Ex-Cambridge Professor At Center of Plagiarism Row Found Dead (bbc.com)
- Reference: 0184976551
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/08/14/2050245/ex-cambridge-professor-at-center-of-plagiarism-row-found-dead
- Source link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1j1ye6n30no
> Jason Arday was found "unresponsive" at an address in Battersea, south London, on Friday afternoon, emergency services said. Metropolitan Police officers were called by the London Ambulance Service. A 41-year-old man was pronounced dead at the scene and his next of kin have been informed, the force said. Arday resigned as a Cambridge professor of sociology of education last week after allegations of plagiarism and questions about some of his achievements. He had denied the claims.
>
> In a statement, the Met Police said: "At this time his death is being treated as unexpected, but is not believed to be suspicious." The 41-year-old academic had denied any plagiarism - but admitted errors in his work - and last week said the recent furore had led to "an unrelenting level of public scrutiny and personal attack." The [3]row first erupted after another academic -- self-defined "race realist" Nathan Cofnas, who was sacked from his Cambridge role in 2024 -- said he found numerous instances of plagiarism in Prof Arday's work and questioned some of his stated achievements.
>
> [...] Announcing his resignation last week, Arday said the "personal cost" of the scrutiny had become "too great." He said: "While criticism is an inevitable part of academic life, what I have experienced has gone far beyond scholarly disagreement. "The relentless accusations, speculation and public commentary have taken a profound toll on me and on those I love." He stressed that his resignation should not "be mistaken for an acceptance of the narratives that have surrounded me."
[1] https://goodlawproject.org/an-update-from-jason-arday/
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1j1ye6n30no
[3] https://slashdot.org/bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78gmp7zylvo
Sad, and but learn the right lessons (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a large part of the left which is reacting to do (such as on Bluesky) by saying that this is a sign that there was a terrible media focus on Arday. But this is the wrong lesson. The fault is primarily with Cambridge and Liverpool John Moore University. Cambridge when faced with the myriad evidence of plagiarism and academic dishonesty, could have just fired him. But they didn't. And Liverpool could have said that the thesis contained plagiarism, but they tried to claim otherwise when it was pretty obvious. And the plagiarism is pretty blatant as you can see just from reading the original post by Nathan Cofnas on it. [1]https://substack.com/@nathancofnas/p-207415162 [substack.com] (Cofnas having unpleasant or reprehensible views doesn't make this analysis inaccurate.) Cofnas doesn't mention there, but it is also worth noting that when Arday plagiarized, as he did there and in other things, he routinely targeted for plagiarism works of people who were of low social status, people from developing countries and the like. This looks like targeted plagiarism, premeditated to avoid detection or response.
And that was aside from all the other things, like his bizare claims about his running record, or his claims about raising massive sums of money for charities, or how he also claimed to be non-verbal until he was 11 and illiterate until he was in his teenage years. Or how he claimed to be on a TV show which had been canceled. And he claimed to have gotten people showing up to threaten him in person at his office in Cambridge but then Cambridge was unable to find any evidence such events occurred. [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Arday#Allegations [wikipedia.org]. Or how Arday got the police to investigate people who brought up concerns [3]https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rd9y99grzo [bbc.com].
If Cambridge had acted early on and fired him and just let him go, the attention level this got would have been far smaller. And it isn't the fault of the media here. Cambridge is one of the most prestigious universities on the planet. If Cambridge or Oxford is keeping on someone who is a fabulist who has plagiarized and lied, then it is the job of the media of the pay attention to that.
Unfortunately, the wrong lessons will likely be learned. The left will see this as primarily about racism, not noticing that while some people were motivated by racism, that Adray wouldn't have been in his position if it weren't for genuine problems with the university in accepting him to his position and then defending him when all of this started coming out. Parts of the left will likely see this as a reason to go defend the next academic accused of bad behavior purely because they are on the right. The extreme right will use this as a cudgel against "DEI" and to shmear other minority academics, the vast majority of whom are completely qualified and some of whom have overcome genuine hardship to get where they are.
I have to feel very sorry for Arday's children and spouse. They don't deserve this. And obviously, Arday bears most of the blame; at the end of the day, people are responsible for their own actions, and if he hadn't kept adding lie on top of lie, this would not have happened. But Cambridge does bear responsibility in part. I doubt that the University will spend any time engaging in the self-examination that should occur.
[1] https://substack.com/@nathancofnas/p-207415162
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Arday#Allegations
[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rd9y99grzo
Re: (Score:2)
"I doubt that the University will spend any time engaging in the self-examination that should occur." Unfortunately they probably will, but the findings will not be what common sense says they should be.,
well (Score:1)
the plagiarist former president of Harvard is still a full professor there. it's a shame we went to electric toll systems, we really need a job like "toll booth attendant" for these unqualified cheating morons who are barely fit for anything.
I mean, the guy didn't have to turn himself into compost; I'm sure he would have been a perfectly good ditch-digger. That said, even though actual accountability would have been much preferred I'm glad this dipshit isn't a fucking Cambridge professor anymore. What an em
Re: (Score:2)
> Or how Arday got the police to investigate people who brought up concerns
Arday wasn't a dummy. He knew who he could get away with plagiarizing. He plagiarized minor academics; people that didn't have the power to shift authorities. People that were vulnerable to jackboots investigation "threats." He knew better than to plagiarize someone that mattered.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently he *was* a dummy since he *didn't* get away with it.
shameful clickbait (Score:4, Insightful)
story has absolutely nothing to do with 'news for nerds', but editors know it's going to generate lots of vitriol and clicks.
shameful shit.
Re: (Score:2)
The only correct take is to ignore. Ignoring makes it go away.
Re: (Score:1)
"Stuff that matters" is also part of the Slashdot ethos. And this stuff matters to many of the slashdotters who hang out here.
Re: (Score:1)
ok so then why haven't we seen stories about other stuff that REALLY REALLY matters here, like the [1]withdrawal of funding for Jodrell Bank Observatory [theguardian.com], or the [2]death of Gunther von Hagens [theguardian.com] ??
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/jul/27/jodrell-bank-observatory-facing-closure-uk
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/27/gunther-von-hagens-creator-of-body-worlds-and-plastination-dies-aged-81
Re: (Score:2)
If you think it matters, then submit a story.
Re: (Score:2)
Cambridge professors certainly qualify as nerds even if they are not in computer science.
Therefore an article about a plagiarism happy professor getting caught out is relevant here.
Re: (Score:1)
100% this is about publications, plagiarism, professors, universities, and sociology. If we can post articles about the ReiserFS guy because he axed his wife, we can certainly post articles about professors who axed themselves when their fabrications caught up to them. The overall climate of DEI adds a political context, but it is an accessory to, not fundamental to, the nerdiness of this story.
Re: (Score:2)
It feels artificial though, when half of slashdotters staunchly defend a serial liar and con man no matter what.
We no longer live in the days of Hans Reiser's crimes, when the default position was that everyone is equal before the law, and that murder is wrong. That's when Slashdot could reasonably host discussions on the concrete facts of the matter.
Now it's all about left vs right this, DEI that, and speculation about transgender surgery. TFA is just an excuse to rehash all this, no matter what TFA is
Re: shameful clickbait (Score:2)
How did we get from the question of if the story was appropriate for Slashdot (which it definitely is) to how the comment section turned into a bunch of racist rants? A series of events happened. A man is dead. If people can't focus on the facts, choosing instead to assume his color is somehow the reason, that is on the racists, not the editors.
Re: (Score:2)
> shameful shit.
This is a tragic story, and the schadenfreude from the right is indeed shameful.
But that doesn't mean that the story should be buried, or you get to bury your head in the sand and not see this as a warning about a far bigger problem with DEI.
The fast-track promotion of a fantasising PE teacher to Cambridge professor is not an isolated incident. Four years after he claims to have learned to read! He was hired as evidence for a sociological theory.
Ideology has become more important than meri
Pass/fail (Score:2)
Fail.
DEI is to blame (Score:1, Insightful)
They told someone who was not qualified that he could lie, cheat, and plagiarize his way to the top as long as he had enough melanin. When it became politically inconvenient, they through him out on his ear and acted shocked. DEI is the opposite of equality - it is racist and oppressive and contrary to reason.
Re:DEI is to blame (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, no. DEI is systematic racism that blindly promotes minorities at the expense of white people, especially straight, white men.
If there's any fault in the death of Arday, it belongs with the people who promoted him unquestioningly despite his self-promotional claims that were increasingly ridiculous and factually dubious.
I say that as a progressive Democrat based in the US who long believed in MLK's dream that people "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." DEI reverses that and judges people on the color of their skin, promoting minorities ahead of anyone else. DEI propelled Arday to such academic heights were he completely didn't belong due to his lack of academic merit.
The woke pushed DEI. That's a separate and distinct group from liberals and progressives, who never fully bought the DEI claims.
Re: (Score:1)
> DEI is systematic racism that blindly promotes minorities at the expense of white people, especially straight, white men.
Sure, 'cause white men have historically had such a tough time finding employment and advancement over people who aren't. /s DEI initiatives are an attempt, probably flawed, to ensure people aren't hired over others just because they're white men - which definitely happens. The words behind the acronym - Diversity, Equity and Inclusion - are actually good things that can, and often do, provide benefits in the work place, unless, of course, your products and services are only for white men. There's an ar
Confusing Equity and Equality (Score:4, Informative)
No, ensuring "people aren't hired over others just because they're white men" is called equality. That's the opposite of equity, which attempts to provide equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity. In practice, equity is implemented through preferential treatment of minorities over white people in areas such as hiring and promotion, especially over straight, white men. (BTW, that preferential hiring is illegal, but employers following DEI practices still do it.)
Re: (Score:3)
Both things can be true. White men have had it easy historically but that doesn't mean we must over-correct now.
Re: (Score:2)
> Both things can be true. White men have had it easy historically but that doesn't mean we must over-correct now.
Optimally, we want to correct to exactly the right amount.
Several things to keep in mind. First, yes, racism (and by that I mean racism against blacks) still exists. Second, not everything is racism. Third, statistics are a good way to detect whether racism exists, but, viewing 3 in light of 2, you can't use statistics to ascribe any particular firing, or failure of one candidate to get a job, to racism. Finally, fourth, when a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be useful as a metric ("Goodhart's Law")
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure about statistics being a good way to detect if racism exists. For example I could make the claim that NBA is racist against white players based on statistics. That's obviously silly.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I assumed it went without saying to the slashdot audience that stupid use of statistics is not helpful. Apparently I assumed wrong.
As a dozen old slashdot posts will tell you, correlation is not causation. Statistics are not a substitute for thinking, they are a tool for separating signal from random noise, but you still have to figure out what the signal means.
Re: DEI is to blame (Score:2)
Only when it's done wrong. Which it is sometimes.
Start with the premise that a total ordering by merit is impossible. The margin of error is too high. At best, you can define merit equivalence classes. Within the top classes you should hire a random sample that has the same racial makeup as the population. If it's truly random that happens automatically.
Re: (Score:1)
> Only when it's done wrong. Which it is sometimes.
Not just “sometimes”: per Bloomberg, 94% of Fortune 100 new hires in 2021 went to “people of color”.
[1]https://www.bloomberg.com/grap... [bloomberg.com]
> At best, you can define merit equivalence classes. Within the top classes you should hire a random sample that has the same racial makeup as the population. If it's truly random that happens automatically.
It didn’t.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/
Re: (Score:3)
Today, the only systemic abuse of power that's done by organizations across the economy are ones using DEI to promote minorities over straight, white men.
And no, you're making the assumption that I'm a right-winger. I've been a solid blue Dem for over 20 years. I hate Trump and the Republicans far more than DEI. That said, I can't stand the woke far-left either. I'm hardly the lone Democrat who can't stand the woke leftists.
Re: Wait so you're asleep? (Score:2)
Only? Perhaps you haven't been paying attention....
Re: (Score:2)
> And no, you're making the assumption that I'm a right-winger.
To be fair, by "right-winger" the gp troll means anyone who thinks far-left dogma can be questioned.
It's like when the actual far-right call Democrats "socialist". They both think the world falls into 2 extremes - them, and anyone who does not 100% agree with them.
Re: (Score:3)
I already told you I'm a progressive Dem. I'm not going to defend Trump and his administration's bullshit. The Dems were around long before DEI. Not all of us agree with that philosophy. Plenty of us disagree. Equality should never have been replaced with equity.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a lot more than race politics going on here. In Jason's own words:
> like, you know, it would be the greatest story in the world if the kid who didn't know how to read and write was managed to get a Ph.D.
This was a dream for certain academics. Jason was the poster child for intersectionality .
Black, working-class, neurodivergent. A trifecta. Sociologists saw his story as a case study in navigating multiple systemic barriers within higher education simultaneously.
Re: (Score:1)
Fascinating. If you are a "progressive" white male then methinks that lack a, fundamental understanding of the purpose, and unfortunately the necessity of these initiatives...also, I find your misappropriation of the term "systemic racism" to be insulting because it implies that one social construct can employ, oh, I don't know, things like redlining, Jim Crow, slavery etc. You know, the little things...so by definition you're essentially positing that minorities can impose those same mechanisms against the
Re: DEI is to blame (Score:1)
You dipsticks were suspiciously silent, masked up, and taking a knee back when the woketards were running slightly more wild than they are today.
First they came for the magats, and I said nothing eh?
I voted for a dem once. 20 years ago for Ed Rendell because he wasn't batshit crazy and his republican challenger was comically unserious (before it was cool). Never again. A guy likr that couldn't make it to the top of the ticket on your side anymore unless he pinkieswears to let the barbarians through the gate
Re: (Score:3)
Jason Arday may have been an academic hire that slipped through the cracks. It happens. But you haven't shown evidence that he was a "DEI hire."
[1]Here's an article [theguardian.com] published two days ago, before his death. It raises several points that push back on the notion that he was a DEI hire, while admitting he may not have been up to Cambridge's standards.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/aug/12/jason-arday-life-conversation-dei
Re: (Score:2)
The ( Trotsky-slut ) Guardian is not a respectable reference. Very like using a KKK, CCP . VDARE, Pravda or Spartacist publication as a references.
Re: (Score:2)
the pre-DEI status quo was, as you put it, "racist and oppressive and contrary to reason" but the privileged always feel oppressed whenever it looks like the playing field is leveling
Re: (Score:2)
A level playing field would for the vast majority of positions be blind hiring based entirely on the established work product with all sources used triple checked and any and all appeals to emotion in the portfolio grounds for disqualification.
Re: (Score:2)
And whenever you have blind hiring based on merit, it turns out to be RACIST because companies mostly hire white men.
Equality is obvious nonsense, but the left will cling to it to the bitter end because their entire ideology is based on the false claim that people are or can be equal.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that only 1% of the professors in British universities are black means that at UK universities hiring somebody because they're black must be less than 1% of the hires.
So if, in fact,"DEI hires" exist, they are a trivial fraction of the total.