Rendered at 23:46:11 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
unified101 14 hours ago [-]
Poor guy, no life deserves this ending. He got caught up deeper and deeper in his proclamations, painted himself into a corner, and wasn't able to reset.
Does anyone know of a case where someone went through a reset and came out strong after such a "downfall"?
srean 11 hours ago [-]
One in the White House ? Coming out stronger, that is. No reset.
Going by the astonishing tall tales he spread about himself, I would be surprised if it wasn't.
The following video is a psychologist's take, well, a YouTube psychologist's take on some of his many implausible, superhuman and grandiose claims that include:
Running 30 marathons in 35 days, notably running the final nine marathons with a fracture.
To have completed 600 miles of running in just six days.
Raised over £5.5 million ($7.4 million) for charity.
(Time) travelling to Brazil on a relief mission where he personally installed water pumps for local populations as part of a program that shut down before he was born.
The whole tale reminded me of the case of George Santos (Or, Scamtos, as he's known since then). Regardless of the facts, the way this ended up is tragic.
srean 13 hours ago [-]
Good example.
Regarding the tragedy, grandiose narcissists usually have very vulnerable egos and cannot bear exposure. Their entire notion of self is held together by their grandiosity.
The tragic part is that most narcissists are produced by a bad childhood, starved of approval and safety.
rglover 9 hours ago [-]
FWIW Dr. Grande's videos were instrumental in helping me understand and escape narcissistic abuse. At least from what I've seen (it's been a few years since I watched regularly), he's a straight shooter.
9 hours ago [-]
tjpnz 16 hours ago [-]
Pretty sure we've seen Elon there.
JMiao 1 days ago [-]
cool guess! idk about jason arday, but that dude in the first link is strange and off putting. too much stink face, and the way he frames the subject with the blurry photos and loony screenshots feels like bullying.
JMiao 1 days ago [-]
commenter changed their comment and /s blew right by
zamadatix 1 days ago [-]
A tragedy all around. Most obviously for Jason Arday, who, regardless of which interpretations of everything else one takes, saw this end as the only way out of a high profile media situation.
sampo 1 days ago [-]
When one's whole career and self-image has been based in academia and then the academic career ends, it can easily give a feeling of failure and worthlessness, even in the most normal circumstances.
I couldn't find statistics about postdocs or tenure-track professors, but this meta-study on PhD students and medical residents gives a suicide attempt rate of 0.8%.
Academia is brutal, but let’s not conflate legitimate struggles in an academic career with being caught allegedly just making up a whole bunch of stuff
readthenotes1 7 hours ago [-]
They gave him a professorship instead of treatment.
zaik 1 days ago [-]
From the same article:
> The overall prevalence of SA [suicide attempts] in our aggregate sample was .8%. These figures approached the prevalence of SA in Americans aged 18–39 (1.0%) and in the general population of adults over 18 (.6%).
gizajob 1 days ago [-]
Academia isn’t the criminal justice system though, if you have, for example, cheated on your doctorate you can hold your hands up and admit it and do another doctorate.
maleldil 3 hours ago [-]
Good luck getting accepted in another program.
funyblax 12 hours ago [-]
Calling this guy an academic is an insult to the English language and to truth itself.
obscurette 16 hours ago [-]
Just one of many tragedies bound to one of the biggest problems in modern society – obsession to victims. Framing yourself or others as a victim gives you complete immunity and frees you from any responsibility for the consequences of your actions. This obsession has a potential to end the world we know.
tentlewick 10 hours ago [-]
I find it ironic that much of the reason why Arday received such accolades is that he painted himself as a victim who had managed, through grit and determination, to overcome adversity and achieve greatness. But then as soon as he experienced actual adversity - albeit self-inflicted, from being called out on his plagiarism and lies and harassment of those who tried to expose this - he decided to kill himself instead.
Which, I suppose, is the final chapter to his false victim narrative. A posthumous legacy that he was bullied to death, absolved of his misdeeds.
cmiles8 1 days ago [-]
The whole thing is a tragedy. Nobody wants to see a situation end like this.
There are other likely victims here too though including those who were passed over for roles or promotions based on the alleged false claims, exaggerations and plagiarism. Those are harder to identify and quantify but still a very real thing that has deep impact on people’s lives.
gillesjacobs 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
siva7 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
cmiles8 1 days ago [-]
Absolutely not. Simply pointing out that there are many victims here beyond the obvious, and those passed over for promo or missed roles also are subjected to extreme mental health stress while others reaped rewards of alleged wrongdoing.
averysmallbird 21 hours ago [-]
For whatever he did, he never needed to be the product of an international pile-on. Even having known and read about this feels like being a party to a tragedy.
Uh, what about it being in the uk? I guess I've heard the press can be aggressive, but not sure if that's what you meant.
dist-epoch 13 hours ago [-]
The UK has no legal freedom of speech protection. Which means you can use the courts to silence the press, as Russian oligarchs have been doing for many years:
> Government vows to stop Russian oligarchs ‘abusing’ British courts. Dominic Raab said the government was ‘taking action’ to end the ‘bullying’ to ‘protect our free press’
> The UK has no legal freedom of speech protection.
This is completely untrue, as you can confirm by googling.
The UK has historically had a problem with overly restrictive libel laws and libel tourism, but that point can be made without making statements that are obviously false.
dahdum 6 hours ago [-]
From an American viewpoint, no one else has “free speech”, UK included. The First Amendment is globally unique. So it’s a matter of definitions.
Yes, the First Amendment is unusually permissive. But the sentence "the UK has no legal freedom of speech protection" isn't sensible way to make that point. We're commenting on events which have received extensive (and probably disproportionate) coverage in the UK press, despite the best efforts of Arday and Cambridge. Clearly, their scheme to exploit UK law to silence the press didn't work out.
Also, on a minor note, this is an article about something that happened in the UK. An American viewpoint is as valid as any other, but it's not the most relevant here.
owebmaster 5 hours ago [-]
> From an American viewpoint, no one else has “free speech”, UK included.
That's funny as we see what happens regularly to people trying to exercise their free speech right against a small country in the middle east.
Georgelemental 10 hours ago [-]
Had Cambridge applied the appropriate sanctions against Arday, the story would never have blown up like it did. Unfortunate
UncleMeat 9 hours ago [-]
This isn’t true. The stated purpose of the people driving this was to drive black people out of academia in general.
mangodrunk 3 hours ago [-]
You’re repeating the baseless claims that caused this story to probably be bigger than it would have been. Cambridge and others doubled down on obvious lies. It’s clear that Arday was a compulsive liar who should never have been a college professor let alone at Cambridge.
UncleMeat 7 minutes ago [-]
Arday being a liar doesn't change people's motivations for making this into a story. People have publicly stated their reasoning.
JuniperMesos 3 hours ago [-]
No, he deserved being the product of an international pile-on, and so did all the people in Anglosphere academic life who defended him. Arday had been brazenly lying about his own life and accomplishments for a long time, and a lot of other people in influential positions in Cambridge had been negligently credulous about it or even tried to suppress other, less-credulous peoples' investigation of Arday's credentials because they really wanted to have a marginalized black professor on staff and thought it was immorally anti-black to question his story and credentials.
The fact that Arday chose to react to being the target of this pile-on by committing suicide is unfortunate in some sense; but ultimately that's a decision he made about his own life that he was responsible for. The pile-on itself was and is completely justified, and indeed it should be targeting a lot of other people in the Anglosphere academic world who are still alive right now and still defending Arday and the system that allowed him to become a professor at all.
amiga386 23 hours ago [-]
This is a tragedy.
He did not need to take his own life. There was definitely a path for his life to continue. His family still loved him. Sure, he wouldn't have the cushy professorship and the prestige and the book deal and speaking engagements. But there have been people who have fallen from grace harder and faster, for much worse reasons, and they have come back.
It is very sad that Arday took his life for what was at most a temporary setback. R.I.P.
baubino 22 hours ago [-]
> It is very sad that Arday took his life for what was at most a temporary setback.
I hope you and others realize that he was being relentlessly harassed. I highly doubt the academic job was the only thing causing him distress. His claims were questionable at best but not worthy of the vitriol he received.
amiga386 21 hours ago [-]
He was subject to intense public and media scrutiny due to the uncovering of his wrongdoing and his recalcitrant non-apology.
He wasn't some rando, he was one of Cambridge University's "star" professors. His appointment was heralded in the media as hugely important. He guest-edited the BBC's flagship Today programme. He became a cultural advisor for ITV. He was a media celebrity... on the basis of what is likely an invented life story.
There is a genuine public interest in further investigation. For the past 3 years he and his college actively suppressed inquiries about his plagiarism using reputation management lawyers and false claims of harassment to the police.
I know exactly who he was, the accusations against him, and the likelihood that he lied and misrepresented many aspects of his personal history. Still doesn’t justify the pile-on and relentless racially-tinged harassment. He was an academic for fucksake, not a politician or a world leader.
We live in a bizarre world where far too many people believe that harassment is permissible if someone is famous, in the public eye, or if they’ve done something wrong. Yes, his claims and credentials should have been investigated (and done so years ago) but, again, none of this justifies relentless harassment.
That others have been publicly shamed and harassed in the past does not justify this public shaming and harassment. That others did not take their life over it does not make this public shaming and harassment somehow okay.
It is very possible to believe that Arday misrepresented himself AND ALSO believe that the harassment against him was unwarranted. I personally would have much rather seen all that energy funneled into pressure on the institution — Cambridge and the other universities he worked at — to be transparent about their hiring practices and answer for clear inconsistencies in Arday’s work history.
mike_hearn 11 hours ago [-]
His claims of harassment also turned out to be lies, FWIW. He made a lot of false claims, like saying someone had delivered bullets and a severed pigs head to his parent's home that he had "intercepted" and that the police had identified the specific butchers it came from. The Guardian somewhat surprisingly double checked and uncovered that he was making that stuff up too. When they challenged him he said "I thought you'd just believe me".
belZaah 18 hours ago [-]
Harassment is not permissible. But if he had been a black researcher in, say, microbiology, it wouldn’t have materialized to that extent. His research tried to shame a very large chunk of the society for being racist. And it turns out people react in unpredictable and unpleasant ways to accusations towards their core identity that are based on lies.
There’s a difference between normalizing harassment and understanding where it comes from. I’d also like to be more forgiving about people talking bs about me. But I’m not.
Also, imagine being a black person trying to build a career in academia after such a story. The vitriol _they_ will receive, the scrutiny of _their_ work.
anigbrowl 6 hours ago [-]
Also, imagine being a black person trying to build a career in academia after such a story.
Indeed. It's a disaster for any minority or outsider trying to build a pathway for themselves, as well as people working in the 'soft' sciences; no matter how rigorous the qualitative methods a researcher uses, the additional effort involved in explaining/understanding them vs quantitative methods leads to reflexive dismissal from many.
wahern 20 hours ago [-]
The claims of harassment came from him, and began long before this became sensationalized. Certainly the claimed harassment before the public scrutiny is highly suspect, and in some cases already shown to be utter fabrications, such as the pig head that he claimed he was sent. And reading between the lines, the harassment that Cambridge and his family has claimed seems to be them simply parroting claims he made privately to them, i.e. highly suspect.
This psychologically impaired, pathological liar deftly leveraged DEI narratives and caricatures of racism to simultaneously aggrandize and shield himself from scrutiny. There are many people like him in this world. The reality of pathological liars is far more complicated than what people expect; these people are rarely malicious, and can seem (and legitimately be, until challenged) nice people. And the emotional pain they feel is no less real, and often more intense, than normal people. This guy happened to be black and figured out how to use white guilt to almost comical ends, but this type of person is usually quietly shown the door before things blow up so spectacularly. (Often the public ire ends up being about why authorities quietly showed these people the door, especially when they find new people and groups to dupe. Often part of the reasoning is concern about psychological fragility and being responsible for creating an even bigger mess.) The credulity exhibited by Cambridge is, IMO, patently racist. Whatever racial harassment he experienced after things became public pales in comparison to Cambridge and his supporters elevating this psychologically ill man into the position he reached. He was treated as a black avatar rather than a human being.
srean 14 hours ago [-]
Why should someone not be shamed if they do things shameful ? Trying to understand your logic here.
By harrassment do you mean public exposure of his lies that earned him his fame ?
What is the alternative you propose ? Cover up ? Look the other way ? Become an enabler of such behavior ?
Shaming is one of society's feedback mechanisms to discourage dishonest behavior. It has its place.
Granted that the standards used by a society at any point in time may not be a universal standard. Case in point Turing. In that case, it is the society that gets shamed later.
Arday was no Turing.
hollerith 9 hours ago [-]
>Why should someone not be shamed if they do things shameful ? Trying to understand your logic here.
His logic is probably, "arguments are soldiers": the enemy is trying to make my side look bad; neutralizing that enemy action takes priority over everything else.
9 hours ago [-]
duxup 14 hours ago [-]
I’ve found a disturbing pattern of “I’m being harassed” (without explanation of what exactly that means) as a sort of blanket statement to discount any kind of questions or scrutiny.
The idea of someone having to explain what harassment is occurring is of course unpleasant, but that’s also what makes it an effective method of trying to distract from the topic.
If he was being harassed that’s wrong, but it doesn’t make him immune from questions about other things.
belZaah 18 hours ago [-]
Everyone deserves compassion. I feel sorry for him. But the fact remains, that he deliberately used lies and deception to gain a high social position in a very politically derisive context. It couldn’t have come as a surprise, that every single racist out there would jump at the opportunity to pull him down should there ever be doubt about his academic work. Plus the people, who really care about academic integrity. Plus a whole lot of folks who simply do not like people blatantly lying for massive personal gains. The vitriol was entirely predictable. The internet is not known for being forgiving. He very deliberately and knowingly took a huge and, given the absurdity of some of his claims, unfounded risk the materialization of which he could not handle. I do feel sorry for him to have started on this path. What state of mind would push a person to take such risk? He must have been a tortured man long before it all exploded into the open.
funyblax 12 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
hyperhello 1 days ago [-]
I'm wondering just how falsifiable a claim of plagiarism is in the field of sociology.
Its clear from Retraction Watch that people at Cambridge failed to act when they should have. Hilary Cremin and Rhys Morgan knew about the plagarism but decided they did not need to do anything.
gizajob 1 days ago [-]
The issue is that the claims of sociology struggle with falsifiability, or at least have a tendency to create positions which don’t admit refutation.
I don’t wish this poor man ill, and a huge mess has been created at every level it seems, all around him. Having read some of his contentious thesis the issue that arose for me, beyond the plaigarism question, was that it was generally hyperbolic and at points, word salad, unable to present a target that could be refuted or argued against. Zero clue what Cambridge were doing with and to this guy, or what the standards are for appointing people and critiquing their work if it’s feeding a prevailing narrative. I know John Moores, who awarded his PhD is far from rigorous and I know from experience that there is almost nothing that would have stopped them awarding him the doctorate once the work was complete, regardless whether it was plagiarised or didn’t stand up to scrutiny from anywhere outside of his small angle on sociological discourse. This all points to him being a symptom of an extremely widespread and serious issue that has arisen within British academia, not a cause of anything major.
I wouldn’t have wished him dead though, this is pretty tragic that the intense scrutiny over what should be a very niche and minor academic issue inside a university got blown up into front page news. He didn’t deserve or warrant that kind of scrutiny either, so has clearly completely collapsed from it, because it would be hard for anyone to take.
tptacek 1 days ago [-]
Just a note that plagiarism wasn't the extent of the alleged misconduct. Large parts of his biography were in question as well. A recovery of his reputation or a long-term future as a public thinker, let alone an academic, was probably not even a remote possibility. The stress of dealing with that situation had to have been incredible.
doc_ick 7 hours ago [-]
So plagiarism overall is what you’re saying.
ternaryoperator 5 hours ago [-]
Making up events in your personal history is not plagiarism.
foldr 4 hours ago [-]
No, but it's also not professional misconduct. I don't think Arday's work merited the position he held, but at the same time, you can't really fire a professor of sociology because you find out that they've run fewer charity marathons than claimed. So the plagiarism was the main issue relevant to his academic position.
I have been following this in English news. It is terribly sad.
The University of Cambridge is largely to blame for letting this troubled person dig himself in so deep.
His astounding claims were astonishing and easily falsifiable. Journalists had no such trouble.
They raised him up then when he got too hot cast him down.
He was a fantasist, he deserves some blame, but it was Cambridge with the power, and irresponsible hubris
RIP
1 days ago [-]
tibbydudeza 16 hours ago [-]
After South Africa became a democracy and Apartheid was buried a lot of laws were introduced over black empowerment because restorative justice was need because black people were the poorest and the laws of land and other ownership prevented them from taking part in the economy on a equal footing.
It was BEE and it was race based and also on quota's to get the new govt contracts
We got a new class of useless tendergarchs and in some cases of companies doing fronting - meaning appointing black people to a board in meaningless positions because they were black and not because of merit.
I could tell you the black person were always in charge of HR or transformation or environment, and we had professional board members - they were on the boards of maybe 10 different companies, yet the CEO and CTO or CFO was still the same old.
It is like telling us - we can't trust them yet.
As a non-white person I was disgusted about of these BEE appointees - they got the money but did not care how about making actual changes but useless empty vessels.
globular-toast 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
1 days ago [-]
collingreen 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
fearmerchant 1 days ago [-]
Man I wish I was asking this question. Imagine how blissful life would be not to have wasted precious synaptic energy learning this topic.
globular-toast 18 hours ago [-]
You know what it means. Someone is dead. Have a heart for once.
pessimizer 1 days ago [-]
It's literally a job title. One that many people have spent a lot of time and effort to create. It's weird to pretend that you've never heard of it, or the people involved in it.
throwaway27448 1 days ago [-]
> One that many people have spent a lot of time and effort to create.
As it stands in the US at least, it's a corporate marketing term referring to the whitewashing that happened after the 2020 protests to characterize the efforts corporations use to cover their asses from discrimination lawsuits as somehow pro-human. Let's not portray this as some kind of political movement rather than a liability concern.
1 days ago [-]
etchalon 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
gwd 1 days ago [-]
"DEI Officer" is literally a job title [1]. Obviously "DEI people" would be the kind of people who advocate for what DEI officers do.
Please show me the literal "DEI Person" job title on that page.
throw-the-towel 22 hours ago [-]
I'd say everyone who's on the DEI Committee has a DEI Person job ex officio.
etchalon 8 hours ago [-]
You seem to lack an understanding of the word "literal".
edoceo 1 days ago [-]
That's not the exact title. But there are/were more than one job title that included "DEI". Recently, in USA, those titles have been reworked because of political bullshit.
1 days ago [-]
anon48293 17 hours ago [-]
[dead]
ktallett 16 hours ago [-]
It isn't really clear what was truth and what wasnt tbh and even if so this is most certainly not the first person to lie to a high position. It is an open secret that a former university chancellor in the uk copied his thesis. He didnt get this treatment. I am also curious where the racism claim comes from?
throwawaypath 9 hours ago [-]
>It isn't really clear what was truth and what wasnt tbh
Wrong, it's really clear what was truth and what wasnt tbh
>I am also curious where the racism claim comes from?
He was Anglophobic/anti-White.
expedition32 21 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
b0rtb0rt 21 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
qwerpy 21 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ThrowawayTestr 18 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ls-a 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
forestrywat 1 days ago [-]
Comments like this should result in an IP level ban. Get the fuck out of here.
ls-a 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
funyblax 12 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
gillesjacobs 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
jacquesm 24 hours ago [-]
Unbelievable these comments on a thread about someone who committed suicide. Have a heart.
gillesjacobs 5 hours ago [-]
He was an immoral man taking full advantage of an immoral system.
philodeon 21 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
sirshmooey 20 hours ago [-]
Don't construct worldviews from internet comments
znpy 18 hours ago [-]
I read about this guy.
He was clearly a scammer but he couldn’t have scammed that much alone.
My suspicion is that he was killed to cover up something much larger.
ahmed_1000 19 hours ago [-]
Obsession over race - from the people who hired him to virtue signal, to a headline announcing his death
19 hours ago [-]
pfisherman 19 hours ago [-]
Many of the comments here in this thread are absolutely vile. Very few people are undeserving of compassion.
I think some of the people in this thread should look themselves in the mirror and ask why feel different in this case than similar cases like Dan Ariely, Amy Cuddy, or Marc Tessier Levigne.
srean 14 hours ago [-]
Dan despicable Ariely is a good example because he also milked personal tragedies.
Ariely et al that you mention weren't questioned or exposed any less though. There was Elizabeth Holmes too.
The point is, if you cannot bear getting exposed as a false god, as a con, then don't try to become one. Well don't, even you can bear the exposure.
pfisherman 12 hours ago [-]
I don’t know. Seems like a distorted sense of justice to me. I am not so sure that academic fraud is in the same league as committing felonies (like E Holmes). Also don’t know that anything beyond professional sanction is deserved for professional misconduct (that is not breaking any laws or endangering people).
Perhaps their real crimes were not having better PR, or enough money to hire a crisis management firm. Whatever it was, it really seems to have brought out the worst (in) people.
mike_hearn 11 hours ago [-]
Academic fraud is a crime. It gets used on grant applications to justify funding, meaning it's stealing money from the government and thus the public. It can be prosecuted as fraud in the courts. See the case of the Dana Farber Cancer Center being taken to court on behalf of the US Government by Sholto David (who won a large settlement).
> Perhaps their real crimes were not having better PR, or enough money to hire a crisis management firm.
He hired Carter Ruck, a professional law firm, who then bullied The Times with legal threats that themselves contained by lies by Arday. And he had been given nothing less than glowing PR by every "serious" institution in Britain, which all repeated his lies without question up until a few days ago.
Good PR and funds for crisis management were not an issue for him.
anigbrowl 6 hours ago [-]
I don't agree. In one case a person is raising financial capital, in others they're raising social or political capital. All such frauds upon the public are bad and I think there's something wrong with society only treating it as a crime when a currency symbol is involved. It's not just the investors (financial or professional or...) who lose out; people who were correctly skeptical in advance of the public revelation are often attacked or sidelined for expressing doubt about a fabricator's grandiose claims.
mirmor23 12 hours ago [-]
I like Doug Stanhope's take on life - something along the lines of 'life is like a movie; not everyone stays on till the end; if movie is not progressing the way you imagine, it's ok to walk out';
Arday wanted all the attention/awards/book deals, but didn't want put basic effort to hide his tracks.
for his thesis, if he had gone the route of translate(english->spanish->vietnamese->arabic->english), he could have 1) beat plagiarism 2) gotten few more ideas of how to extend the original thesis to new directions. /s in case someone is taking this seriously.
PaulRobinson 1 days ago [-]
This turned into a witch-hunt. Fast.
There have been accusations of plagiarism, of AI written text, of published biographical stories not being true, and on, and on, and on.
Honestly, even if all of these accusations were true - and there are plenty of people prepared to say at least some of them are not - it didn't deserve the media scrutiny and pile-on that he was subject to.
Why did it happen? I think most people can tell you why. Look at his photo. It's the first thing you notice.
If you tell me you're "colour blind", what you mean is you don't care about prejudice, even (perhaps especially), when it exists and destroys a man's life. I'm white, I'm not colour blind because that diminishes many of the people in my life and their lived experience.
He's dead because he's black, and there are parts of our society that just can't handle having a black man as a professor at Cambridge, even in 2026.
As somebody who strives to be proud of the UK and its aspirations, this story makes me feel sick.
RIP.
profdevloper 1 days ago [-]
I think the scrutiny was due to him being an avatar for the frustrations around DEI and western society's focus on equality of outcome. He didn't deserve his position at Cambridge, but he didn't deserve this fate either.
foldr 13 hours ago [-]
There's not a lot of equality of outcome at Cambridge when it comes to black academics. The percentage is lower compared to that of the general population and to that of British academia in general. Appointing Arday to the position was clearly a huge error of judgment, with tragic consequences. However, anyone imagining that Cambridge is appointing black professors willy-nilly has got the wrong picture.
graemep 5 hours ago [-]
It is possible they are appointing liars willy-nilly.
Its amazing no one at Cambridge spotted his lies and took action earlier.
spankalee 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
mulderc 1 days ago [-]
Are you on the investigation committee? Seems we can wait for the independent report before making any claims like that.
cung 1 days ago [-]
Not sure I follow your reasoning behind his skin color and suicide being causally related
pessimizer 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
gizajob 1 days ago [-]
Yeah absolutely this. People seem to be unable to recognise that Britain and the USA are radically different places with different histories and approaches to basically everything. The common language creates the impression that they’re basically the same place.
amiga386 22 hours ago [-]
This is a load of racist twaddle.
Black British people know their own history and have their own lived experience in the UK. I won't speak for them, but I will say for certain only a handful of cretins in the UK, of any ethnicity, are stupid enough to larp as Yanks.
Learn a bit of UK history and current affairs before you mouth off.
throw-the-towel 1 days ago [-]
I'm not sure I agree on the Black Brits part, but the general problem is real: too many US copycats, in situations where aping the US does not make a shred of sense.
regularization 1 days ago [-]
The slaves in Jamaica had a radically different experience then the slaves of America?
The colour bar. Colored Alien Seaman's Order, Kelso Cochrane, Bristol Bus Boycott
Could go up to Brixton incidents or all the attacks on this professor.
1 days ago [-]
baubino 22 hours ago [-]
Crazy that I had to scroll so far to get to a comment that acknowledges the racism of the whole situation. Yes he made fantastical claims and probably should not have been in his job. Also true is that the intensity of this widespread public reaction to him is laced with racism. It’s sickening.
KPGv2 1 days ago [-]
> it didn't deserve the media scrutiny and pile-on
How bad was it? I didn't notice anything of the sort, and I'm curious if maybe your algorithm feeds you a fire hydrant of crap most people never see.
I ask because there were instances of plagiarism between 2016 and 2020 (I only remember it was Trump's first term) that I saw significant media coverage of, including them being called before Congress in the USA.
For this guy, I only saw one headline, when the alleged plagiarism was revealed, and that was it. I didn't even recognize this guy's name when I saw this new headline on here a few minutes ago. (I did recognize him once I saw his pic at the OP link.)
This might be just the reverse of a common thing online: "Why won't the media cover this story??" when in fact they are covering this story, it's just that you are passively looking only at what your friends are reposting on social media.
EDIT: also not for nothing, but if your argument is "prejudice exists because racists think he shouldn't have been at Cambridge," then him plagiarizing and lying about things cuts against your entire argument bc, assuming the allegations are true, he never belonged at Cambridge, and his race is irrelevant.
(I agree significant prejudice against Black people exist in the developed world, but I'm disinclined to agree about it here considering the women in the US—another historically disadvantaged group—who faced these same allegations a few years ago didn't crash out and kill themselves. Which is what it sounds like this individual did. And in those women's cases, it's with the full weight of Trump's MAGA calling for their heads and probably worse.)
itsibitzi 1 days ago [-]
He was repeatedly at the top of the Guardian's website at least. I can't think of a single other instance of academic fraud being pushed to the top of any news site for several days running.
wk_end 1 days ago [-]
Well, he wasn't just an academic, but also a media icon/minor celebrity (he has/had a memoir coming out). His academic fraud and plagiarism was just one thing - aside from the race angle, his story probably got lots of media attention just because of how comically absurd and obvious his self-mythologizing was.
It's not academic but the closest similar case that's coming to mind off the top of my head was when James Frey (who FWIW is white) got found out for A Million Little Pieces, which definitely was major news.
sampo 1 days ago [-]
> I can't think of a single other instance of academic fraud being pushed to the top of any news site for several days running.
The news cycle about Harvard University president in December 2023 might have been close.
> How bad was it? I didn't notice anything of the sort, and I'm curious if maybe your algorithm feeds you a fire hydrant of crap most people never see.
No, this has been top 5 headline news in the UK for the last week. Basically every major media outlet has been covering it, including BBC, guardian, Telegraph, daily mail etc.
d_silin 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
InsideOutSanta 1 days ago [-]
Do you actually know that he lied? From the article:
> Cambridge initially said claims of plagiarism regarding Arday's thesis and some journal publications had been investigated by Liverpool John Moores University (LMJU) and the journals in question.
> LJMU - which awarded Arday his PhD in 2015 - concluded that he had not plagiarised work.
It is absolutely undeniable that there has been a witch hunt against minorities in positions of power in the last few years. It is unclear to me whether this guy actually did anything wrong.
What is clear to me, though, is that the level of scrutiny and the attacks he received are not consistent with what most white men in similar situations received.
greygoo222 1 days ago [-]
You can check with your own eyes that entire paragraphs of his work were copied verbatim:
he claimed to be a non-verbal autistic for much of his childhood, disputed by childhood classmates; he claimed to have run "30 marathons in 35 days" also disputed and unverified
d_silin 1 days ago [-]
I followed the story and he absolutely did, in multiple instances.
anigbrowl 1 days ago [-]
Perhaps we should do annual random audits on 50 or 100 academics to get a baseline against which to measure claims of academic dishonesty. Perhaps there's a correlation between plagiarism and professors who acquire tenure at an unusually young age, for example. Or perhaps older professors gain tenure after a certain number of years 'phoning it in', publishing work that is obviously derivative but reliably inflates citation count at a steady rate. I can't really tell whether any individual academic plagiarist is a true interloper or whether everyone does it a bit get some early stage career momentum with which to attract funding and then perform real research.
quickthrowman 1 days ago [-]
Why would you believe the institution that granted the PhD? They’re never going to admit they screwed up in granting the degree, how do you think that would affect their reputation?
You can examine his writing and the writing he stole from, side by side. I would suggest doing that instead of believing an institution who has no choice but to lie if they want students to apply to their grad schools in the future.
gizajob 1 days ago [-]
Liverpool John Moores University doesn’t have a reputation - the only one it’s got is that it’s a former polytechnic attended by people who are never going to cope in the real parts of academia at even the nearby University of Liverpool. Cambridge would have never given this man a degree never mind a doctorate, but once he had one it was a pass to getting inside.
1 days ago [-]
thataccount 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
etchalon 1 days ago [-]
I think a lot things are simultaneously true:
1. He exaggerated/lied about some of his accomplishments and aspects of his life.
2. The accomplishments and aspects of his life he exaggerated/lied about did not seem to be about his academic success. Generic life puffery that, while dishonest, did not make him unqualified for his position.
3. Anti-DEI crusaders decided to make an example of him.
4. Had he not been a person of color, the scrutiny would have had a very different shape.
samastur 1 days ago [-]
Yes, we do.
He was a fabulist who certainly was more scrutinized because of his skin color, but it really shouldn’t be disputed that he plagiarized and lied profusely.
That doesn’t mean remotely he deserved this.
I also have little hope that everyone who contributed to this sordid tale, from Cambridge, police etc. will have to account for their profound failures.
throwawaypath 6 hours ago [-]
>who certainly was more scrutinized because of his skin color
The total opposite occured. He was uncrutinized because of his skin color.
throwawaypath 1 days ago [-]
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
punkbit 14 hours ago [-]
Modern witch hunt, and we shouldn’t deny it! Keep downvoting as much as you want.
Does anyone know of a case where someone went through a reset and came out strong after such a "downfall"?
A more serious example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Cummines
https://www.simplypsychology.com/articles/narcissistic-colla...
Going by the astonishing tall tales he spread about himself, I would be surprised if it wasn't.
The following video is a psychologist's take, well, a YouTube psychologist's take on some of his many implausible, superhuman and grandiose claims that include:
Running 30 marathons in 35 days, notably running the final nine marathons with a fracture.
To have completed 600 miles of running in just six days.
Raised over £5.5 million ($7.4 million) for charity.
(Time) travelling to Brazil on a relief mission where he personally installed water pumps for local populations as part of a program that shut down before he was born.
https://youtu.be/-RxoYfCiwX0
Regarding the tragedy, grandiose narcissists usually have very vulnerable egos and cannot bear exposure. Their entire notion of self is held together by their grandiosity.
The tragic part is that most narcissists are produced by a bad childhood, starved of approval and safety.
I couldn't find statistics about postdocs or tenure-track professors, but this meta-study on PhD students and medical residents gives a suicide attempt rate of 0.8%.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002239562...
> The overall prevalence of SA [suicide attempts] in our aggregate sample was .8%. These figures approached the prevalence of SA in Americans aged 18–39 (1.0%) and in the general population of adults over 18 (.6%).
Which, I suppose, is the final chapter to his false victim narrative. A posthumous legacy that he was bullied to death, absolved of his misdeeds.
There are other likely victims here too though including those who were passed over for roles or promotions based on the alleged false claims, exaggerations and plagiarism. Those are harder to identify and quantify but still a very real thing that has deep impact on people’s lives.
> Government vows to stop Russian oligarchs ‘abusing’ British courts. Dominic Raab said the government was ‘taking action’ to end the ‘bullying’ to ‘protect our free press’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/russia-ukrain...
> UK vows to stop the super-rich using courts to silence critics
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60773942
This is completely untrue, as you can confirm by googling.
The UK has historically had a problem with overly restrictive libel laws and libel tourism, but that point can be made without making statements that are obviously false.
> The First Amendment to the US Constitution provides almost absolute protection to freedom of expression. By contrast, European and EU law curtails the right to freedom of expression. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/7728...
Also, on a minor note, this is an article about something that happened in the UK. An American viewpoint is as valid as any other, but it's not the most relevant here.
That's funny as we see what happens regularly to people trying to exercise their free speech right against a small country in the middle east.
The fact that Arday chose to react to being the target of this pile-on by committing suicide is unfortunate in some sense; but ultimately that's a decision he made about his own life that he was responsible for. The pile-on itself was and is completely justified, and indeed it should be targeting a lot of other people in the Anglosphere academic world who are still alive right now and still defending Arday and the system that allowed him to become a professor at all.
He did not need to take his own life. There was definitely a path for his life to continue. His family still loved him. Sure, he wouldn't have the cushy professorship and the prestige and the book deal and speaking engagements. But there have been people who have fallen from grace harder and faster, for much worse reasons, and they have come back.
It is very sad that Arday took his life for what was at most a temporary setback. R.I.P.
I hope you and others realize that he was being relentlessly harassed. I highly doubt the academic job was the only thing causing him distress. His claims were questionable at best but not worthy of the vitriol he received.
He wasn't some rando, he was one of Cambridge University's "star" professors. His appointment was heralded in the media as hugely important. He guest-edited the BBC's flagship Today programme. He became a cultural advisor for ITV. He was a media celebrity... on the basis of what is likely an invented life story.
There is a genuine public interest in further investigation. For the past 3 years he and his college actively suppressed inquiries about his plagiarism using reputation management lawyers and false claims of harassment to the police.
He should have read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Sham... and what happened to Jonah Lehrer. Lehrer is still shamed for plagiarism and his career has not recovered... but he is still alive.
We live in a bizarre world where far too many people believe that harassment is permissible if someone is famous, in the public eye, or if they’ve done something wrong. Yes, his claims and credentials should have been investigated (and done so years ago) but, again, none of this justifies relentless harassment.
That others have been publicly shamed and harassed in the past does not justify this public shaming and harassment. That others did not take their life over it does not make this public shaming and harassment somehow okay.
It is very possible to believe that Arday misrepresented himself AND ALSO believe that the harassment against him was unwarranted. I personally would have much rather seen all that energy funneled into pressure on the institution — Cambridge and the other universities he worked at — to be transparent about their hiring practices and answer for clear inconsistencies in Arday’s work history.
There’s a difference between normalizing harassment and understanding where it comes from. I’d also like to be more forgiving about people talking bs about me. But I’m not.
Also, imagine being a black person trying to build a career in academia after such a story. The vitriol _they_ will receive, the scrutiny of _their_ work.
Indeed. It's a disaster for any minority or outsider trying to build a pathway for themselves, as well as people working in the 'soft' sciences; no matter how rigorous the qualitative methods a researcher uses, the additional effort involved in explaining/understanding them vs quantitative methods leads to reflexive dismissal from many.
This psychologically impaired, pathological liar deftly leveraged DEI narratives and caricatures of racism to simultaneously aggrandize and shield himself from scrutiny. There are many people like him in this world. The reality of pathological liars is far more complicated than what people expect; these people are rarely malicious, and can seem (and legitimately be, until challenged) nice people. And the emotional pain they feel is no less real, and often more intense, than normal people. This guy happened to be black and figured out how to use white guilt to almost comical ends, but this type of person is usually quietly shown the door before things blow up so spectacularly. (Often the public ire ends up being about why authorities quietly showed these people the door, especially when they find new people and groups to dupe. Often part of the reasoning is concern about psychological fragility and being responsible for creating an even bigger mess.) The credulity exhibited by Cambridge is, IMO, patently racist. Whatever racial harassment he experienced after things became public pales in comparison to Cambridge and his supporters elevating this psychologically ill man into the position he reached. He was treated as a black avatar rather than a human being.
By harrassment do you mean public exposure of his lies that earned him his fame ?
What is the alternative you propose ? Cover up ? Look the other way ? Become an enabler of such behavior ?
Shaming is one of society's feedback mechanisms to discourage dishonest behavior. It has its place.
Granted that the standards used by a society at any point in time may not be a universal standard. Case in point Turing. In that case, it is the society that gets shamed later.
Arday was no Turing.
His logic is probably, "arguments are soldiers": the enemy is trying to make my side look bad; neutralizing that enemy action takes priority over everything else.
The idea of someone having to explain what harassment is occurring is of course unpleasant, but that’s also what makes it an effective method of trying to distract from the topic.
If he was being harassed that’s wrong, but it doesn’t make him immune from questions about other things.
https://retractionwatch.com/2026/07/27/cambridge-jason-arday...
https://ncofnas.com/p/dei-fraud-and-cover-up-at-cambridge
I don’t wish this poor man ill, and a huge mess has been created at every level it seems, all around him. Having read some of his contentious thesis the issue that arose for me, beyond the plaigarism question, was that it was generally hyperbolic and at points, word salad, unable to present a target that could be refuted or argued against. Zero clue what Cambridge were doing with and to this guy, or what the standards are for appointing people and critiquing their work if it’s feeding a prevailing narrative. I know John Moores, who awarded his PhD is far from rigorous and I know from experience that there is almost nothing that would have stopped them awarding him the doctorate once the work was complete, regardless whether it was plagiarised or didn’t stand up to scrutiny from anywhere outside of his small angle on sociological discourse. This all points to him being a symptom of an extremely widespread and serious issue that has arisen within British academia, not a cause of anything major.
I wouldn’t have wished him dead though, this is pretty tragic that the intense scrutiny over what should be a very niche and minor academic issue inside a university got blown up into front page news. He didn’t deserve or warrant that kind of scrutiny either, so has clearly completely collapsed from it, because it would be hard for anyone to take.
Reams of lifted passages look quite obvious.
The University of Cambridge is largely to blame for letting this troubled person dig himself in so deep.
His astounding claims were astonishing and easily falsifiable. Journalists had no such trouble.
They raised him up then when he got too hot cast him down.
He was a fantasist, he deserves some blame, but it was Cambridge with the power, and irresponsible hubris
RIP
It was BEE and it was race based and also on quota's to get the new govt contracts
We got a new class of useless tendergarchs and in some cases of companies doing fronting - meaning appointing black people to a board in meaningless positions because they were black and not because of merit.
I could tell you the black person were always in charge of HR or transformation or environment, and we had professional board members - they were on the boards of maybe 10 different companies, yet the CEO and CTO or CFO was still the same old.
It is like telling us - we can't trust them yet.
As a non-white person I was disgusted about of these BEE appointees - they got the money but did not care how about making actual changes but useless empty vessels.
As it stands in the US at least, it's a corporate marketing term referring to the whitewashing that happened after the 2020 protests to characterize the efforts corporations use to cover their asses from discrimination lawsuits as somehow pro-human. Let's not portray this as some kind of political movement rather than a liability concern.
[1] https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/equality-diversity-...
Wrong, it's really clear what was truth and what wasnt tbh
>I am also curious where the racism claim comes from?
He was Anglophobic/anti-White.
He was clearly a scammer but he couldn’t have scammed that much alone.
My suspicion is that he was killed to cover up something much larger.
I think some of the people in this thread should look themselves in the mirror and ask why feel different in this case than similar cases like Dan Ariely, Amy Cuddy, or Marc Tessier Levigne.
Ariely et al that you mention weren't questioned or exposed any less though. There was Elizabeth Holmes too.
The point is, if you cannot bear getting exposed as a false god, as a con, then don't try to become one. Well don't, even you can bear the exposure.
Perhaps their real crimes were not having better PR, or enough money to hire a crisis management firm. Whatever it was, it really seems to have brought out the worst (in) people.
> Perhaps their real crimes were not having better PR, or enough money to hire a crisis management firm.
He hired Carter Ruck, a professional law firm, who then bullied The Times with legal threats that themselves contained by lies by Arday. And he had been given nothing less than glowing PR by every "serious" institution in Britain, which all repeated his lies without question up until a few days ago.
Good PR and funds for crisis management were not an issue for him.
Arday wanted all the attention/awards/book deals, but didn't want put basic effort to hide his tracks.
for his thesis, if he had gone the route of translate(english->spanish->vietnamese->arabic->english), he could have 1) beat plagiarism 2) gotten few more ideas of how to extend the original thesis to new directions. /s in case someone is taking this seriously.
There have been accusations of plagiarism, of AI written text, of published biographical stories not being true, and on, and on, and on.
Honestly, even if all of these accusations were true - and there are plenty of people prepared to say at least some of them are not - it didn't deserve the media scrutiny and pile-on that he was subject to.
Why did it happen? I think most people can tell you why. Look at his photo. It's the first thing you notice.
If you tell me you're "colour blind", what you mean is you don't care about prejudice, even (perhaps especially), when it exists and destroys a man's life. I'm white, I'm not colour blind because that diminishes many of the people in my life and their lived experience.
He's dead because he's black, and there are parts of our society that just can't handle having a black man as a professor at Cambridge, even in 2026.
As somebody who strives to be proud of the UK and its aspirations, this story makes me feel sick.
RIP.
Its amazing no one at Cambridge spotted his lies and took action earlier.
Black British people know their own history and have their own lived experience in the UK. I won't speak for them, but I will say for certain only a handful of cretins in the UK, of any ethnicity, are stupid enough to larp as Yanks.
Learn a bit of UK history and current affairs before you mouth off.
The colour bar. Colored Alien Seaman's Order, Kelso Cochrane, Bristol Bus Boycott
Could go up to Brixton incidents or all the attacks on this professor.
How bad was it? I didn't notice anything of the sort, and I'm curious if maybe your algorithm feeds you a fire hydrant of crap most people never see.
I ask because there were instances of plagiarism between 2016 and 2020 (I only remember it was Trump's first term) that I saw significant media coverage of, including them being called before Congress in the USA.
For this guy, I only saw one headline, when the alleged plagiarism was revealed, and that was it. I didn't even recognize this guy's name when I saw this new headline on here a few minutes ago. (I did recognize him once I saw his pic at the OP link.)
This might be just the reverse of a common thing online: "Why won't the media cover this story??" when in fact they are covering this story, it's just that you are passively looking only at what your friends are reposting on social media.
EDIT: also not for nothing, but if your argument is "prejudice exists because racists think he shouldn't have been at Cambridge," then him plagiarizing and lying about things cuts against your entire argument bc, assuming the allegations are true, he never belonged at Cambridge, and his race is irrelevant.
(I agree significant prejudice against Black people exist in the developed world, but I'm disinclined to agree about it here considering the women in the US—another historically disadvantaged group—who faced these same allegations a few years ago didn't crash out and kill themselves. Which is what it sounds like this individual did. And in those women's cases, it's with the full weight of Trump's MAGA calling for their heads and probably worse.)
It's not academic but the closest similar case that's coming to mind off the top of my head was when James Frey (who FWIW is white) got found out for A Million Little Pieces, which definitely was major news.
The news cycle about Harvard University president in December 2023 might have been close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudine_Gay#Plagiarism_invest...
No, this has been top 5 headline news in the UK for the last week. Basically every major media outlet has been covering it, including BBC, guardian, Telegraph, daily mail etc.
> Cambridge initially said claims of plagiarism regarding Arday's thesis and some journal publications had been investigated by Liverpool John Moores University (LMJU) and the journals in question.
> LJMU - which awarded Arday his PhD in 2015 - concluded that he had not plagiarised work.
It is absolutely undeniable that there has been a witch hunt against minorities in positions of power in the last few years. It is unclear to me whether this guy actually did anything wrong.
What is clear to me, though, is that the level of scrutiny and the attacks he received are not consistent with what most white men in similar situations received.
https://retractionwatch.com/2026/07/27/cambridge-jason-arday...
https://ncofnas.com/p/dei-fraud-and-cover-up-at-cambridge
You can examine his writing and the writing he stole from, side by side. I would suggest doing that instead of believing an institution who has no choice but to lie if they want students to apply to their grad schools in the future.
1. He exaggerated/lied about some of his accomplishments and aspects of his life. 2. The accomplishments and aspects of his life he exaggerated/lied about did not seem to be about his academic success. Generic life puffery that, while dishonest, did not make him unqualified for his position. 3. Anti-DEI crusaders decided to make an example of him. 4. Had he not been a person of color, the scrutiny would have had a very different shape.
He was a fabulist who certainly was more scrutinized because of his skin color, but it really shouldn’t be disputed that he plagiarized and lied profusely.
That doesn’t mean remotely he deserved this.
I also have little hope that everyone who contributed to this sordid tale, from Cambridge, police etc. will have to account for their profound failures.
The total opposite occured. He was uncrutinized because of his skin color.
RIP