Over the last week, the UK news and academic world has been roiling as a fraudulent professor has been exposed, this is their Claudine Gay-scandal. Meanwhile, Cambridge's crown jewel, its golden boy has been shown to be pathological liar with some whopper achievements and they still defend him. He gets called-out by another professor, ran his dissertation & many papers through a plagiarism program and was found to be a remarkable thief, his response was to call the police.

Knowles gives some insight

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
pathological liar with some whopper achievements

I ran across this story last week, I saw a short one minute video of him explaining why he is so awesome and it was a word salad equal to Kamala, using the words inclusion and diversity repeatedly, and like Kamala, saying virtually nothing. But some of his "feats"-

- He was born with Aspergers and did not learn to speak until he was 11 years old, he didn't learn to eat on his own until 7, and didn't learn to read and write until 18 yo.

- He claims to have raised 5.5 million British pounds ($4.125) for charity by running 600 miles in 3 days, in addition to 30 marathons in 35 days. He told tennis star Andy Murray that he had an epileptic seizure during his run, fell and fractured his leg, but carried on

- He had a brain tumor removed, followed by a stroke just two weeks before his Ph.D viva.

- He is an elite semi-pro soccer player

Of course there is no documentation or proof of anything listed above. To say I call bullshit is an understatement.

https://thenewamerican.com/wor...long-list-of-fakers/

A guest on the Winston Marshall podcast recently pointed out that this guy clearly knew what he was doing because much of his plagiarism was pulled from grad students, who essentially can't fight back. He didn't pick from tenured professors, etc.

He is likely not that bright, and is probably pathological, but he is clever.

Seems to me there is a pattern here.

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:
A guest on the Winston Marshall podcast recently pointed out that this guy clearly knew what he was doing because much of his plagiarism was pulled from grad students, who essentially can't fight back. He didn't pick from tenured professors, etc.

He is likely not that bright, and is probably pathological, but he is clever.

You're probably referring to Nathan Cofnas, whose paper DEI Fraud and Cover-Up at Cambridge, exposed Arday's dissertation as having been grossly plagiarized.



There was also several others involved who all came to the same conclusion, Arday is a fraud and the top university's in the England & Scotland fawned all over him because of his DEI bonafides, while ignoring his unethical methods.
Exclusive: News outlet killed story on plagiarism allegations after Cambridge prof hired law firm

quote:

In September 2025, Times Higher Education had a bombshell story in the works: A star sociology professor at the University of Cambridge had allegedly plagiarized parts of his Ph.D. thesis and several journal articles. In one of the articles, the borrowed text appeared in quotes from subjects the professor, Jason Arday, claimed to have interviewed himself.

But after Arday enlisted Carter-Ruck, one of the United Kingdom’s leading defamation law firms, to send Times Higher Education a letter, the publication spiked the story, according to three sources who spoke to Retraction Watch.

One of the sources was David Sanders, a biochemist at Purdue University in Indiana, and a sleuth who contributes to the Times Higher Education on topics related to academic misconduct. He reviewed a 63-page dossier of text comparisons prepared by the publication last year and came back with his own findings. “There is no question that there is extensive plagiarism,” Sanders told us.

The allegations against Arday finally emerged last week following a Substack post from Nathan Cofnas, a philosopher at the University of Ghent in Belgium. Cofnas, who is known for his controversial writings on racial differences, independently identified dozens of passages in Arday’s 2015 dissertation that were taken nearly verbatim from the 2009 dissertation of Paula Zwozdiak-Myers, a reader at Brunel University of London. Cofnas says he learned about the unpublished Times Higher Education story only after he began working on his own piece about Arday.

....

JMO, even though Trumps pushing Universities to eliminate the "DEI" department most of them are just renaming the department, changing peoples titles and still doing the same woke stuff...

To hire someone on the basis of DEI with subpar competence despite genuine efforts is one thing. To hire someone on that basis with a blatant disregard for honor and integrity is shameful. This applies to any industry but especially academia where trust is an imperative - if you can’t trust your teacher and mentor, then what use is education?

Anybody at the university still supporting the employment of this fraud should be fired as well, tenured or not. They clearly also violate accepted standards for honor and integrity.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
JMO, even though Trumps pushing Universities to eliminate the "DEI" department most of them are just renaming the department, changing peoples titles and still doing the same woke stuff...

Doesn’t seem like that in Florida. For example, UF no longer has DEI based dorms offering academic based ones instead.

The jokes and memes write themselves.





Some of his other achievements:

Played in a baseball game, threw 27 strikes and hit 9 home runs.

- Played 18 holes of golf, shot a 17.

quote:

Originally posted by fischtown7:
Seems to me there is a pattern here.

Arday, the Milli Vanilli of academia. Well-played, fischtown.



.

We don't really think this is a one-off, do we?

Sir Rees-Moog certainly has a way of explaining the situation

quote:

This intellectual degradation has been allowed to go on for so long because academics are overwhelmingly spineless cowards.

Wow, I love that.

DEI must die to prevent another Jason Arday scandal

The Jason Arday scandal might seem extraordinary to many. It is less surprising for those of us in academia who have witnessed how structures have been put in place to ensure that DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) poster boys like Arday can flourish.

I have been speaking out about such developments since at least 2017 when I was turned down for an academic post at the University of Durham. A former don at Cambridge and Oxford, I had three monographs and about 17 articles in leading academic journals, and yet the post was given to a girl with just one article publication. After the process concluded, I was told: “You were by far and away the best candidate, but we couldn’t employ you because you are not diverse.” There are, of course, many such stories. This is what universities call ‘social justice’: the bureaucratised pre-occupation of failed academics.

One of the problems is that DEI is integrated structurally into the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) which assesses universities in Britain. And so, there is no incentive to employ a white male academic. He will simply be a blemish in their league table calculations. Britain’s universities are no longer focused on recruiting the best; they have DEI boxes to tick. Unfortunately, as we have seen with George Abaraonye in Oxford and now Jason Arday in Cambridge, things don’t always go to plan when candidates are assessed on the basis of ‘diversity’ alone and not academic excellence. The problem, however, goes well beyond these individual cases – shocking as they are. The rot is, in fact, systemic: non-subjects which now fill Britain’s universities risk alluring fake candidates and producing dubious research because they are not grounded in any intellectual tradition. They are ideological bait for activists who are ill-disposed to tradition and scholarship.

Our universities (Oxford and Cambridge included) offer too many courses in non-subjects that are ideological to the core. Women’s Studies, Gender Studies, Post-Colonial Studies – the list goes on and on. Basically, anything that ends in -Studies is a subject that has no concern for the truth and that employs people who are antithetical to intellectual rigour. Academics working in these fabricated subjects have ideological axes to grind with their ‘research’ on ‘whiteness’, intersectionality and other such made-up flapdoodle. Women’s and Gender Studies’ lectures comprise often little more than a flagrant attack on conservative values. No university worth its salt should be entertaining such ideologues who use terms such as ‘diversity’, ‘inclusion’, ‘minority’, ‘race’ and ‘gender’ as tools of political compliance.

Concomitant with the emergence of these non-subjects, the political bias in Humanities and Social Sciences has for a long time threatened the integrity of research. My own subject – Social Anthropology – has sadly become too often little more than ideological gibberish dressed up in meta-drivel that constantly tries to eke out some source of oppression or other. Anthropology needs to be ‘restored’, not ‘decolonised’. The subject grew out of colonialism. If you decolonise it, all that is left is hot-air. Its practitioners are almost without exception on the Far Left and their main objective seems to be to feed into the woke groupthink. I have never understood why academics are attracted to such ideological echo-chambers; I suppose it is some sort of security that they lack.

This intellectual degradation has been allowed to go on for so long because academics are overwhelmingly spineless cowards. Those that appointed Arday must have suspected that something didn’t add up, but were terrified of speaking up for fear of being called a ‘racist’. Even when the most outrageous Walter Mitty had been exposed, there was still silence. In time, the Arday scandal will prove to have been an extraordinary case of groupthink and will probably lead to some kind of MeToomovement in academia. It is ironic that universities which are meant to be theatres of open thinking and debate have ended up as hegemonic, close-minded factories of woke ideology.

If Britain’s universities are to salvage their tarnished reputations, there needs to be rapid systemic change. All the DEI criteria used for assessment and recruitment must be removed. Whole Faculties and departments offering degrees in ideological non-subjects need to close down. Only then will Britain’s universities be able to show that once again they are serious about scholarship, and not just dancing to the tunes of the cultural Marxists.

For too long, Britain’s universities have been run by an intellectual mob of Tartuffians who dress power up in the cuddly language of compassion. It is surely now time to push aside the post-modern nihilistic groupthink and make way for a new intellectual archaeology which offers students insights into the world from more diverse political and philosophical perspectives.

Universities must again devote themselves to the pursuit of truth and viewpoint diversity, and not wallow in group identity politics. For that to happen, and for them to restore their intellectual honesty, they need to dispense entirely with the DEI ideology and start employing scholars on the basis of academic excellence alone.

Found dead in his apartment.

link to article

Might have been his biggest, greatest, contribution to the herd.

I was wondering maybe he faked that too.

AMF

Had Cambridge not deified this boob, he'd still be alive.

This is going to throw a big kink in the book tour.

"At this time his death is being treated as unexpected, but is not believed to be suspicious."

Excuse me? People say there are no coincidences, but this is completely and simply not true, but in this instance, the coincidence would be fantastic. He knew the grift was over and this was his last bid for attention, and "I'll show you."

I'm not impressed. The lies were his, and he was aided in those lies only after the fact.

I feel nothing but sadness. He was lead to believe that this was his birthright. Admittedly, he was a grifter, but there was plenty of grift to go around on both sides. He figured that if he kept up his side, Cambridge would keep up their side.

Unfortunately for him, when the scam was exposed, Cambridge opted to survive as best they could, and he paid the reputational price for both of them.

Cambridge benefited from his publicity when he was popular, and cut him loose when he was a liability.

Araday is undeniably responsible for his lies, evasions and plagiarism. Cambridge is liable for making him out to be something he is not, building him up to be a superstar, and then pulling the rug out.

A man is dead by his own hand because he was assured he was something that he was not. Those who elevated him and did that assuring should pay a terrible price.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
Cambridge benefited from his publicity when he was popular, and cut him loose when he was a liability.

He resigned, Cambridge was more than willing to hold onto him as they made zero public comment over the past few weeks as the heat got turned-up. They allowed their supporters on the Left: like-minded academics, media pundits and 'social commentators' to make their arguments.

He built his career on lies, social-politics and an aggressive public relations campaign that was essential in his appointment to a professorship. His work showed he was a serial plagiarist but critics were told to hush, his work was thin but he checked all the right boxes yet none of those boxes encompassed any scholarship. He leaves behind a family & children because he couldn't face the fact that he was a fraud and the place he worked for fully supported his fantasy.