A sad casualty of DEI/Woke at Cambridge University

[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?

Unlike you, bilby provided a link.

The article is paywalled.

According to google Arday's case is unique. Me and Bilby have access to the same Intrrnet. You too.

Yes, there are examples of professors making the mistakes.

But there are no other examples of Cambridge professors comitting systematic fraud.

Those doing doctoral thesis and students is a different level. But the standards are the same. Zero tolerance for fraud. And rare.

I don't see the point trying to pretend this is nornal, as if lessening Arday's culpability. You're not doing Arday, Cambridge, blacks, autists or any other minority any favours.

I never said any of this was normal.

and you agree its unique?

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.

What I said waa that it easy to do. Cofnas said he busted him by using standard university software.

Its remarkable they didn't run it on Arday, I think.

I realize focusing is hard for you. Bring easy for it to do is not evidence that Cambridge did it.

I think you are on purpose trying to twist my words into something they're not. Why? What are you trying to do? I don't get it? This feels like the dumbest conversation about nothing. Wtf!

Can we raise the level of thiis conversation instead of this childish nonsense?

As academics, the entire academic world could have vetted Arday at any point. As Cofnas demonstrated. It took years!

 

[TV and credit cards]

Be careful what you wish for.

Euronews article: Calls for UK public inquiry into 'hounding' of ex-Cambridge academic Jason Arday
Good Law Project Letter: Jason Arday: Demand a public inquiry now
IPSO: Harassment Service
I say horseshit. Lay the blame where it belongs, on the public's front stoop.
How relentless was the press in their pursuit of this story and were they motivated by racism? The claim at the Good Law Project indicate Arday was hounded because he is Black, that others in what I will presume were in similar situations received not nearly as much scrutiny.
Ah, but it is not the press who are guilty, it is you dear reader who crave such news.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Be careful what you wish for.

Euronews article: Calls for UK public inquiry into 'hounding' of ex-Cambridge academic Jason Arday
Good Law Project Letter: Jason Arday: Demand a public inquiry now
IPSO: Harassment Service
I say horseshit. Lay the blame where it belongs, on the public's front stoop.
How relentless was the press in their pursuit of this story and were they motivated by racism? The claim at the Good Law Project indicate Arday was hounded because he is Black, that others in what I will presume were in similar situations received not nearly as much scrutiny.
Ah, but it is not the press who are guilty, it is you dear reader who crave such news.

I think the blackness of Arday made everyone stupid. His attackers may have been racist or not. But I am convinced racism fueled the attacks on him. That's the society we live in. His defenders then assumed attacks were only because of racism, and defended Arday. At that point the person Arday was gone. He was reduced to a skin colour.

I think his rise was made possible because people were afraid to challenge a black mans, (pretty obviously bullshit) stories because they were afraid to be seen as racist.

Cambridge has had problems with institutionalised racism, up until quite recently. All documented and demonstrated. Blacks have had a harder time to get good grades. So Cambridge was, at this time, predisposed to want to shower a black man with honours, any black man they could. So perhaps this can explain why he wasn't scrutinised as much as anyone else would have been?

It looks, to me, like a perfect storm.

Also... being overly critical of someone black is racist. But not being critical enough of someone black, is also racism. And easily becomes racism of low expectations.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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?

I think its normal to run background checks on people when hiring people for sensitive positions.

Using Copyleaks in combination with ChatGPT would make the background check a trivial operation.

ChatGPT says this

"What software did Cofnas use to bust Arday"

It was Copyleaks.

Nathan Cofnas says explicitly in his original 21 July 2026 investigation:

> “I ran Arday’s 2015 PhD dissertation through the plagiarism-detection program Copyleaks.”



Copyleaks then identified substantial textual overlap, particularly with Paula Zwozdiak-Myers's 2009 Brunel University PhD thesis. Cofnas manually examined the matches and published side-by-side comparisons; his original article presented 36 instances involving verbatim copying, close paraphrasing and stylistic alterations.

So this wasn't some bespoke forensic technique. He essentially obtained Arday's thesis, put it through commercially available plagiarism-detection software, and investigated the matches it returned.

That is one of the striking aspects of the affair: the tool was readily available, meaning this was a check that Cambridge—or previous institutions—could in principle have performed themselves.

[Copyleaks](https://copyleaks.com/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) is the software in question.

Since you are using AI to respond in part, here is an AI response to you:

You are missing the forest for the trees here, and ironically, proving Don2's original point. Yes, plagiarism software like Copyleaks exists—which is exactly why Don2 stated this would have to be an automated process—but you are confusing standard HR background checks (criminal records, reference checks, verifying dates of employment) with a forensic re-litigation of a degree already granted by another institution. Arday was hired by Cambridge in 2023. His PhD was completed in 2015/2016. In the years between, he successfully ran the gauntlet of academic peer review to publish numerous papers and books, earning professorships at Roehampton, Durham, and Glasgow. The idea that a Cambridge hiring committee would arbitrarily dig up a nearly decade-old dissertation to run it through a commercial plagiarism scanner isn't standard vetting; it would be a highly unusual forensic audit.

More importantly, your ChatGPT-generated response actually dismantles the very DEI conspiracy theory it is trying to support. Notice how the argument shifts to claiming this "was a check that Cambridge—or previous institutions—could in principle have performed"? That entirely abandons the premise of a malicious cover-up. The goalposts have officially been moved from an active conspiracy where hiring staff say, "Hey waitaminnut, he's Black, let's bypass the scans and hide the results," to complaining that some institution, somewhere along the line, probably should have run a software check years ago and didn't. That isn't a grand DEI conspiracy; that is just a mundane, passive administrative oversight. You cannot claim Cambridge orchestrated a woke cover-up when your own source reduces the situation to standard institutional inertia.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is zero evidence to suggest the suspicion surrounding Arday’s claims were motivated by race. And I wonder, what makes life harder for black academics in the UK.

The hypocrisy of TSwizzle's statement is incredible.

There is no evidence that criticism against Arday was based on race.
Meanwhile, the evidence that he was a woke DEI hire seems equally as scant.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Be careful what you wish for.

Euronews article: Calls for UK public inquiry into 'hounding' of ex-Cambridge academic Jason Arday
Good Law Project Letter: Jason Arday: Demand a public inquiry now
IPSO: Harassment Service
I say horseshit. Lay the blame where it belongs, on the public's front stoop.
How relentless was the press in their pursuit of this story and were they motivated by racism? The claim at the Good Law Project indicate Arday was hounded because he is Black, that others in what I will presume were in similar situations received not nearly as much scrutiny.
Ah, but it is not the press who are guilty, it is you dear reader who crave such news.

I think the blackness of Arday made everyone stupid. His attackers may have been racist or not. But I am convinced racism fueled the attacks on him.

Otherwise, not certain how many people actually get outraged by collegiate institutional plagiarism? His race seems to be the only thing that is driving the attention for many people on this (and here). I doubt this is the only case of plagiarism in colleges and universities in the English speaking world.

That's the society we live in. His defenders then assumed attacks were only because of racism, and defended Arday. At that point the person Arday was gone. He was reduced to a skin colour.

You've already stated "I am convinced racism fueled the attacks on him". And now you are saying people that agree with you did so only because of his race. This is your typical patented two-sided mouth speaking.

Cambridge has had problems with institutionalised racism, up until quite recently. All documented and demonstrated. Blacks have had a harder time to get good grades. So Cambridge was, at this time, predisposed to want to shower a black man with honours, any black man they could. So perhaps this can explain why he wasn't scrutinised as much as anyone else would have been?

It looks, to me, like a perfect storm.

You stated up thread:

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.

Pick a lane!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Be careful what you wish for.

Euronews article: Calls for UK public inquiry into 'hounding' of ex-Cambridge academic Jason Arday
Good Law Project Letter: Jason Arday: Demand a public inquiry now
IPSO: Harassment Service
I say horseshit. Lay the blame where it belongs, on the public's front stoop.
How relentless was the press in their pursuit of this story and were they motivated by racism? The claim at the Good Law Project indicate Arday was hounded because he is Black, that others in what I will presume were in similar situations received not nearly as much scrutiny.
Ah, but it is not the press who are guilty, it is you dear reader who crave such news.

I think the blackness of Arday made everyone stupid. His attackers may have been racist or not. But I am convinced racism fueled the attacks on him.

Otherwise, not certain how many people actually get outraged by collegiate institutional plagiarism? His race seems to be the only thing that is driving the attention for many people on this (and here).

Sure. Because its a big topic in the world. Is that strange?

I doubt this is the only case of plagiarism in colleges and universities in the English speaking world.

We've been over this. His case is unique for Cambridge.

Pretending this is normal, I think, is a knee jerk woke reaction to lessen his crime. That's racism... I think

That's the society we live in. His defenders then assumed attacks were only because of racism, and defended Arday. At that point the person Arday was gone. He was reduced to a skin colour.

You've already stated "I am convinced racism fueled the attacks on him". And now you are saying people that agree with you did so only because of his race. This is your typical patented two-sided mouth speaking.

I think the reason this paragraph made sense in your head because your view of politics is a simple dichotomy. Good or evil. Its shallow, tribal and mindless.

No, shit you get confused when someone is capable of seeing nuance! A concept foreign to your world view

Cambridge has had problems with institutionalised racism, up until quite recently. All documented and demonstrated. Blacks have had a harder time to get good grades. So Cambridge was, at this time, predisposed to want to shower a black man with honours, any black man they could. So perhaps this can explain why he wasn't scrutinised as much as anyone else would have been?

It looks, to me, like a perfect storm.

You stated up thread:

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.

Pick a lane!

If you give that ANY thought, I think, even you will figure this mystery out

 

[bilby]

We've been over this. His case is unique for Cambridge.

We've been over this. No, it isn't.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Cambridge has had problems with institutionalised racism, up until quite recently. All documented and demonstrated. Blacks have had a harder time to get good grades. So Cambridge was, at this time, predisposed to want to shower a black man with honours, any black man they could. So perhaps this can explain why he wasn't scrutinised as much as anyone else would have been?

It looks, to me, like a perfect storm.

You stated up thread:

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.

Pick a lane!

If you give that ANY thought, I think, even you will figure this mystery out

Well yeah, you are full of it. Which is why you can't address how two-faced you are with this conversation.

"So Cambridge was, at this time, predisposed to want to shower a black man with honours, any black man they could. So perhaps this can explain why he wasn't scrutinised..."

v

"I think Arday was hired on academic merit" & "He was extremely intelligent and a good teacher"

These statements are not remotely compatible.

 

[TSwizzle]

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.

"extremely intelligent"? Doubtful. He was a conman who wormed his way in to an institution that was beguiled by woke cult nonsense.

"a good teacher"? There were complaints from students that he was a terrible teacher.

 

[Elixir]

"extremely intelligent"? Doubtful.

^ what conservotards say when a minority person is obviously brighter than they are.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Cambridge has had problems with institutionalised racism, up until quite recently. All documented and demonstrated. Blacks have had a harder time to get good grades. So Cambridge was, at this time, predisposed to want to shower a black man with honours, any black man they could. So perhaps this can explain why he wasn't scrutinised as much as anyone else would have been?

It looks, to me, like a perfect storm.

You stated up thread:

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.

Pick a lane!

If you give that ANY thought, I think, even you will figure this mystery out

Well yeah, you are full of it. Which is why you can't address how two-faced you are with this conversation.

"So Cambridge was, at this time, predisposed to want to shower a black man with honours, any black man they could. So perhaps this can explain why he wasn't scrutinised..."

v

"I think Arday was hired on academic merit" & "He was extremely intelligent and a good teacher"

These statements are not remotely compatible.

Yes, they are. If he hadn't cheated, his research would have been good enough to earn him his professors hat.

But he did cheat.

Do you understand now, or do you need this be explained even more?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Cambridge has had problems with institutionalised racism, up until quite recently. All documented and demonstrated. Blacks have had a harder time to get good grades. So Cambridge was, at this time, predisposed to want to shower a black man with honours, any black man they could. So perhaps this can explain why he wasn't scrutinised as much as anyone else would have been?

It looks, to me, like a perfect storm.

You stated up thread:

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.

Pick a lane!

If you give that ANY thought, I think, even you will figure this mystery out

Well yeah, you are full of it. Which is why you can't address how two-faced you are with this conversation.

"So Cambridge was, at this time, predisposed to want to shower a black man with honours, any black man they could. So perhaps this can explain why he wasn't scrutinised..."

v

"I think Arday was hired on academic merit" & "He was extremely intelligent and a good teacher"

These statements are not remotely compatible.

Yes, they are. If he hadn't cheated, his research would have been good enough to earn him his professors hat.

But he did cheat.

Do you understand now, or do you need this be explained even more?

The dispute here are your conflicting judgments when you said the college was desperate to hire "any black man they could" find and "shower him with honours". But before that, you say the college "hired on academic merit" and he was "extremely intelligent" and "a good teacher", which would mean this wasn't a desperate hire and his on the job performance was very good and he deserved accolades.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Cambridge has had problems with institutionalised racism, up until quite recently. All documented and demonstrated. Blacks have had a harder time to get good grades. So Cambridge was, at this time, predisposed to want to shower a black man with honours, any black man they could. So perhaps this can explain why he wasn't scrutinised as much as anyone else would have been?

It looks, to me, like a perfect storm.

You stated up thread:

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.

Pick a lane!

If you give that ANY thought, I think, even you will figure this mystery out

Well yeah, you are full of it. Which is why you can't address how two-faced you are with this conversation.

"So Cambridge was, at this time, predisposed to want to shower a black man with honours, any black man they could. So perhaps this can explain why he wasn't scrutinised..."

v

"I think Arday was hired on academic merit" & "He was extremely intelligent and a good teacher"

These statements are not remotely compatible.

Yes, they are. If he hadn't cheated, his research would have been good enough to earn him his professors hat.

But he did cheat.

Do you understand now, or do you need this be explained even more?

The dispute here are your conflicting judgments when you said the college was desperate to hire "any black man they could" find and "shower him with honours". But before that, you say the college "hired on academic merit" and he was "extremely intelligent" and "a good teacher", which would mean this wasn't a desperate hire and his on the job performance was very good and he deserved accolades.

You're a very strange person

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The dispute here are your conflicting judgments when you said the college was desperate to hire "any black man they could" find and "shower him with honours". But before that, you say the college "hired on academic merit" and he was "extremely intelligent" and "a good teacher", which would mean this wasn't a desperate hire and his on the job performance was very good and he deserved accolades.

You're a very strange person

I take that lazy ass ad hominem there to be an admission that you know you were trying to get away with saying 1 = 0, but lack the pragmatism to own it.

 

[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.

The article is paywalled.

According to google Arday's case is unique. Me and Bilby have access to the same Intrrnet. You too.

Yes, there are examples of professors making the mistakes.

But there are no other examples of Cambridge professors comitting systematic fraud.

Those doing doctoral thesis and students is a different level. But the standards are the same. Zero tolerance for fraud. And rare.

I don't see the point trying to pretend this is nornal, as if lessening Arday's culpability. You're not doing Arday, Cambridge, blacks, autists or any other minority any favours.

I never said any of this was normal.

and you agree its unique?

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.

What I said waa that it easy to do. Cofnas said he busted him by using standard university software.

Its remarkable they didn't run it on Arday, I think.

I realize focusing is hard for you. Bring easy for it to do is not evidence that Cambridge did it.

I think you are on purpose trying to twist my words into something they're not. Why? What are you trying to do? I don't get it?

Obviously you don't get it. You answered by question about evidence about Cambridge checking for plagiarism in the publication record of its top candidates with babbling about how easy it is to check for plagiarism. For some obscure reason, you think your word about what Cambridge could have done or should have done is actual independent evidence of what Cambridge actually does. It isn't.

This feels like the dumbest conversation about nothing. Wtf!

Can we raise the level of thiis conversation instead of this childish nonsense?

History suggests not with your participation.

 

[laughing dog]

The dispute here are your conflicting judgments when you said the college was desperate to hire "any black man they could" find and "shower him with honours". But before that, you say the college "hired on academic merit" and he was "extremely intelligent" and "a good teacher", which would mean this wasn't a desperate hire and his on the job performance was very good and he deserved accolades.

You're a very strange person

I take that lazy ass ad hominem there to be an admission that you know you were trying to get away with saying 1 = 0, but lack the pragmatism to own it.

LOL - your assumption of rationality is the triumph of hope over experience.

 

[southernhybrid]

I read about this early this morning and according to the NYT article I'm about to post, it does seem as if Cambridge hired a person who was not totally qualified for the job. Still that doesn't mean his colleagues should harass him over it. The responsibility was on the school to do what was needed to remove him from the position in a polite and reasonable way, if that was deemed necessary. I'm going to post the link to what I read as I personally trust the NYT over most any other source of news. Plus, they will retract any misinformation if found at a later time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/15/...e_code=1.5lA.EHog.6B1bCZqEDqq7&smid=url-share

Professor’s Death Leaves Behind Hard Questions for Cambridge on Race and Hiring​

Jason Arday, the school’s youngest Black professor, was found dead on Friday. The school ignored a series of warnings about his life story and his work.

When Cambridge University interviewed Jason Arday for one of the most prestigious sociology positions in the world, he was an early career scholar and underqualified, by the school’s own standards.

Cambridge’s requirements, reviewed by The New York Times, called for “an outstanding research record of international stature” and a “proven successful track record” supervising Ph.D. students. Dr. Arday had a modest publication record and had bounced from one university to the next — not staying long enough to oversee a full three-year-or-more doctorate.

Cambridge hired him anyway in 2023, making him, at 37, the university’s youngest Black professor at a time when the school was under pressure to diversify. In doing so, Cambridge thrust him into the international limelight, giving him a platform at one of the world’s elite universities to champion academic diversity and making him a target for critics.

Dr. Arday was found dead in London on Friday, days after resigning from his job amid accusations that he had plagiarized chunks of his papers, embellished parts of his recently published memoir and fabricated aspects of his life story. The controversy exploded along cultural fault lines — race, neurodiversity and academic hiring.

It certainly appears as if Cambridge hired an under qualified person, and wanted to make the school appear more open to minorities, either racial or those who are autistic. So, I see it as the school's fault hat this young man was put in a position that was too much for him and then he was judged for his lack of qualifications. It wasn't just the plagiarism, it was that he didn't have the usual qualifications for the position.

In his Aug. 5 resignation letter, he wrote, “I no longer wish to feel as though I am living under a constant spotlight, where every aspect of my life is subject to public examination and judgment.” He added, “This is not the end of my work. It is simply the end of this chapter.”

His family said that, since starting at Cambridge, Dr. Arday had faced a campaign of scrutiny intended to undermine him. That became too much for him, they said.

Questions about Dr. Arday’s career are unlikely to end with his death, however, because they were as much about Cambridge as they were about him. The centuries-old alma mater of Isaac Newton, William Wordsworth and kings and queens, Cambridge now faces deep scrutiny about its decision-making, even from its own faculty.

While Dr. Arday was underqualified for his job, he had a remarkable story: a tale of being diagnosed early with autism and having such significant developmental delays that he spent his entire childhood in a special-needs school. In his account, he did not speak until age 11 or read until 18, yet he managed to earn his doctorate and begin giving keynote speeches on the academic circuit. Also, he had run 30 marathons in 35 days for charity, a feat that would have placed him among the world’s elite athletes.

If all of you had read the entire article I linked to previously, you would realize that this man lied a lot about a lot of things, including saying that he didn't speak until age 11 or that he attended schools for kids with learning problems etc. It was Cambridge that made the mistake of hiring an under qualified candidate. The article says there were two women who were more highly qualified but he was given the position. Maybe he was very charming and convincing that he could do the job. Who knows? Please read the article if you want to know what really happened.

If Arday had never been hired, he might have received whatever help he needed with depression, or whatever he was suffering from that caused him to lie and make up shit about his past, and then end up ending his life. It's a sad story for sure, but imo, based on my reading about this situation, the University is responsible for what happened as they felt they needed more diversity among the staff, but sadly, they hired someone who wasn't prepared for the position. Just because someone is a professor at a prestigious university doesn't always make them bright, imo.

Of course, racism, sexism, homophobia etc. are still problems in many environments. In my own city some black folks are prejudiced against mixed race marriages, which are very common here. My mixed race married neighbors told me that and I was shocked, as I thought it was only a small percentage of white people who still felt that way. And then there is ageism, the last acceptable form of bigotry. But, in the case of Arday, it sounds more like incompetence from Cambridge that was responsible for this tragedy. They could have simply told Arday that he needed more experience and they could have also checked out his crazy claims regarding his childhood.

 

[Emily Lake]

But yes, things have changed a lot. For med schools specifically (and your anecdote was from medical school) the standards for white and Asian prospective med students are far more stringent than standards for black, Hispanic and American Indian students. That is easy to see from MCAT and GPA data broken down by race. But I guess you are a "racist" if you don't think things are exactly the same as they were 50 years ago.

I'm not seeing whatever you're asserting in the tables you provided. I didn't check every single item in there, but I did a scan through most of them. Taking the total scores and standard deviations, nothing stood out as being statistically noteworthy. They all look to be within one sd of the means shown.

 

[brewer]