found. That Arday's own falsehoods put him in this predicament.

I read scrutiny from the press not harassment from colleagues.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Where is the harassment? Since when is scrutiny harassment? Seems like the more they dug, the more they found. That Arday's own falsehoods put him in this predicament.

I read scrutiny from the press not harassment from colleagues.

You're jumping ahead. This was after Nathan Cofnas blew open the story.

Worth noting is that Nathan Cofnas studies genetic group selection on human populations. Its modern day "scientific racism". The difference being that Cofnas is a proper scientist and does scientifically rigorous studies. So a world apart from the pseudoscientific stuff from the 1930'ies. But, understandably, it still made people at Cambridge uncomfortable.

Cofnas had already made himself persona non grata at Cambridge prior to this. Because of the insensitive nature of his research.

I'm saying all this, because it puts Cambridge's response and support of Arday in another light.

If the story would have been broken by a more neutral character, I think Cambridge's response might have been different.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A Swedish academic friend of mine. Black. Has written an article with the angle that Cambridge has institutionalised racism. Because the academic world treat blacks as sensitive little children who can't handle pushback and couldn't survive in a meritocratic world. (His words).

He tells his own story of feeling that hand patting him on the head, (his words) while using him as a token in the university's hunt for moral status (also his words).

Harsh words. He ends it with saying that he's as angry as a bee, (which sounds more menacing in Swedish).

Let's see how this article lands. Not published yet.

I think sums up the problem with the Arday story very well.

Racism is always bad. No matter who is given preferential treatment. (My words).

 

[laughing dog]

Sounds like he was hounded because he is black. How that can be blamed on DEI and Woke is a mystery to me.

He was hired because he was black - that's where DEI comes into the picture. He was hounded because he was a fraud.

The actual evidence that he was hired because he was black is......?

They didn't do due dilligence. That's remarkable. I don't think you quite understand the prestige and dignity of Cambridge and the standards they hold.

To my knowledge, no university checks every publication of top candidates for plagiarism.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sounds like he was hounded because he is black. How that can be blamed on DEI and Woke is a mystery to me.

He was hired because he was black - that's where DEI comes into the picture. He was hounded because he was a fraud.

The actual evidence that he was hired because he was black is......?

They didn't do due dilligence. That's remarkable. I don't think you quite understand the prestige and dignity of Cambridge and the standards they hold.

To my knowledge, no university checks every publication of top candidates for plagiarism.

No fraud by professors has made it through Cambridge's scrutiny before. Since 1209. It would have been revealed over time, if true

And secondly... Cambridge's prestige is on a different level. The damage a fraud would do to their reputation would be incalculable. For Cambridge specifically, this is a catastrophe. It would be stupid of them not to.

And lastly, they now have software that checks automatically. That's how Nathan Cofnas busted Arday. He just used the plagiarism software they routinely use to check the work of students. Almost no effort required.

The whole thing is so very strange

 

[Toni]

Where is the harassment? Since when is scrutiny harassment? Seems like the more they dug, the more they found. That Arday's own falsehoods put him in this predicament.

I read scrutiny from the press not harassment from colleagues.

I used to work with a couple of people who occasionally would decide to target someone with extreme scrutiny. And were occasionally dishonest about the circumstances. I saw it. It can be very nasty.

 

[laughing dog]

Sounds like he was hounded because he is black. How that can be blamed on DEI and Woke is a mystery to me.

He was hired because he was black - that's where DEI comes into the picture. He was hounded because he was a fraud.

The actual evidence that he was hired because he was black is......?

They didn't do due dilligence. That's remarkable. I don't think you quite understand the prestige and dignity of Cambridge and the standards they hold.

To my knowledge, no university checks every publication of top candidates for plagiarism.

No fraud has made it through Cambridge's scrutiny before. Since 1209.

bilby provided a link to at least 5 cases.

And secondly... Cambridge's prestige is on a different level. The damage a fraud would do to their reputation would be incalculable. For Cambridge specifically, this is a catastrophe. It would be stupid of them not to.

And lastly, they now have software that checks automatically. That's how Nathan Cofnas busted Arday. He just used the plagiarism software they routinely use to check the work of students. Almost no effort required.

The whole thing is so very strange

Your opinion of what Cambridge should or could have done is not evidence of what they did.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sounds like he was hounded because he is black. How that can be blamed on DEI and Woke is a mystery to me.

He was hired because he was black - that's where DEI comes into the picture. He was hounded because he was a fraud.

The actual evidence that he was hired because he was black is......?

They didn't do due dilligence. That's remarkable. I don't think you quite understand the prestige and dignity of Cambridge and the standards they hold.

To my knowledge, no university checks every publication of top candidates for plagiarism.

No fraud has made it through Cambridge's scrutiny before. Since 1209.

bilby provided a link to at least 5 cases.

I corrected my text. Bilbys link is irrelevant. Arday was a professor.

Edit: according to ChatGPT, the only other fraud coming close is the Newton-Liebnitz conflict. Where Newton took part as a judge. A clear conflict of interest

Apart from that there's nothing involving a professor

Try to keep in mind that Americans routinely call their lecturers "professor".

Arday was not just a lecturer

 

[laughing dog]

I corrected my text. Bilbys link is irrelevant

You correction is hand waved wishful thinking.

The narrative of this story is that an intelligent man conned his way into Cambridge University. The claim that universities check for plagiarized publications among top candidates remains unsupported.

 

[Politesse]

Try to keep in mind that Americans routinely call their lecturers "professor".

Why do you post obvious and easily checkable lies, if you're trying to be taken seriously? No, we do not.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I corrected my text. Bilbys link is irrelevant

You correction is hand waved wishful thinking.

ok, then. Back it up with anything of substance. Bilby couldn't. Maybe you can?

Yours and Bilby's accusations are very serious. Not to be overly dramatic, but faith in the honesty of our universities is the foundation of the modern world... pray even civilisation itself.

The narrative of this story is that an intelligent man conned his way into Cambridge University. The claim that universities check for plagiarized publications among top candidates remains unsupported.

Sure. Its still weird if they don't. Since its so simple to do. And Nathan Cofnas did bust him with standard anti-plagiarism software. That's at least what he said in the interview I watched

Do you agree that getting a professorial title should be the hardest possible thing, on the planet, to con oneself into? Universities are supposed to be staffed with the creme de la creme of humanity's intelligence.

 

[laughing dog]

I corrected my text. Bilbys link is irrelevant

You correction is hand waved wishful thinking.

ok, then. Back it up with anything of substance. Bilby couldn't. Maybe you can?

Unlike you, bilby provided a link.

Yours and Bilby's accusations are very serious. Not to be overly dramatic, but faith in the honesty of our universities is the foundation of the modern world... pray even civilisation itself.

I made no accusation. I asked for evidence that universities check for plagiarism in the publications for top candidates. From my 40+ years in university academia, I never saw nor heard of such checking.

The narrative of this story is that an intelligent man conned his way into Cambridge University. The claim that universities check for plagiarized publications among top candidates remains unsupported.

Sure. Its still weird if they don't. Since its so simple to do. And Nathan Cofnas did bust him with standard anti-plagiarism software. That's at least what he said in the interview I watched

Do you agree that getting a professorial title should be the hardest possible thing, on the planet, to con oneself into? Universities are supposed to be staffed with the creme de la creme of humanity's intelligence.

No to the question and to what Universities are supposed to be staffed with.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I corrected my text. Bilbys link is irrelevant

You correction is hand waved wishful thinking.

The narrative of this story is that an intelligent man conned his way into Cambridge University. The claim that universities check for plagiarized publications among top candidates remains unsupported.

Let's think about the logistics of this. If universities actually did routine plagiarism checks on top candidates, the process would have to be automated. Manually cross-referencing a candidate's entire body of work against every other book and paper in existence is impracticable.

So, presuming they use a standard software tool to scan submissions, this DEI conspiracy theory requires us to believe one of two nonsensical things. Either the hiring staff said, "Hey waitaminnut, this guy is Black—let's bypass all our standard scans," OR the hiring staff ran the scans, looked at the plagiarized results, and actively conspired to say, "Hey waitaminnut, this guy is Black—let's bury this report and pretend it never happened." It's really quite absurd.

Makes you wonder—do these same conspiracy theorists think the GOP ran a background check on George Santos, saw his completely fabricated life story, and said, 'Hey waitaminnut, he's a Republican. Let's hide the lies and put him in Congress'?" Or is it just that that doesn't work well for the narrative they are trying to construct?

 

[TSwizzle]

What is the ideal career, in your view, for a Black man who wants to pursue an education but is prevented from entering the university? What would you have advised him to do with his life?

Do you think that all candidates for university positions should be vetted or just the white ones?

 

[Politesse]

What is the ideal career, in your view, for a Black man who wants to pursue an education but is prevented from entering the university? What would you have advised him to do with his life?

Do you think that all candidates for university positions should be vetted or just the white ones?

I don't even know what you mean by "vetting". Do you think being hired at Cambridge is like getting hired at the CIA? There is a routine criminal background check for all new faculty, but all new faculty undergo it, there isn't a racial exemption.

 

[Politesse]

et's think about the logistics of this. If universities actually did routine plagiarism checks on top candidates, the process would have to be automated. Manually cross-referencing a candidate's entire body of work against every other book and paper in existence is impracticable.

So, presuming they use a standard software tool to scan submissions, this DEI conspiracy theory requires us to believe one of two nonsensical things. Either the hiring staff said, "Hey waitaminnut, this guy is Black—let's bypass all our standard scans," OR the hiring staff ran the scans, looked at the plagiarized results, and actively conspired to say, "Hey waitaminnut, this guy is Black—let's bury this report and pretend it never happened." It's really quite absurd.

They truly believe there is a conspiracy to replace white faculty with blacks, transes, and whoever else they are afraid of this week. We aren't dealing with entirely sane people here.