Peter Jukes on X - "Intent is key. The ubiquitous “fraud” allegations against Arday — deliberately stealing other people’s ideas, faking charity marathons etc — don’t stand up. All the remaining charges are trivial: an early book pitch, a paranoid reaction to a three year campaign against him."
Thread by @AstroMikeMerri on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Just to correct this nonsense, the level of plagiarism in Arday’s thesis was clearly not accidental. There is the possibility that he was unaware that it was unacceptable, which would bring into question his supervision, but at PhD level even that is a stretch.More problematic are the cases where interview responses from other people’s studies were mis-attributed to his own work. This is simply fraud, and occurred when he was fully qualified as a researcher. I really don’t care about marathon claims."
Meme - "Whomst among us hasn't hired an elite law firm to harass journalists and reported our colleagues to the cops?"
Peter Jukes @peterjukes: "Arday's remaining egregious offences seem to be
A) he employed Carter Ruck to write a milquetoast holding letter
B) he felt persecuted and reported one academic to the police, and then a journalist who followed up
Not things I would do, but also things people do all the time"
Kathryn Paisner on X - ""I'm faithful to my spouse over 99% of the time. How can you possibly call me an adulterer?""
Of course, Peter Jukes blocked her too
Meme - Peter Jukes: "On the Arday is a 'plagiarist/a fraud'. Just done a survey of the small percentage of questioned attribution around two of his 33 peer reviewed papers: over 99% remains intact and unchallenged. How can anyone be called a plagiarist or fraud in that basis?"
Jesse Singal @jessesingal: "We are witnessing something very, very psychologically interesting, even if it's bad for society and for our hing prospects of shared conceptions of reality" "This post is unavailable."
Jay Van Bavel, PhD @jayvanbavel: "Francesca Gino only found to have engaged in fraud in 1-2% of her studies. By this logic, Harvard should not have fired her."
Jesse Singal @jessesingal: "i mean that whole thing was a witch hunt too"
"ITS ANTI ITALIAN DISCRIMINATION"
Neil Thin on X - "Persistent truth-deniers like Peter Jukes seem hellbent on not learning lessons from the Jason Arday tragedy. Who knows what recovery he could have made if people surrounding him had chosen honesty instead of flattery and truth-denial."
Frederick Guy on X - "It used to be part of my job to read Turnitin reports on student work (probably obsolete now, with AI, but Arday’s thesis is from that period). I know what I would have told a student whose work showed up like Arday’s. Idiot @peterjukes is telling me I shouldn’t believe my eyes."
Meme - john sturgis: "So it transpires that the self-appointed defender of Jason Arday - who has been freely accusing other journalists of failing to undertake basic research before publication - is himself not conversant with widely-reported and important details of the case against him. Astonishing:"
Sarah Ditum @sarahditum: "Don't worry Peter I'm very sure Sonia has never claimed to have testicular cancer"
Peter Jukes @peterjukes: "I'm sure this is some kind of in joke, but I don't know whether I should be mortified or reassured that columnists continue with their professional banter over a dead man who can no longer defend himself."
Sarah Ditum @sarahditum: "In Arday's book proposal, he claimed to have survived testicular cancer - a claim that, in the finished version, had vanished and been replaced with a story about surviving a brain tumor (twice). As you are going out to bat for his veracity, I assumed you would know this."
Meme - Benjamin Ryan @benryanwriter: "Here @PeterJukes makes the same mistake @carolecadwalla made: not acknowledging that Jason Arday was not just accused of plagiarism in his PhD thesis. He was also credibly accused of plagiarism and data theft that between them spanned multiple papers at multiple other universities. I provide this reasonable reply knowing he won't see it because he blocked me when I previously pointed out his faulty logic about Arday. It is very clear he doesn't know enough about this subject to pass judgement on other reporters who have covered it."
Peter Jukes @peterjukes: "I ask these questions not hoping for any kind of reasonable reply, because they mainly come from mendacious anonymous accounts who spent 99% of their time spreading malicious falsehoods. But it's always worth publicising the facts
Let's be accurate here: 3% of his thesis was questioned. The governing university found that this was a citation problem. His literature review amply cited the main methodological source, but failed in those instances. That is not plagiarism"
No surprise he blocked Jesse Singal too
Thread by @d08890 on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "even stipulating to the ``tiny vanishing fraction'' claim, this does not matter, and i cannot stress this enough. the fact that 99% of a police officer's time on the job was above board in no way can rebut or outweigh 1% consisting of perjury or evidence-tampering, for example. the ``theft of ideas'' dodge is cute but everyone knows plagiarism extends beyond that, and i am getting quite cranky about the people who are lying about this and expecting the rest of us to get gaslit. i'm in the final stages of getting a book manuscript to press with cambridge university press. the cup ethics guidelines specify that the press follows cambridge's own policy, which they give in their own words like so:
here is the university's own website, with the definition:
i'm seeing increasing numbers of ai plagiarism cases in my classes; if we as academics are not going to hold ourselves to the standards to which we hold our alstudents, we are the worst sort of frauds and hypocrites to punish them when they copy and paste from claude. arguably, this public degradation of the standards of academic integrity really rolled into full gear with cornell's craven decision not to revoke kevin kruse's phd. then, as now, the motive was quite obviously and purely political. i hope you guys are happy with yourselves. and i was quite adamant about this at the time, lest some tiresome pea-brain wants to natter on about me being a racist or some similar babble
RhythmDoc on X - "As far as I can tell, lots of them aren’t lying — they appear to believe that all academic writing is like this, and is in some sense fake, and why can’t you just get with the program."
Russell T. Warne πΊπΈπ¨π± on X - "A new Substack article by @Cartrarian provides very convincing evidence that Jason Arday never had autism. The article shows that:
➡️Arday never mentioned he had autism until 2018. Even in his 2015 dissertation, he merely says he had "learning difficulties."
➡️The diagnostic history Arday reported was contradictory and anachronistic. Some of the labels he claims he had as a child were rare or nonexistent at the time. Other diagnoses he claims to have had are contradictory and cannot be present in the same person.
➡️Arday also contradicted himself in discussing when he learned about his diagnosis. Sometimes he says he knew at age 3, but he also claimed to have not been told until his mid-30s.
➡️Arday didn't seem to understand what autism is. Sometimes he said it's a "hybrid" diagnosis, and at other times Arday said it was a type of other disabilities. Hhe even said it was "a kind of intellectual disability," which is absurdly wrong.
This article exposes (and refutes) new lies from Arday that were previously unnoticed (or perhaps less publicized):
➡️Arday claimed to have been in a longitudinal study that does not exist.
➡️Arday said he attended a special needs school, but it is now documented fact that he attended the mainstream Heathbrook Primary School.
➡️New discrepancies in Arday's vita.
It's a long read, but that's because Arday told a lot of lies, and Cartrarian is careful to document and debunk them. It's definitely worth reading."
Sam Browfan on X - "How did @sbaroncohen, one of the world's foremost autism researchers, fail to realise that Arday was not autistic."
Trust the 'Experts'! Because they push the left wing agenda
Benjamin Ryan on X - "NEWS: Jason Arday Lied About Having a Masters From Birkbeck University
I filed a freedom of information request to Birkbeck University to check the claim Jason Arday made in the video below in 2022 that he had a masters in psychodynamic practice from the university. Birkbeck told me today they had no records of Arday ever being a student there. What's more, the university didn't even offer a masters in psychodynamic practice. There is no mention in Arday's memoir of his having received such a masters. The clear conclusion is that Arday was lying when he claimed to have earned a degree from the university... Also, someone pointed out that the @guardian
reached this same conclusion. I hadn’t seen this article:"
i/o on X - "What exactly is the "discredited pseudoscience" that Nathan Cofnas argues for? Here are the main claims he's made that have offended people:
(1) Cofnas believes there are differences in average measured intelligence between population groups: Mainstream science fully agrees with him.
(2) Cofnas believes that recent human evolution outside Africa has increased human intelligence: Mainstream population genetics now mostly agrees with him.
(3) Cofnas believes that the measured differences in intelligence between population groups are at least partially due to genetic differences between those groups: Although this claim remains scientifically disputed and unresolved, the most recent published survey of intelligence scientists found that most agree with him.
The research that has been most often used to support a genetic explanation — and which has been published in established peer-reviewed scientific journals — is hardly pseudoscientific. You may not believe that it's convincing, but that's quite another thing than saying it's "pseudoscientific." The people writing about Cofnas either know this or do not care to know it. The vast majority of the public reading about Cofnas has no idea of the current status of intelligence research because its "dangerous" findings are rarely reported in the non-scientific media, and most people treat the subject as too icky to take the time to investigate."
Meme - Helen Lovejoy from the Simpsons: "WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE FRAUDSTER?"
Thread by @epkaufm on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "OUR NEW REPORT: EQUITY REDUCES EXCELLENCE. Jason Arday was not an aberration. He was a feature, not a bug, of a system that replaced merit with identity. Our new study of nearly 2,000 prestigious Canada Research Chairs provides the hard numbers. π§΅
Canada imposed hard DEI quotas on its most prestigious academic appointments after 2017. The result? White men fell from around 80% of new chairs in 2000 to 25% in 2025. Women rose from 30% to 60% in just eight years.This is not a vague diversity aspiration. Canada Research Chair ads openly tell straight white men they need not apply. In Canada, race and sex discrimination is allowed and routine.The effect on research impact is stark. Average h-index: White or Asian men, 38. Women, 28. Black or Indigenous chairs, 18. DEI hires widened representation by appointing weaker candidates to positions they didn’t deserve.The usual excuses don’t explain the gap. It persists after controlling for career length, appointment year, chair tier, research council, and 178 academic disciplines. Each female or black/indigenous chair imposes a 12-15% research impact penalty.
This is not a uniquely Canadian result. Independent US data on hiring and promotion reveal the same race and sex gaps in academic output. Different country. Different institutions. Same equity-excellence trade-off. And the damage goes beyond hiring. Scholar-activist research - ideology imposed on facts rather than conclusions drawn from them - consumes an estimated further $18m of the CRC budget. DEI language in chair descriptions has doubled since 2016.
Ideological capture is concentrated in the social sciences and humanities. The average SSHRC chair description contains two DEI terms. SSHRC chairs are 17 times more likely than science (NSERC) or medical (CIHR) chairs to use far-left activist language.
Trump has slashed scholar activism in American NSF grants. In Canada, it just keeps on soaring. Same for UKRI grants in Britain, which funded Arday into the millions.
Science and medicine meet their nonwhite targets by appointing high-performing Asian scholars. Social sciencs and humanities (SSHRC) absorbs indigenous chairs, many lower performing or doing activist work, to meet the CRC target.
Total DEI bill: $36m a year. That's 12% of the $300m Canada Research Chairs budget.Taxpayers fund discrimination against whites and men while impairing research output and funding political activism. It’s a national scandal."
Left wingers hate excellence, after all
Clearly, this is proof that people who are not white men or Asian men are discriminated against in academia (since their h-index is lower), and precisely why DEI is needed
Andrew Dunn on X - "Massive scandal at Cambridge University in which Jason Arday was treated more favourably due to his skin colour, and they've employed race activist Nazir Afzal, of all people, to preside over an investigation into the LACK OF help Cambridge gave Arday!! ππππππππππππ"
Steve McGuire on X - "Cambridge is no longer planning to investigate Jason Arday’s academic record or the university’s decision to hire or cover for him. Instead, the investigation will focus on “his welfare, his care, his well-being” and “whether the school offered him sufficient support amid accusations that he plagiarized.”"
In death, he did them the biggest favour possible to enable their coverup
Benjamin Ryan on X - "Cambridge Said Jason Arday Was an ‘Aberration.’ So Why Was the Shaky PhD Thesis He Approved Sealed Until 2031?... The thesis, which we have obtained and which we review in this Substack, raises important questions about whether the Faculty of Education, including Dr. Arday’s own contributions, let down the basic standards of higher education. The lengthy embargo raises further questions about what Cambridge, which is among the most elite universities in the world, and the paper’s author might have to hide where her scholarship is concerned. Written by Damilola Folayan, the thesis is entitled Of, but not in: A poetic exploration of how Black women students respond to the coloniality of Oxbridge—referring to the portmanteau of Oxford and Cambridge. It garnered her a coveted Cambridge PhD in 2025. Following what’s known as an autoethnographic style, it is in essence an epic poetry-slam interpretation of the plight of Dr. Folayan and three other black women at Oxbridge and their experiences navigating, with considerable ambivalence, these historically, and still overwhelmingly, white elite institutions. The sprawling thesis unabashedly thumbs its nose at the rigors and demands of academia even as it demands in return an elite PhD and all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto."
Cathy Devine on X - "Absolutely enough now. Take any issues you have to Cambridge. Stop harranging students/academics in disciplines you know nothing about. Bullying & harassment doesn't begin to cover it."
Darrell (Daz) Croston on X - "Why would this qualify as harrasment of a student when it's merely critiquing someone's thesis and thereby academic rigour?"
Cathy Devine on X - "Neither Ben nor Colin are qualified to critique this student's thesis. They know nothing about the discipline. They should not expose this student to ridicule & harassment on SM. Not behave like vigilantes. Genuine concerns should be sent to the universities involved."
Colin the Barbarian @OXSOC@sciences.social on X - "In your opinion what disciplinary background does one need paper qualifications in to comment publicly on an autoethnographic style, epic poetry-slam interpretation of the Oxbridge experience of three women? English literature? Media Studies? Or what?"
Cathy Devine on X - "Not developmental biology or journalism. And not this despicable public shaming of a named student. It's abhorrent."
Colin the Barbarian @OXSOC@sciences.social on X - "With the greatest of respect, that avoids the question. You *chose* to frame it in terms of qualifications to speak, so surely you must have some positive idea about who is qualified to criticise the work. Only members of an education department? Only auto-ethnographers? And they are no longer a student. They now have PhD after their name. Surely the whole point of scholarship is that it is open to public scrutiny. That is the bargain you make when you enter the field."
Prof Ian Pace on X - "And in much of continental Europe, PhDs have to be published, and so can be subject to wider scrutiny."
Colin the Barbarian @OXSOC@sciences.social on X - "And the writers of them are not students but employees with a salary & pension entitlement."
More proof that left wingers see scrutiny and criticism of people they support as harassment and bullying
As usual, left wingers rely on credentialism rather than engaging with the argument. Because it's easier to intimidate and/or capture a smaller group
Insisting people who find problems with the thesis need to take it up with the university, which can then cover it up, is awfully convenience
Colin Wright on X - "Jason Arday reviewed and approved this student's PhD thesis, which portrays black women taking trips to London and attending potlucks as forms of "marronage"—the historical practice of Africans fleeing enslavement. The 70K-word thesis is based on conversations with just 3 black women, which were converted into poems and then, after being infused with the author's own subjective experiences, analyzed via "Critical Poetic Inquiry." The thesis can only be described as a tribute to black women such as herself, channeled through an amalgam of slam poetry and activism. She describes her research project in bizarre terms such as: "a lament, a war cry, a chant and a belly laugh" and "a joyful, painful rupture, a disruption, a deliberate transgression, a riff, and a drum beat… a prayer for all we have lost and for all that we can be." She is also openly hostile to academic rigor, quoting other scholars when admitting that her project "does not align with notions of 'neutral' research or 'objective' researchers." Academic standards, such as "marking criteria, rubrics and journal requirements that favour written knowledge over that which is communicated creatively (i.e. through painting or performance)" and also "notions that knowledge must be scientifically tested and proven to meet coloniality's contorted standards of fact" are deemed by her to be forms of colonial oppression. This raises the question: Why is Cambridge awarding its highest academic credential to a project whose author openly presents accepted academic standards as oppressive constraints to be undermined and resisted? It's clear the problem of academic standards at Cambridge wasn't isolated to the case of Jason Arday, but appears to be a form of systemic rot. Because the thesis was suddenly embargoed for the next 5 years immediately when the Arday scandal broke, we are legally unable to share it in its entirety. So we have performed a very long and thorough exegesis of it, which you can read at the link below."
Carole Cadwalladr on X - "NEW: French researcher Stephanie Lamy exposes the network of “race realists” who hunted Jason Arday like prey, and the media who fell into his trap. If it seems like the news cycle has “moved on” from this story, ask yourself why? π below"
Colin the Barbarian @OXSOC@sciences.social on X - "This is a thoroughly nasty article and the smearing of Martyn Hammersley is beyond the pale. Hammersley is a scholar of unimpeachable reputation; disagreement with standpoint epistemology or with activist conceptions of social research is not remotely equivalent to race science"
Thread by @ComAcFreedom on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Something very worrying has been happening since controversy erupted over the open letter signed by more than 950 academics raising academic-freedom concerns about disciplinary proceedings against Dr Nathan Cofnas at Ghent University. Cofnas, a philosopher who describes himself as a “race realist”, was among those who publicly scrutinised the academic work of Cambridge University’s youngest ever black professor, Dr Jason Arday. The letter argues that academics must remain free to raise evidence of alleged research misconduct without being punished for doing so. CAF has since been contacted by a growing number of signatories worried about professional repercussions and ostracism within their departments for having put their names to it. They have shown us ideologically charged abuse from colleagues and peers, outlandish accusations of being funded by billionaire right-wing political figures in the US, and complaints denouncing them as racists or supporters of race eugenics. Some complaints have been sent to senior university administrators and institutional bodies with which the academics are affiliated, in some cases explicitly calling for disciplinary action. In one case seen by CAF, a senior academic manager wrote directly to a signatory to tell them they were wrong to sign, before reminding them that, under university policy, academic freedom and freedom of speech are qualified rights. CAF is taking up some of these cases directly with the universities concerned, reminding them of their legal duties to secure freedom of speech within the law and protect academic freedom. The wider chilling effect should not be underestimated. Academics who experience this themselves, or simply hear about it through departmental gossip, will inevitably think twice before adding their voice to the next important but contentious public debate. If you signed the letter and are now facing pressure from colleagues or your institution, please get in touch. CAF can advise, intervene with universities, and arrange specialist legal assistance where necessary. Email manager@afcomm.org.uk.
CAF is also taking action over press reporting which has helped erase what we had rather hoped was the elementary distinction between defending someone’s academic freedom and endorsing their substantive views. The National, for instance, named eight Scottish academics and described them as “defending” and being “in support of” Cofnas, whom it described as the researcher who “sparked the pile-on which preceded the death of Jason Arday”. It then named their universities and reported that those institutions had been “approached for comment”. Our complaint is not simply that this recasts a limited intervention about academic freedom as support for Cofnas in the wider Arday controversy. It also draws the signatories’ universities into that framing, inviting the question of what view their employers might now take. Needless to say, once an employer is brought into a controversy framed in those terms, the possibility of disciplinary attention is placed squarely on the table. Nor is this merely our interpretation. It is precisely the framing now being put before university managers in complaints about individual signatories. We have asked for the headline and article to be corrected, with a correction acknowledging that the signatories were misrepresented both in what they endorsed and in the capacity in which they signed, so that academics facing complaints can point to an accurate public record of both."
