Meme - Socialist Workers PArty: "RIP Jason Arday. Jason Arday was tragically found dead at home on Friday just a week after resigning from the University of Cambridge after a relentless campaign of racist public scrutiny from right wing figures and the press. A vigil has been called on Monday 17th of August at 6pm in London's Trafalgar Square."
Craig Bannon: "Look at how different these posts are"
"Socialist Worker: Hurrah! Ann Widdecombe is strictly dead. Ann Widdecombe is strictly dead ... Ann Widdecombe, former Tory MP and sometime television personality, made one ..."
The cruelty is the point
Meme - Dr lain Overton @iainoverton: "I've been teaching journalism at Universities for over 15 years. If I found that any of my former students had been part of a media hounding that led to the suicide of their subject, I'd be sick to the stomach. Those who were involved in the assault against Arday should be deeply ashamed."
Readers added context they thought people might want to know: "Dr Overton was managing editor of Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a key value of which is "We deal plainly and truthfully with each other and what we uncover. We reveal the truth even when it is uncomfortable." He resigned after false accusations in the McAlpine affair"
"never take lectures on journalism from a journalism lecturer."
Yeerk.P on X - "Completely disgraceful and disgusting to implicate Arday's students who spoke out against him as being in some way responsible for his suicide- this is a new low within this whole shameful episode and if you are currently employed at a university you should resign"
Meme - Arday in Superman T-shirt with cape and shorts (knockoff Superman outfit): "I can fly!"
DEI: "AND I WILL sHow THE world!"
*DEI pushes him off tower at Cambridge and he looks down worried as he's about to plunge to his death*
Meme - Morgoth @MorgothsReview: "He would have been treated differently if he were a white man" *Henry Nowak being handcuffed as he was bleeding to death after being accused of racism by his killer*
NewsCord on X - "In 48 hours, the British press has felt the full weight of public contempt for its moral bankruptcy. Five outlets. Five likely record-breaking IPSO complaint counts. The Spectator, The Telegraph, the Daily Mail, The Times and The Sun. IPSO now has a choice: act as a regulator, or confirm what the public already suspects: that it exists to shield the press, not hold it to account. The numbers speak for themselves. People are done with a press that picks its victims, ruins their lives, and answers to no one. This was never news. It isn't news now. It should never have been classed as news."
Jesse Singal on X - "Jason Arday appeared to have lied, seriously, about his childhood disability. It's disgraceful to attempt to punish journalists for having investigated that, especially given the damage lies like his do to families whose kids are *actually* autistic and nonverbal."
We are told that we need to be kind. So all of Arday's victims need to shut up, since the left, which keeps claiming "empathy" is good, proclaims that empathy for Arday's victims is cruel and racist
The press treated all of Arday's "achievements" as news, and if they hadn't, they would've been racist. But when it turned out he'd lied about them, suddenly those same claims are no longr newsworthy
John McWhorter on X - "No engagement with the arrant lies, the massive plagiarism, the airy public addresses. Kendi thinks all of that is okay if you're Black (and have dreadlocks) and that Arday was still a legitimate academic seized upon because of his color. Kendi thinks Blackness exempts one from amassing data, drawing connections, and presenting novel insights. You're the real thing in just showing racism exists, despite that this is a rote exercise. We don't have to be actually smart, and in fact shouldn't (too "Western"). We are authentic in eternally "contesting." That take is deep if you (have dreadlocks and) changed your name to Kendi. Note that he seems not to have worked out at the Atlantic, and publishes this soapbox performance art somewhere you're a little surprised a public "intellectual" of his status would choose. I wish Arday were alive. But this take on Arday as lynched is performance art. American academia should hesitate to embrace it."
Clown World ™ on X - "Of course this is the angle. Jason Arday faced serious plagiarism allegations, and somehow the story is now that the MEDIA “lynched” him for reporting on it. "
Mara Accettura on X - "To all the people crying over the cruel treatment of Jason Arday, I would like to remind you that @jk_rowling has been persecuted, humiliated threatened and vilified over an opinion for *years*. Where were you?"
It's only harassment if it threatens the left wing agenda
Matt Harrington on X - "For nearly a decade the left has mercilessly harassed @jk_rowling without the slightest concern about whether she might be experiencing mental distress."
Maarten Boudry on X - "I was invited to write a piece about the Jason Arday scandal three weeks ago, by a magazine I've written for before. But I declined, and with hindsight I'm glad I did. Mostly, I already felt sorry for the guy, and felt that his case was too pathetic. His lies were so outrageous and childish that he obviously had serious mental issues. I also believed I had little to say beyond what had already been said, and in general I don't like writing about viral stories while they're still unfolding. There would be plenty of time later, once the dust had settled, to deal with the abysmal state of our universities and the extent of their ideological capture, which is the real story, not one guy's fabulism and fraud. To be honest, I also couldn't bring myself to personally dislike Arday. I saw his talk on Paul Simon(s Graceland (also one of my favorite albums), and though it was extremely shallow for an academic talk, you could see that he was charming and knew how to hold a crowd (about as far from autistic as you can get). In fact, when I called Arday a "troubled man", some people accused me of being too sympathetic to him, and perhaps they were right. Let's not forget he defrauded students, reported journalists to the police, etc. (see here: https://x.com/LouiseMensch/s tatus/2085799583985119449 ). I was mostly angry with Cambridge, which had pushed Arday into the limelight in the first place. So I was already bending over backwards. And then I get this from academic colleagues: that I "bullied a scholar to death", participated in a "witch hunt" and was "kicking a dead man". Honestly, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You are exactly what's wrong with academia. Your kind of people put a vulnerable fabulist on a pedestal, and exposed him to international media coverage, simply because you wanted to flaunt your own virtue and cleanse off your "whiteness". This tragic affair is 100% on Cambridge University and all the racially obsessed DEI ideologues who participated in the charade, not on the journalists and academics who finally exposed the fraud and the lies, despite the serious legal threats and the huge reputational costs. Calling this a "witch hunt" or "lynching" or "bullying to death" is absolutely despicable, and an insult to everyone who has ever been a victim of these crimes."
Louise Bagshawe on X - "No, no, how about no. STOP casting this wicked man Jason Arday as a “victim” who was “exploited”. This foul excuse for a person literally tried to PUT IN JAIL two of his truthful critics. He stole academic achievement from @Cambridge_Uni undergraduates he refused to supervise, told them their work was perfect and then they got lower grades. When they complained they were called racist. Their appeals were denied. Jason Arday is a wicked, despicable man who made false criminal complaints to @metpoliceuk who took them seriously and spent multiple months criminally investigating a journalist for doing his job. Jason Arday hurt others, defrauded, hurt undergraduates and tried to put both a fellow academic and a journalist IN JAIL for telling the truth. STOP EXCUSING HIM. STOP MAKING HIM THE VICTIM. Jason Arday is the aggressor and imo needs to be prosecuted for making knowingly false reports of harassment to the police trying to jail a journalist and an academic for telling the truth."
Zainab Usman on X - "Prof. Jason Arday was cleared of plagiarism charges. Then the media continued digging into every aspect of Arday’s life, publishing more than 180 articles in 9 days. Until he killed himself because few will be able to survive such an onslaught. What happened to him was wrong."
Wilfred Reilly on X - "Jason Arday was not "cleared of plagiarism charges," unless you mean "in university Kangaroo court two years ago." Cofnas and others documented something like 180 instances of obvious plagiarism. The man also claimed he was the 2nd best ultra-runner in the world and that he could not talk until age 11."
Deborah Morgan on X - "Pink News alone has published 950 articles about JK. Rowling - every one of them umremittingly hostile. Can you explain your silence about that onslaught?"
Trans Nepo Baby on X - "Arday lied about his life, his acheivements, his work history, his sporting record, and his disabilities. He copied others' work. He was a shitty tutor and accused students of racism when they called him out. When journalists and academics questioned him, he set the police on them, and sent lawyers' letters. He was a fucking horrible person. What happened to him was his own fault, by his own hand."
Lee Cheng on X - "You killed him by supporting and encouraging his lies."
BBC News (UK) on X - "Calls for public inquiry into Jason Arday 'witchhunt'"
Chris Newton on X - "Yeah, let's investigate the people who exposed how rotten the system is rather than investigating why the system is so rotten. Ridiculous people."
Dr. Ellen Walker on X - "Jason Arday had a wife and two children. Whatever the academic controversy, it is a mere triviality beside the human cost. He and his family did not deserve the relentless barrage of scrutiny and hostility from the British press over the past few weeks."
Jacob Shell on X - "Every comment like this, always from an academic, has replies turned off. Somehow academia has become among the least interested professions in, you know, having discourse."
Dr Nafeez Ahmed on X - "The pig's head incident is yet another example of how The Guardian's reporting was irresponsible and misleading. The problem is that the Guardian's "verification" checks did not establish what its reporting implied..."
Alex Campbell on X - "Why did he throw away the bullets rather than keep them [wouldn't have taken much storage space] or take photo? What about invisible knifeman who threatened him in his Cambridge office but didn't appear on CCTV? For an 'investigative journalist' your gullibility is astonishing!"
Dr Umb on X - "You are reaching Trumpian levels of incoherence in your effort to rehabilitate the late Mr Arday, thus proving you are still a crank."
Adam Sellers on X - "This is such a huge cope. The Guardians investigation DID establish that nobody left a pig's head at his parents’ home. Arday claimed the police investigated this - they did not. Arday claimed this specific pigs head was traced to a specific butchers - the butcher didn’t sell it."
Douglas Coombes on X - "It's a shame Arday had not yet invented the camera phone, it would have been handy to record all these events."
Oz Katerji on X - If you had even one sliver of evidence about the pig's head, you would present it. That would be journalism. You have none, and instead are attacking the guy who tried to find evidence only to be told by everyone Arday himself had cited that there was none."
Melissa Chen on X - "Interesting thing about social media is that you can also see how an international audience responds to a story, free from the narrow, self-reinforcing lens of Western media and activism. This screenshot of the News Agents post is a perfect example. Look at the flood of laugh reacts. Every black person (or non-white person) I’ve encountered from outside the UK has reacted with the same mix of incredulity and amusement that Jason Arday is treated as an untouchable saint by the British left. Minorities outside the West often possess straightforward cultural confidence that many Western ones lack. They're able to evaluate people like Jason Arday on competence and whether claims match reality, and not on racial symbolism or institutional utility. And they find the whole thing just laughably pathetic. Just read the comments! They have absolutely no problem calling out the fraud because it does not threaten their identity. They have no ideological investment in protecting the narrative that every black academic must be treated as unassailable. Meanwhile, figures in the UK such as Diane Abbott or Kehinde Andrews derive their status and moral authority from promoting racial grievance, so questioning Arday's elevation means admitting that “representation” can come at the expense of standards. In other words, their entire worldview would collapse. For people whose public identity and career incentives are built around the idea that the system is structurally stacked against them in every domain, recognizing the truth about Arday is too costly to maintain. The whole world is just laughing at the British left."
Claire Lehmann on X - "If you break the warranty in a publishing contract by doing fraud or plagiarism, the publisher can sue you for the advance they paid you + all associated costs. Those who are blaming media coverage for Arday's death are conveniently overlooking his likely legal troubles."
Nocturnal Field Recordings on X - "I expect they'll be demanding publishers be arrested for him killing himself if they read this tweet."
JJ on X - Getting an opportunity to earn based on lies is also a crime under the 2006 fraud act"
Ameer Kotecha on X - "This is frankly disgraceful language from the Chancellor of Cambridge, Chris Smith. Labelling critics as racists. Zero self-reflection of Cambridge’s primary role in this sorry saga. A Labour grandee and (inevitably) member of the North London dinner party set - Islington’s ex-MP - showing his true colours"
Absurdipolitical on X - "Isn't this prejudging the results of their wonderfully 'independent' inquiry that they are conducting into themselves?"
Richard Hanania on X - "The truth about those who defend Jason Arday: they don't see academia as a serious profession. The concern for truth means nothing to them. It's all a game, which is why academia has become such a joke in the first place."
Narinder Kaur on X - "And..he was kind. He didn't deserve this"
Basil the Great on X - "He reported a journalist to the Police for asking some questions"
Colin Wright on X - "Progressives insist we must collectively administer genius-affirming care to midwit academics who identify as brilliant, otherwise they might kiII themselves. Sound familiar?"
Richard Dawkins on X - "I am bewildered, and not very impressed, by the visceral, naked, irrational hatred spat out by some defenders of Jason Arday. If a Cambridge professor is accused of being an unqualified charlatan, the accusation might be racially motivated. On the other hand it might not, depending on the evidence. The correct question to ask is not, ”What is the colour of his skin” but “Is it in fact true that he is an unqualified charlatan?” Please examine the evidence before leaping to the assumption of racism. As for the idea that journalists “piled in on him” and “hounded him to his death”, most attacks were against Cambridge University. Jason himself was widely regarded as an unfortunate victim of foolish promotion way beyond his ability to cope. In appointing him to a professorship for which he was manifestly unqualified – in ludicrously describing him as “the best in the world” – certain senior members of the university showed a level of patronising condescension towards black people that could fairly be described as racism, while at the same time making him tragically vulnerable to such attacks as came his way."
Frank Lechner on X: "Dawkins and Arday" - "@RichardDawkins ' bewilderment at Arday's posthumous defenders is itself bewildering. Why be "bewildered . . . by the visceral, naked, irrational hatred spat out by some defenders of Jason Arday"? Why tell them, "Please examine the evidence before leaping to the assumption of racism"? A more parsimonious account of the Arday posthumous "defense" is that it reflects the same political project at work in his ascent, too predictable to be "bewildering." In that project, evidence matters less than useful results. (For example, did anyone ever care to examine the evidence presented in Arday's articles, or question, until very late in the. day, whether evidence backed his athletic and charitable claims?) The "hatred" Dawkins notes may be "visceral," but it is not "irrational." Until opponents of Arday's defenders take that into account, their response will be too weak to effect reform in UK higher education."
Peter Jukes on X - "The Guardian investigation was unbalanced, took its framing from the far right, and - probably more than any publication - your abandonment of this lovely man left him completely alone and bereft"
Leo Gibbons on X - "When The Guardian did their investigation I felt a bit of relief that this story - which was legitimate, newsworthy, and which raised important questions about standards and culture in academia - wasn’t being going to be dismissed or pigeonholed as a right-wing culture war story, and instead we were going to have a rare moment on consensus that actually, plagiarism and fraud is bad, enabling fantasists is bad, and trying to silence journalists is bad. It felt like a victory for old school non-woke liberal culture, which prioritises honesty, integrity and academic standards over (minority) identity. The Guardian were still willing to expose Arday as the liar and fantasist he was, even though he was a celebrated black academic. It felt like a moment in the vibe shift. However, we’ve now got culture war warriors like Jukes, putting together a very strong rearguard action on behalf of the woke side of the debate. And it’s a strong effort!"
Committee for Academic Freedom on X - "STATEMENT: The Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) was troubled to see academics smeared from the stage at last night’s vigil for Jason Arday in Trafalgar Square. As reported by several national media outlets, Diane Abbott MP claimed that “other professors” had waged a three-year “vicious campaign” against Arday because they “just didn’t believe that a black man should be a Cambridge professor”. That is a serious, categorical imputation of racist motive, and those familiar with the controversy could reasonably have understood Abbott’s remarks as referring to a small, identifiable group of academics known to have raised concerns about Arday’s work. Unfortunate though it is to revisit those events at such a desperately sad moment, we feel obliged to restate what the factual record — much of it established publicly long before Abbott’s remarks — shows about one of those academics whom CAF is supporting. David Harris, Professor Emeritus at Plymouth Marjon University, first raised concerns about Arday’s doctoral thesis and subsequent peer-reviewed publications in May 2023. A sociologist with a longstanding interest in how ideas from the critical theory tradition are used in empirical educational research, Harris encountered Arday’s work amid the publicity surrounding his appointment as Professor of Sociology of Education at Cambridge two months earlier. Harris privately raised concerns with Arday about what he called “puzzling similarities” in reported data, repeated passages and possible failures of attribution. His covering email concluded simply: “I would welcome any response.” This was not, in other words, a “vicious campaign”, but an emeritus professor engaging closely with another scholar’s published work, identifying apparent problems and asking that they be examined. Several of Harris’s concerns subsequently resulted in corrections to Arday’s published work. When it emerged last month that Arday had reported Harris to the police for harassment, CAF warned of the chilling effect of invoking the law against awkward scholarly criticism, exposing academics who test published claims or raise questions about research integrity to allegations of criminal wrongdoing and prolonged police investigation. That same chilling effect arises when Harris’s scholarly scrutiny is retrospectively recast by a senior parliamentarian as racial animus before a large public gathering and amplified through the media. The scholarly community has traditionally governed its own standards, and its ability to continue doing so depends upon academics being free to ask difficult questions about one another’s work, even where those questions may prove embarrassing or reputationally damaging. Without that freedom, the processes through which scholarship corrects itself and academic standards are maintained cannot properly function. In those circumstances, CAF will be writing to Ms Abbott asking her to withdraw or correct her remarks and making clear the seriousness with which we regard them. Should those remarks cause him serious professional or reputational harm, including any loss of academic title, status or institutional privileges, we will ensure that he receives appropriate specialist advice on any legal remedies that may be available to him."
The Tragic Story of Jason Arday - The New York Times - "Part of the issue here is that universities increasingly want to hire stars who have amazing personal stories and big followings that can gain the institution positive media coverage... Cambridge is one of the world’s most elite universities. But it also has a reputation for being very white, privileged and a little stuffy. So critics say Arday’s backers thought his hire could potentially help change Cambridge’s image. Not only had they hired a Black scholar but also a young scholar who had this remarkable life. It provided a counterpoint to how many people thought about Cambridge at the time... Cambridge was first alerted to possible plagiarism three months after he was hired. They didn’t deal with these allegations swiftly, which isn’t unusual. What is unusual is how actively they defended Arday. They said he was facing several issues at the time he wrote those papers that had influenced his work, including direct and indirect racism. Cambridge then got alerted by a very respected academic industry publication to issues in Arday’s doctoral thesis. But the university continued to defend him, saying at one point that he was the victim of a vile campaign. So these latest allegations didn’t come out of nowhere. They’ve been circulating inside Cambridge for three years. Cambridge could have easily done its own investigation, but it didn’t...
Another concern of other professors my colleagues and I spoke to was that this was a position that typically goes to people who are very senior. By thrusting Arday into that position pretty early in his career, and by heavily promoting his personal story with all its flaws, they argue, the university set him up for intense scrutiny — and ultimately for failure. That’s not to say that he wasn’t pushing these things himself. But without the Cambridge brand and without that extensive media coverage, his story might have looked very different. And arguably had Cambridge dealt with it earlier, this would not have all blown up in this very public and tragic way... Arday’s defenders would say that Black academics are subjected to disproportionate scrutiny; they’d cite former Harvard president Claudine Gay, who was accused of plagiarism for much more minor infractions. But the media is also fascinated by fabulists. Remember George Santos, Jayson Blair or — to give another U.K. example — “The Salt Path”? And this story came with an extra layer of culture war issues around neurodiversity, D.E.I., higher education. It was always going to make for an explosive mix...
At Cambridge, scholars say they’re worried it’s done immense damage to diversity efforts, to the reputation of the university, to their own reputations, and to the recruitment of faculty and students in the future. Experts on developmental delays worry that the story of Arday’s remarkable trajectory has given families false hope and false expectations of what’s possible with a relatively extreme diagnosis."
Left wingers claim Cambridge should've done more to defend him, but they already destroyed their reputation doing so. Left wingers want to burn everything down to push the left wing agenda
