I think there was a real piece of buried treasure here, namely, today I learned that there is an entire journal called "Whiteness and Education," published by Taylor and Francis which is already on volume 11.
Just think for a moment about how much we, collectively, have learned about "whiteness" from the scores of articles already published in this journal, and the many thousands of hours of work that the authors and reviewers put into them. Truly, we are living in a golden age of science and enlightenment.
But just like other destructive cultural trends it should not be forgotten but held up as a lesson. There's a lot of lessons to be learned but first and foremost is the idea that one has to defer to certain people because of a demographic they belong to. That it's actually bad to treat people the same regardless of race, gender, nationality and so on. Much of it stems from this reversal that all of a sudden decided bias, generalizations about certain demographics, discrimination and so on we're very very good as long as it benefited specific groups.
From I scientific perspective,I think it is worse how their "science" often consists of asking people how they feel about something and draw conclusions from that.
E.g. black people feel like there is racism, so there is racism. It's not completely without merit, but from a scientific perspective it is useless.
Lysenkoism was largely abandoned by the late 1960s, and the Japhetic theory was rejected by Stalin. The social "sciences" and humanities were probably an ideological mess, but that's true of all societies including modern liberal democracies. It's generally hard to convince scientists to hold on to empirically wrong idea for long, especially when your ideology claims to be rooted in scientific materialism.
When I ask Assistant, it says the most important sociologists in the Soviet were Pjotr Fedosejev, Michail Rutkevitj, and Gennady Osipov. Their articles on Wikipedia are short, and Rutkevitj (Swedish spelling) doesn't even have one.
Despite their heavy books, they won't be rehabilitated or read again, because there just isn't any truth or reality to them.
If we contrast it to Western sociologists -- Habermas, Foucault, Bourdieu, Berger, Giddens, -- we'll be referencing them in 50 years from now. Because at least there was some reality in what they wrote (even if they were wrong about many things). It's more than an ideological mess.
That's why Woke stuff is more closely related to Soviet science. Take one of the important thinkers, Ibram Kendi, when did you last hear of him? In 10 years he will be nothing but a footnote.
> If we contrast it to Western sociologists -- Habermas, Foucault, Bourdieu, Berger, Giddens, -- we'll be referencing them in 50 years from now.
Not because they necessarily have more "truth or reality" to them. Mostly because the others are associated with a fallen government system.
If Germany had won WW2, nobody in Europe would be quoting the liberal sociologists either, even after the regime softened and direct prohibitions have stopped, just because they'd be associated to a losing system (and quoting them wouldn't advance anybody's career either).
But not before it will do a lot of societal damage. They are steadily brainwashing more and more people every year that will end up taking positions in our government institutions. Because that is what these institutions are, covert socialist brainwash factories.
Just look at something like Gender studies, it is basically Marxism but molded towards gender while hiding it is really Marxism. Instead of bourgeoisie/proletariat it is non-ally white men/women etc.
They are basically creating their own version of Fight Club. Then when a conservative politician wants to cut government waste they will be opposed by thousands of brain washed useless bureacrats who only really know one thing well: how to destroy institutions from the inside.
"Then when a conservative politician wants to cut government waste they will be opposed..."
You just embodied one of the greatest successes of racial socialism, which virtually all of its self-styled opponents share. You started with the singular ("a"), and then switched to the plural ("they").
The other great recent success of rs, is capitalizing "black," which you were not guilty of.
I don’t know , but I don’t mind using the words the other side demands, so at least we don’t need to argue about the words. There’s plenty other stuff we can argue about.
For example, I don’t believe a man who puts on a wig becomes a woman, but if they demand it, I can call him a “her”.
For me it is the other way around. If they ask politely I will consider doing it when in their company. But when they start demanding it, forcing me to say it I resist.
Let's get real here, at the end of the day they are living in a fantasy world. They are basically larping (but on steroids, quite literally sometimes). They just need more people to play along to make it more believable. And the implications of playing along with them everywhere is that you will have men in womens sports, prisons, bathrooms etc. And it will spread, they will not stop at one thing. They are trying to brain wash 6 year olds already, essentially it is a bit like a religion.
I think Nudists understood the game, they know they are weirdos. They have their own spaces where they can play their game of walking around naked. They dont force it on the rest of us. They dont try to normalize it.
If we take trans women in women's sport, starting of by calling them men and "he" does the opposite. It makes them able to say "look these people are just transphobes".
I've written books (unpublished). If I use some other term than LGBTQ, I'm not been taken seriously -- other than by people who don't read books. It's important to try and use neutral terms to be taken seriously.
The other side demands that we use the words it chooses, because it knows that we will then become its mental prisoners. You are a willing prisoner. People like you will always say that there's no point fighting over words, and then you also surrender on everything else.
This has gone on for over 100 years, with Whites surrendering to black supremacists (so-called "civil rights"), feminazis, homosexuals, sexual psychopaths, etc.
I have better things to do than worry about if my words are making me a “mental prisoner” for the left wing.
I’m trying to change things, or to at least say things I reasonably believe are true.
I think the opposite of what you think. If our first argument is “i don’t agree with your definition of the words” then we never get further, and they will win the debate.
Seriously. Writing Black with capital or lower B is not making anyone a prisoner to anything. Arguing about what words to use is something the left-wing can dedicate their energy to.
Absolutely. I for one feel incredibly grateful to have such a wealth of reading and reference material I can draw from, whenever I need to find a way to couch my inherent nastiness in some beige-and-blandified sounding moniker, which I can then be castigated for, both by those with more melanin in their skin than me...as well as those who like to pretend that they're the most insanely righteous cultural warriors out there taking non-blue-haired scalps—even though they have even more homogeneity within their own circle of friends and family than your average Klan member.
Thank heavens the literary world just knows to take all of the problematic authors immediately out of my sphere of view—both online and in IRL bookstores also—so I rarely have to encounter an argument I haven't already learned how to refute. (Not using logic of course: I just figure out what I can pick on in an adversary, focus on that and then turn it all around and play the victim, once they get upset.)
I must say, it's been a fabulous system thus far. 10/10 would use to help hide my racist tendencies behind a wall of white guilt & histrionics, again.
Yeah. Guess I need to add some Robin DiAngelo to my TBR. Although I'll likely get around to reading the autobiography of that esteemed scholar Trever Noah, titled 'Born A Crime' first. And I absolutely won't ever go anywhere near Kaufmann's 'Whiteshift' anytime soon. Pinky swear.
I have a cousin who's ranked in the top few ultramarathon runners at Canadian races, and it still took him 20+ hours to complete 100 miles. Arday's story reads like folk legends you'd hear in middle age towns.
I think they just know what would happen if they disputed the legend. Self-preservation is a strong motivator and academics would be shunned if someone whispered the R word about them.
Well, technically. He's not even excelling at that. You'd at least have a fake Strava account or something to semi back up your clainms. He's also claimed to have raised £5m. That's the kind of thing that takes an ordinary person a lifetime to do even a 10th of that. He's just gone for, "cry racism if any claim is questioned, no matter how outlandish".
Eddie Izzard is a millionaire and filmed his efforts. This guy claims to have done it off his own back with no publicity nor doing it for charity. 0% of this makes sense.
Your last sentence is all too true. I'm reminded of this grifter in the US (at least there is video of him in competitive track meets, so that part is true, unlike Arday): Source: NBC News https://share.google/PZjZBFb3Hv6MTc2ey
This dude appears to have tried to introduce an affectation into his so-called "scholarship," quoting lyrics in the titles of his papers: "No one can see me cry" is from the R.E.M. song "Imitation of Life," "The Times They Are A-Changin" is obviously a Bob Dylan song title and lyric and "We'll see things they'll never see" is from an Oasis song ("Live Forever").
Great work on this article. This serial plagiarist should be stripped of his credentials and position.
> This serial plagiarist should be stripped of his credentials and position.
But he won't be. Cases like his are common. Look at the black woman who was running Harvard. Also found to be a plagiarist, "demoted" to a position where she earns $800k a year.
Universities are just jokes. We don't need them. Liquidate the lot and use the buildings for something more useful, like tourism.
in 2013, the director of education for the Toronto School Board was busted for plagiarism in his PhD thesis and more recent articles. he was fired and stripped of his PhD. that was mainly because of public outcry though
Des Moines Public Schools was in the news for hiring "Dr." Ian Roberts, an immigrant from Guyana with quite a colorful backstory, as Superintendent.
His published biography was full of fabrications. He also coauthored "Dangerous Indifference: The Case for Culturally Sensitive Leadership," in which he has commentary about George Floyd. In 2021, he earned a PhD from a for-profit online university, Trident University International. For his dissertation in PK-12 leadership, he administered an online questionnaire to 15 "African American or Latinx" people.
It gives the impression that a black job candidate just needs to show up in a nice suit to secure a position these days. Roberts earned $300k per year in his role as Superintendant.
it's the bigotry of low expectations. progressives don't see that it's actually racist to act like an entire cohort of people are unable to follow the same academic rules as everybody else.
Quite a leap from finding that there are some cheats in academia (as there are everywhere there are humans) to saying academia as a whole is a waste and universities are stupid. I think you need to do some research yourself.
I don't think the whole thing is a waste. I took a few courses that I absolutely loved. But the Humanities, at least, is in need of a major overhaul.
As an undergrad, I did a double major in English and History. Half of each history course was devoted to historiography (methods, viewpoints, interpretations, and biases in the writing of history). Michel Foucault was assigned reading in 85% of the courses I took in BOTH English and History. Outside of a nakedly propagandist aim, what could possibly justify assigning a single author as frequently as my professors did?
Almost invariably, we were handed theory with no history or context.
We were assigned Laura Mulvey’s "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" (which claims women in film are passive objects dehumanized and objectified by the “male gaze”) but not Lacan. We were assigned Foucault but not Nietzsche. We were assigned Judith Butler but not Simone de Beauvoir.
I went to University because I wanted to learn how to think. I ended up embarking on a program of retroactive retribution against cis het white males (something I bought into 100% at the time). I viewed every human interaction through the reductive social justice framework of oppressor v oppressed. All of history was the subjugation of women by men and the tyrannical patriarchy. I was ashamed of my civilizational inheritance because…slavery (my profs elided the facts that slavery during the Islamic conquests lasted three times as long as the Transatlantic slave trade and that indigenous Americans practiced it too). I was assigned none of the foundational texts of Western civilization. I had to pursue all that stuff on my own later, haphazardly.
Academics in the humanities are engaged in “me-search,” faux research wherein they use academic jargon and buzzwords in the service of navel gazing. They try to legitimize it by calling it “auto-ethnography” or “subjective inquiry” but it’s basically just an excuse to talk about oneself and call it rigorous academic work. This occurs mostly in the fields of Critical Race Theory and Gender Studies. Examples of me-search: Eliza Steinbock's Shimmering Images, Patricia Williams' The Alchemy of Race and Rights: Diary of a Law Professor, or anything published in The Journal of Loss and Trauma. There is no objective methodology. It's not real research.
Treating the humanities as a staging ground from which to project a political ideology or one's identity is solipsistic, narcissistic, and narrow minded.
If the Humanities are going to be resurrected, Universities need to reverse the far left's capture of their departments. It's unbelievable that institutions of higher learning need to be reminded that a singular viewpoint on all subjects will not result in a well-rounded education, or that teaching students to hate western civilization while demanding grants and tax breaks from the federal government is deeply hypocritical.
I did my undergrad @ University of Toronto 2008-2013. I did a Master's the year after that before leaving academia entirely. I was upset about leaving at the time but hiring policies in Universities in the 2010s were quite openly looking for anyone who wasn't a straight white cis male. I'm glad now that I stopped mainlining postmodern deconstructionist relativist Marxist horseshit and pursued my own curriculum.
Those days pale in comparison to today. I remember noticing the signs and seeing those who mentioned it be called conspiracy theorists. But the direction was there.
The problem isn't the existence of cheats (as you point out, hardly a novel phenomenon); the problem is the (lack of) proper, moral institutional responses to them. I also don't think academia is useless or a waste, but it's definitely in danger of becoming so if it gives up all authority to maintain quality control. There's of course been a widespread loss of faith in many institutions since the mid-2010s, including academia. I don't think the others have quite deserved it as much as academia, though. At this point anyone who's worked recently in academia would have a story for you about a DEI hire who was protected from on high by the prince of darkness himself. My best example (of several), like Jason Arday, plagiarized quite a bit of his scholarly output and--once hired at my former institution--just kind of refused as a policy to attend any meetings, on the grounds that he didn't want to do "emotional labor." He missed several student oral exams because by his own admission he stayed up all night talking to women in Asia. This institution, by the way, is nominally a conservative Great Books school that recently has had to lay off quite a bit of non-tenured faculty because of budget cuts and the demographic cliff. Guess who's still there, beaming at one from every corner of the website? I don't really want colleges and universities to die for what amount, in the end, to aesthetic reasons. But they sure seem to be trying to commit suicide over this nonsense, helped along by the designated morons on the far right.
It isn't a matter of "some cheats". These "cheats" are placed there by the university regents. There is an agenda at work here (if it isn't already blatant to everyone) that has been playing out across all the major institutions of the West, leading to Western governments making policy and acting in ways that are directly against the interests of the populations they supposedly serve. These governments and institutions have obviously been captured. This is widespread coordinated political and cultural treason, not a handful of cheats acting independently.
I've read hundreds of academic papers across scores of fields over the past decade to reach this conclusion. Research: done.
Academia is rife with cheating at every level. Some fields are better or worse than others, but the few fields that aren't terrible are also easily handled better by industry. We don't need these organizations and they do everything possible to make us hate them.
I got my last degree in 1995. I’m sad to hear it’s all changed so much. I was warned not to go into academia but mostly because of the funding cuts and refusal to hire permanent professors, less because of ideological pressures. But I cannot deny that family members who graduated later had the same kind of narrow ideology pushed on them. Here’s to hoping the pendulum swings back because a life in academia can be so rewarding (I know many professors but from ages ago).
I hope the pendulum swings back too. It probably will. Universities have been around for too long to fail now. (The first time I went to Europe, it blew my mind that there were Universities from the 1200s.)
And the good teachers I had always made the bad ones worth enduring.
I used to want to be a professor. The first time I walked into a prof’s office, I was in heaven. Hardcover books lining all four walls. Student papers on the desk with confident notations in the margins. The tenured professors seemed so damn comfortable while the contract instructors all had the same wild-eyed, desperate, “please hire me” expression.
With the way the world is right now, it looks like we're heading for a collision course with Hard Reality. When that happens, all this woke rubbish will vanish with the morning mist. It may even reach the point - cue the smelling salts - that "toxic" male qualities will be required once more.
Hard reality? Where people are unequal depending on their gender, race, sexuality? Or equality where people can just be who they are and achieve based on their talents and effort? In a society that values humans or one that values power
The one thing this midwit managed to add to the plagiarized scholarship (which itself was fake research before he lifted it) is the title of the papers, which, being a midwit, he pulled from popular music. Of course.
What a great piece! Not sure why it fell to Nathan to expose this huckster. Perhaps the thinking is that he may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.
Frausters like Arday must be laughing all the way to the bank, that is if they are even aware of the fact that they are fraudsters. It could be that they are so convinced by their own deceit that they no longer see it for what it is. Or perhaps they feel they deserve the money, plaudits and awards anyway, simply for being black.
Cambridge is an absolute disgrace run by cowards and racial grievance-mongers. More of these take-downs, please!
These types are miserable. I think on some level they know they were advanced beyond their ability and so they are constantly on defense. This is a huge part of why they see racism everywhere.
Education is the safest, most coddled, least racist environment on Earth. Yet in every educational establishment I've been in, they act as though it's 1950s Alabama.
I think they tell themselves, whenever anyone engages in mild questioning of their scholarship, that it's white fragility and white conspiracy against them. They build a little rhetorical fortress around their own incompetence this way.
I would not be surprised if Substack claims " authors can decide the moderation decision rules " but in reality the AI moderator always has default background behaviour decided by Substack that author can't do much to prevent but only add to.
I know undergraduate students who have more substantive research experience and publications than this individual. Shocking to see what top institutions like Cambridge have become.
These are the people who screen candidates with an extremely fine comb, and this level of academic debauchery is unheard of. This is like giving a doctorate to a retard.
I think we're just surprised to see it at a top institution here in the UK. There is plenty of grift in the social sciences, I know, but this guy getting a professorship and everyone at Cambridge lauding his "scholarship" just seems to be on another level.
I mean, look at him. He dresses like a weird tarot card reader. There is nothing convincing. I found a clip of him on the BBC talking about migrants and even as a panellist providing basic soundbites, he seems out of his depth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee1oanxkN90&t=50s
Not only is it not "unheard of" but in current climes it is considered practically 'de rigueur' to bastardise the formerly hallowed halls of academia. And yes, it's supposed to irk you. It's supposed to make you angry, so you say or do something that can be forever used against you. Ask (virtually anyone who has been online for longer that 3 weeks) how they know.
I just decided that it was far more fun to leave school with only GCSEs, go to work in the kind of jobs that only the young are ever supposed to have to do, work hard and play harder. I spent the better part of my youth drinking, taking lots of drugs, letting my flat become a flop-house and just had way more fun than any of my friends who went away to university. They too drank a bit and did the odd 'E', but they came back with useless degrees, a shit-tonne of student debt, and one of them was pregnant, so she just married the father and gave up on anything else.
Meanwhile, I was actually really good at working damn hard in stressful environments. I moved from bar work, to hospitality, worked on a ferry, managed hotels a bit. Then when it all got a bit tiring, I figured it was time to grow up, so I switched to an entry level job in a finance company, worked my way up and by the time I was 30 I was bringing home a salary not to be sniffed at, a full complement of benefits, a very competitive pension plan, and an amazing team with whom it was an absolute joy to have next to me at 'the coalface'.
I'm now in my 40s. I have zero debt. I have savings. I have investments. I have a pension. I still only have a GCSE level of formal education, but I sure as shit didn't see anyone coming home from university any smarter or better equipped to take on the world as a fully functioning, independent adult. I can appear rough around the edges or as clipped and reserved as the moment requires; but there IS something quite satisfying about knowing I was always just going to be better off, getting out into the working world, doing something legal for money (mostly so I could something a little illegal on the weekends, lol) and not being interested in accruing any debt along the way.
I was also away from the intense leftist brainrot that permeates almost every area of academia, choosing instead to learn about the things I wanted to, on my own time, using my own money to buy my own books. Sure I was more liberal when I was younger, but as the old adage goes "if you aren't a liberal when you're young, you have no heart; but if you aren't a conservative when you're a little older, then you have no brain." I fully concur with that amusing little quote. Thankfully I was still able to enter the world of dating, whilst there were still men who acted like men, and women who were very much glad of it! Feminism was never something I found much truck with...probably because I'm a huge misogynist and hate most women. I reality, most women do in fact hate other women; it's only those of us who chose to opt out of the entire 'Kabuki-theatre-of-the-absurd' who are happy/willing to admit that though. The sooner this is learned, the saner your life will turn out to be.
It's just a shame that those of us who came up through the 90s, were as chilled a liberal as you could hope to find, getting to experience life before the internet was unleashed upon us...only for the truly retarded amongst us to start demanding guide-rails and various other bureaucratic methods of control, because they weren't able to control *themselves*...but what they also really hated, was the fact that they hated not being able to control *everyone else*. So we invented made-up rules and regulations, had a phalanx of Reddit moderators released onto the web, where they proceeded to act like they owned the place, in between periods of perving on any woman with an actual photo in her bio...or engaging in some yiffing with anyone willing to put on a foxes head and have fellow furries do whatever else it is that those weirdos do in a convention centre corridor on a Friday night.
Ahem. Sorry about that. I got a little carried away. Guess it was all that reminiscing. Oh well, on the plus side YOU also didn't go to university and I'm fairly sure you've managed to exist in the world quite adequately, without having to admit that you took a BA in Communications because you had no idea what you wanted to do with your life, but those student loans upfront were just too hard to ignore; especially around Spring Break time. But what would I know. I'm just a dumb broad who left school before doing her A-Levels and is really only formally educated to a GCSE level.
However am l supposed to compare to these intellectual titans, out there writing papers nobody wants to have to grade, about topics nobody will ever be able to use when out searching for a job in the real world?
You don't understand. They have a different understanding of science to us. We will never be able to appreciate the beauty inherent in those who occupy the coastal jewel that is Sentinel Island...but if we hang around there long enough, I'm sure we'll get to find out just how enriching they find both us and our culture. Just because they've never taken a Myers-Briggs personality test, doesn't mean they doesn't possess the intellect and acumen to knock the socks off of anyone else currently in academia.
Of course he's going to knock your socks off.
He would consider it vile to leave them on your feet as he's adding you to the cauldron above the campfire.
This is a quite extraordinary and very depressing tale (I write as a former professor of sociology myself). I witnessed quite a few cases of plagiarism in my career but nothing as blatant and extensive as this. I once knew an Australian professor who lost his job over a couple of paragraphs of inadvertent plagiarism. How Cambridge can jeopardise the university's standing by keeping this shyster on its books is beyond me.
And it's not just the plagiarism. The bullshit passing as 'research' that reputable journals have chosen to publish by this man is staggering. So much for peer review.
Congratulations on the meticulous research you've done on this - if Arday's 'research' warrants a chair at Cambridge, yours must surely deserve at least a Nobel prize!
My brother in law is a big shot in business….CEO here, CFO there, Director of Sales somewhere else. Remarkable career. He told me big corporations pay the “black tax”. Whatever number of blacks and other minorities the EEOC and other racial bean counters/grievance merchants require them to hire, they do it. Give the DEI hires a desk, a title, performance reviews, appropriate raises, and some sort of work to do. Some are quite capable, most aren’t, but it matters not. Their employment is duly documented and reported to those interested, and in my bro-in-law’s words, this charade “adds a nickel to the cost of a box of Tide.”
Also, I have a new favorite neologism: “Serious work in the sociology of education.”
You could take the entire body of work ever produced in the sociology of education, throw it in a furnace, and very few would notice and no one would be affected.
>You could take the entire body of work ever produced in the sociology of education, throw it in a furnace, and very few would notice and no one would be affected.
So true. 99.9% of is probably net zero worth. A few interesting things scattered around like seaglass on a beach.
As is commonly said in the States, “ …you ain’t seen nothing yet…”. DEI aside, the concept of note in your missive is gross incompetence masked with lies and theft (plagiarism) abetted by disingenuous Whites. Soon it may not be so simple a process to unmask these people due to advances in AI or LLM’s.
Example, about a year or so ago, a commentary group that I posted to had a member disclose that he had for several months not written any of his comments himself, but merely fed the current discussion into his favorite AI and reposted the results/responses under his name. Until that point, his comments in the group discussion were read, responded to, and in my opinion, notable for their contribution to the discussion. In short, this commenter was well respected within the group for his postings. And I must admit, his “experimental” use of our group as his subjects quite enlightening. Indeed, it drove me to delve into AI science much more than previous.
One can only image how many budding Jason Ardays are out there waiting to be unmasked. The problem with AI is not that it will replace humans in the workforce as much as it will make the incompetent appear competent. Had Arday not been so stupid as to be as blatant as you describe in his career promotion, he might never have been outed. I fear the next “Arday” will not be so obvious.
I'm not so sure. If anything I think that those who utilise DEI to benefit themselves (and I'm talking about everyone who is involved in pushing the 'Didn't Earn It' candidates to the top of their game—not just the initial race-grifters themselves) will do all that they can to wring the last drops of money and power out of their hustle. But they will also start to become less subtle with what they're doing. They know that "woke" has become something of a dirty word in polite company, so they rejig the terminology, pretend to be doing everything they can to bring complete *equity* (ahem) to the educational realm...and yes....that's going to involve those working behind the scenes, intentionally choosing the least educated/most retarded mouthpieces they can, and pushing them into positions of power they ought not ever even know about...because they want the pushback. They want the argument. They're prepared for some pretty nasty fights, but they're going to get away with even more outrageous candidates being given insane qualifications, positions, salaries and grants before it's all over.
They're going to rub your nose in it.
The ultimate end to these means is the same as it has always been in far-left circles: they want to bring the system down, topple all of the pillars that hold a society together, and then after a time of arsing around with some cribbed version of the Hegelian Dialect, they'll happily smash all you think you know and love, together (as thesis meets antithesis) with the resulting synthesis being little more than yet more failed commie idealism, and do everything they can to contribute to the destruction of academia. These people don't care about the things they claim to become expert in. Their agitation works as nothing more than a wrecking ball, but they have no blueprints at the ready for the moment when the dictatorship of the proletariat are finally able to step back, and let real communism succeed for the first time ever.
Lol.
Until then, they're happy to just be able to use the tools to torment and prevent others from achieving anything worth working towards, because meritocracies are "problematic". Entire swathes of knowledge can be all but tossed to one side, as the next generation of victims come of age and are told to embrace the flux, get a septum piercing and post online about how you suck off dogs at the weekend (or something equally "exotic" sounding) because, like, THEY are totally not racist-towards-those-with-four-legs...and anyone who thinks it's gross is obviously a bigot.
And if you think the things I'm typing out here are mad, you want to see what they actually admit to in their own papers, books, seminars, lectures and sperg-outs on Twitter. I could only ever hope to invent something as batshit insane sounding as: "Straight Black Men Are the White People of Black People". Yet these nutty hucksters receive tenure for it. I'm sure the government are handling it all for us though. We're probably at the point where Andy Burnham is going to tell Britain that when it comes to 'stamping out racism' we just need to import another 500K migrants, to flatten the curve.
I mean, It's not like that "logic" wasn't a load of old bollocks the first time they rolled it out or anything...
Understood. That’s the reason I started off with “DEI aside…” in my comment. My intention was to make a generalization wrt potential fraud—academic and otherwise—outside of the all too commonly encountered “race hustlers” using the new development of AI. I did so fairly poorly as I read the comment again—a sure “tell” that AI was not used. 😉
I do love that. I used to think that my form of rambling was so waffling and littered with cuss-words/insults, that nobody would ever think it was AI generated or edited. Then I was accused on Twitter of using AI to compose my tweets because of...and I shit you not here...my use of parentheses & punctuation—especially semi-colons. Because of this I immediately started to also use em dashes in my tweets/online comments, because they too are supposedly the tell-tale sign of someone who has been using AI on the sly...and I do love messing with people when I have the time to waste.
And you weren't in the wrong whatsoever in the way in which you couched your concerns. I think I was too quick to respond to the most outrageous aspects of DEI-ism in the world of academia, to properly reply to your remarks regarding the likely onslaught of candidates being less than judicious with their own use of AI as a means to both plagiarise from other authors and have it all reworked for them, in a tone decided to be their "authentic voice". You are right to worry and your own experience with the AI question/answer program, shows you just how easy it was to get everyone else to think that they were indeed conversing with another person.
I don't fear automation on a certain level. If anything it is one of the greatest tools we have at our disposal, which can actually help countries with a declining birthrate (which is basically all of them these days) reorient their economy & avoid the upward spiralling pitfalls which result from simply adding "infinity migrants" into the mix, and kicking the can down the road. But we're in another kind of 'Wild West' sort of era online. This time the world governments are all TOO ready, to come at us with their censorious tyranny & need for absolute control & monitoring of every human being in the county/country/continent/planet. It's something we're going to have to work out along the way I guess. But in the meantime, what you are talking about? That presents a very real threat to so many areas of our life.
Academia is no longer about aspiring to learn, becoming well versed in and maybe contributing to the literature in some genuinely edifying and/or original way. It's about box ticking. Not only do students get AI to write their homework for them (from your group's experiment, it appears they could also use an AI bot to respond to any queries their Professor/teacher/lecturer has about what they have submitted.) The only talent it heightens, is a talent for the immoral, the unethical and the criminal. This is fraud. And fraudsters should pay for their crimes. Yet, we all know that instead of a kangaroo court, said fraudsters will likely just be told to log onto the local 'Legal Portal' where their case will be assessed by a LLM, and any punishment incurred will likely involved a period of time when their access to the internet is blocked (thanks to universal online ID's 👍) or at the very least only limited to sites involving their studying or their work. Social credit points will be deducted for repeat offenders, but at no point will this cybercriminal ever have to interact with another human being to plead their case.
No. Much cleaner and tidier this way. Keep 'em all indoors, away from that scary outside where there's always a non-zero chance that today might just be the day when you get macheted to death in the street, by one of our most recently arrived "esteemed scholars". Don't go out there and antagonise them. This is their world now.
DEI initiatives at Cambridge were insane while I was working there (2018-21). The institution was so sensitive to, and desperate to shake, accusations of elitism that it would seize any opportunity to bolster progressive/woke credentials. I sat in DEI training sessions that were complete absurdities, little different to religious indoctrination, and where the demand to leave our critical faculties at the door was almost explicit. So turning a blind eye to a sham employee does not surprise me in the slightest.
I say it over and over. The complete lack of viewpoint diversity in the social sciences and humanities, despite all the lip-service given to how important diversity is, has crippled this section of academia. It cannot see, or speak up against, deep-seated failures in scholarly work emanating from the field and seems entirely comfortable with the biases that will result from a population that 95% left v 5% right aligned.
This is infuriating and sickening. It evokes a bitter memory of my own (much smaller scale) experience of being denied a tenure-track promotion for a teaching position I had already held for over 20 years. In that time, I taught 13 different courses—8 of them self-authored— in the visual arts, English and philosophy, and curated the largest art exhibitions in my area, as well as co-writing and contributing to 2 best-selling books on art. As it happened, a DEI candidate with 1/10th the experience of another long-term colleague and myself was hired to complete an identitarian checklist. This individual’s sullen craft services the concerns du jour: Root Household Merits (RHM), Cultural Introspection Wealth (CIW), and Ecological Design Services (EDS)— whatever the hell those are. Throw in a little Gullah Geechee (look it up) and there’s a golden ticket from the Outer Banks to the Inner Circle.
This is neither academically serious, nor is it art; it is a box-checking Wokefest of Critical Social justice agitprop. And it is undermining and marginalizing capable and committed educators across disciplines, and stripping our truth-seeking and sense-making institutions of ethical and epstemic integrity.
Worse, it is openly bigoted and frames so-called "whiteness" as a repackaging of original sin.
These race ideologues are sick in the head. They've confused moral conceitedness for 'morality' unto itself and that has led them to create bogus fields built on sophistry, not genuine scholarship.
It's a faith-based quasi-religion more toxic than plutonium. Spiteful and vindictive even. Creating environments of intimidation and fear to prevent people from calling out the idiocy.
Very interesting article. I know little about the field of sociology nor of what scholars do at Cambridge that's different from what they do elsewhere. Arday's weael-worded "Principal and Recent Publications" looks thin, but how much else he's published I don't know. And there are no links on his teaching section to actual classes taught....but maybe that's normal at Cambridge? They're all dead lazy? 🙂 But it does all add up to not very much of an academic track record as far as I can see, and it seems clear that his "Identity" is at the heart of all this; what else would justify the uncritical BBC piece: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64717079
I didn't include this in the article because I can't confirm it 100%, but it appears that he's never delivered a lecture course at Cambridge. This is highly unusual, even for the most senior faculty.
Maybe his ability to speak in public is late developing also. Just like his speaking voice. If we're lucky, he'll be ready to teach us all somewhere around the year 2040. I for one look forward to learning more from this modern-day miracle worker. 🙄
He will never have to actually speak. AI tools already permit him to copy someone else's speech into the prompt and have it spoken by another voice (Martin Luther King Jr or Nelson Mandela) with him nodding beside it as if he wrote or understands any of it. Fake scholarship, fake speech, fake voice.
Judging by the stories I've heard, a lot of managers are fully aware that their diversity hires are dead weight and only keep them around (but away from important work) to game social metrics and/or ward off discrimination lawsuits.
But, to be fair, I did subsequently come across two books he's written or co-written: "We See Things They’ll Never See: Love, Hope, and Neurodiversity" (Princeton)
And
"Great and unfortunate things" (Simon and Schuster).
The fact I have seen it somewhere else just now and he now says he broke his leg while doing the marathons lol he is a serial lier and I have met them before they are actually very dangerous!
A noteworthy observation is that his recruitment to top universities and much of his scholarly "work" seem to have happened during the covid years or just after (aka the post-George Floyd era). Did anyone actually meet him in person during this time, or did he simply do a bunch of Zoom interviews before getting hired?
And has he ever actually set foot on campus while at Cambridge, or have ongoing "health problems" or his supposed neurodiversity kept him at home, conducting his lectures and seminars remotely? (Wouldn't surprise me one bit.)
Does Cambridge have any expectation whatsoever that he continue to publish while being a professor? It rather appears that he just banks his check every month but is for all intents and purposes a phantom faculty member.
Perhaps Cambridge professors approach IQs of 140-here's hoping but are there actually 1000 black people in the UK with an IQ of 140. It seems unlikely unless there is a significant proportion from international sources. If 3.5K have an IQ of 130+ then the the 155 of 25,000 professors in the BBC article are still overrepresented relative to the white population by a factor of 2.
Does this fellow just walk around the beautiful campus like a latter day Chauncey Gardner, spouting drivel that is interpreted as wisdom. Although, perhaps the running motif is more resonant of Gump.
Shrewsbury school the prestigious fee paying school flew the LGBT flag this week. These moronic universities and school, in particular the private or so called elite are soiled institutions. At another prep school a 5 year old boy was told by a teacher that boys can marry boys.. he’s f…..g SIX. She then went on to say Trump is a bad man… yep… indoctrinated from infants to uni… places of learning my a£$€.
I remember when I was getting published during law school, my paper (which was honestly a pedestrian analysis of a Supreme Court case!) was torn to SHREDS. Every citation was scrutinized by a team of other law students. I got my ass kicked, though the ultimate result was at least my own genuine analyses and conclusions.
Which is why I can’t believe stuff like this happens at the highest levels of scholarship! How are these papers not getting reviewed? Perhaps I’m being naive, but shouldn’t these papers be scrutinized as much as a college student’s?
Anyway, I enjoyed your systematic takedown. Cheers!
Well, being bad at law school means you will be a bad lawyer who can't win any cases. Being bad at the humanities, on the other hand, means that you can publish a highly regarded paper on how the standards by which you are "bad" are a product of whitecismaleheteronormativity.
One has an incentive to weed out ideas that don't hold up, the other doesn't.
Nothing says a welcoming and diverse student environment like hiring someone because of how much melanin they have in their skin, and then later being too scared to admit that you hired him for utterly retarded reasons.
He's not even good at plagiarism FFS!
He put so little effort into trying to make it less obvious that he was poaching anything and everything, off of anyone and everyone, that he's not even capable of utilising the work & research of others, without literally copying & pasting it into a word doc and using the 'Find' feature to change every instance of a certain author's favourite literary tic.
Too stupid to be a good plagiarist, lol.
He probably thinks he sounds like David Goggins (who, whilst impressive in his own way, is also a total nutter who used extreme athleticism as a form of exercise-purging, which he believed made him feel better about himself. I certainly wouldn't recommend doing half of the things Goggins has done, but I'm surprised he didn't go with 'Arday' as his first name, "Willcome" as his as his surname - he's certainly cringe enough to do so.)
This was a really lengthy, greatly detailed investigation into this total con-artist's lifelong grift. I can't remember when I first came across your stuff (maybe on Disaffected?) but I recognised the name as I started to read this. IIRC you had your own issues with DEI rulings within Cambridge university. I only hope that we're reaching peak-woke soon (maybe we already have) and we'll see perhaps, something of a return to the world where merit is what we judge to be most deserving. Until then, we need people like you to hold these lunatics' feet to the fire. Keep on revealing what has really been going on, because it's only once public awareness reaches a certain level, that we will see greater demands for the abolition of DEI.
Right now, I think they're trying to rebrand under different terminologies, but they're going to ride this gravy-train until they run out of rail. Things will continue to get worse before they get better, but hopefully more men like you will come forward with the kind of ammunition an article like this becomes in the right hands.
You could be right. You probably are actually, lol. I know I watched him on a couple of other shows around the same time. I think once was on 'Heretics: Richard Gold' and again on Benjamin Boyce's 'Calmversations'. And you're right about it maybe being of interest or use to Josh. Maybe I'll send it to him and see if he likes it. Yeah, think I'll do that now whilst I still remember. Thanks for the heads-up.
When our civilization launched into this whole anti-racism thing, the premise was that blacks were being held back unfairly by white prejudice: give them a chance and they’ll do as well as whites. We are now decades into this experiment and the empirically observable results are pretty damning. Not only are there verifiable, measurable differences between the races, but propping up the lie of interchangeability/equality has corrupted all our key truth-telling institutions. Scientists like Charles Murray have been muzzled and their findings suppressed. Universities have become diploma-mills for incompetents and bootcamps for subversive hysterics. Whole pseudo-subjects have emerged, dedicated to “interrogating” this and that, which are now treated as if they were as real as botany. The lies even reach into the past, with professional grievance-mongers re-writing history, trashing our heroes, misrepresenting our achievements, and doing their best to demoralize our next generation of leaders and thinkers. The rot is very advanced at this point and may not be remediable. Extreme courage and ruthlessness will be required to reverse this, and frankly I don’t see it happening.
I think there was a real piece of buried treasure here, namely, today I learned that there is an entire journal called "Whiteness and Education," published by Taylor and Francis which is already on volume 11.
Just think for a moment about how much we, collectively, have learned about "whiteness" from the scores of articles already published in this journal, and the many thousands of hours of work that the authors and reviewers put into them. Truly, we are living in a golden age of science and enlightenment.
I often reflect on how most of the science produced in the socialist countries was simply thrown away in 1992.
That's what's going to happen to all this woke garbage too. Just as with middle age theology, alchemy, 19th century medicine and so on.
But just like other destructive cultural trends it should not be forgotten but held up as a lesson. There's a lot of lessons to be learned but first and foremost is the idea that one has to defer to certain people because of a demographic they belong to. That it's actually bad to treat people the same regardless of race, gender, nationality and so on. Much of it stems from this reversal that all of a sudden decided bias, generalizations about certain demographics, discrimination and so on we're very very good as long as it benefited specific groups.
From I scientific perspective,I think it is worse how their "science" often consists of asking people how they feel about something and draw conclusions from that.
E.g. black people feel like there is racism, so there is racism. It's not completely without merit, but from a scientific perspective it is useless.
To the leftist mindset (which unfortunately pervades higher education), feelings and emotion trump facts and data.
It seems clear that the racism is against whites
> I often reflect on how most of the science produced in the socialist countries was simply thrown away in 1992.
Well, regular hard science, they were quite good at.
I don’t deny that were good at physics and maths. Where ideology couldn’t affect the research.
Everything else was based on Lenin.
Instead of genetics, they had Lysenkoism.
In linguistics, they had the Japhetic theory.
History, Economics, Philisophy and Sociology had to follow the Marxist-Leninist party line.
Lysenkoism was largely abandoned by the late 1960s, and the Japhetic theory was rejected by Stalin. The social "sciences" and humanities were probably an ideological mess, but that's true of all societies including modern liberal democracies. It's generally hard to convince scientists to hold on to empirically wrong idea for long, especially when your ideology claims to be rooted in scientific materialism.
When I ask Assistant, it says the most important sociologists in the Soviet were Pjotr Fedosejev, Michail Rutkevitj, and Gennady Osipov. Their articles on Wikipedia are short, and Rutkevitj (Swedish spelling) doesn't even have one.
Despite their heavy books, they won't be rehabilitated or read again, because there just isn't any truth or reality to them.
If we contrast it to Western sociologists -- Habermas, Foucault, Bourdieu, Berger, Giddens, -- we'll be referencing them in 50 years from now. Because at least there was some reality in what they wrote (even if they were wrong about many things). It's more than an ideological mess.
That's why Woke stuff is more closely related to Soviet science. Take one of the important thinkers, Ibram Kendi, when did you last hear of him? In 10 years he will be nothing but a footnote.
> If we contrast it to Western sociologists -- Habermas, Foucault, Bourdieu, Berger, Giddens, -- we'll be referencing them in 50 years from now.
Not because they necessarily have more "truth or reality" to them. Mostly because the others are associated with a fallen government system.
If Germany had won WW2, nobody in Europe would be quoting the liberal sociologists either, even after the regime softened and direct prohibitions have stopped, just because they'd be associated to a losing system (and quoting them wouldn't advance anybody's career either).
Don't knock the Middle Ages or nineteenth century medicine!
But not before it will do a lot of societal damage. They are steadily brainwashing more and more people every year that will end up taking positions in our government institutions. Because that is what these institutions are, covert socialist brainwash factories.
Just look at something like Gender studies, it is basically Marxism but molded towards gender while hiding it is really Marxism. Instead of bourgeoisie/proletariat it is non-ally white men/women etc.
They are basically creating their own version of Fight Club. Then when a conservative politician wants to cut government waste they will be opposed by thousands of brain washed useless bureacrats who only really know one thing well: how to destroy institutions from the inside.
"Then when a conservative politician wants to cut government waste they will be opposed..."
You just embodied one of the greatest successes of racial socialism, which virtually all of its self-styled opponents share. You started with the singular ("a"), and then switched to the plural ("they").
The other great recent success of rs, is capitalizing "black," which you were not guilty of.
I don’t know , but I don’t mind using the words the other side demands, so at least we don’t need to argue about the words. There’s plenty other stuff we can argue about.
For example, I don’t believe a man who puts on a wig becomes a woman, but if they demand it, I can call him a “her”.
For me it is the other way around. If they ask politely I will consider doing it when in their company. But when they start demanding it, forcing me to say it I resist.
Let's get real here, at the end of the day they are living in a fantasy world. They are basically larping (but on steroids, quite literally sometimes). They just need more people to play along to make it more believable. And the implications of playing along with them everywhere is that you will have men in womens sports, prisons, bathrooms etc. And it will spread, they will not stop at one thing. They are trying to brain wash 6 year olds already, essentially it is a bit like a religion.
I think Nudists understood the game, they know they are weirdos. They have their own spaces where they can play their game of walking around naked. They dont force it on the rest of us. They dont try to normalize it.
I disagree.
If we take trans women in women's sport, starting of by calling them men and "he" does the opposite. It makes them able to say "look these people are just transphobes".
I've written books (unpublished). If I use some other term than LGBTQ, I'm not been taken seriously -- other than by people who don't read books. It's important to try and use neutral terms to be taken seriously.
The other side demands that we use the words it chooses, because it knows that we will then become its mental prisoners. You are a willing prisoner. People like you will always say that there's no point fighting over words, and then you also surrender on everything else.
This has gone on for over 100 years, with Whites surrendering to black supremacists (so-called "civil rights"), feminazis, homosexuals, sexual psychopaths, etc.
I have better things to do than worry about if my words are making me a “mental prisoner” for the left wing.
I’m trying to change things, or to at least say things I reasonably believe are true.
I think the opposite of what you think. If our first argument is “i don’t agree with your definition of the words” then we never get further, and they will win the debate.
Seriously. Writing Black with capital or lower B is not making anyone a prisoner to anything. Arguing about what words to use is something the left-wing can dedicate their energy to.
Without 19th century medicine, we would not have 20th century medicine. Without Soviet science, Russia would be doing fine.
Not to mention 21st C medicine. All will be tossed shortly. Perhaps keeping 10%.
Absolutely. I for one feel incredibly grateful to have such a wealth of reading and reference material I can draw from, whenever I need to find a way to couch my inherent nastiness in some beige-and-blandified sounding moniker, which I can then be castigated for, both by those with more melanin in their skin than me...as well as those who like to pretend that they're the most insanely righteous cultural warriors out there taking non-blue-haired scalps—even though they have even more homogeneity within their own circle of friends and family than your average Klan member.
Thank heavens the literary world just knows to take all of the problematic authors immediately out of my sphere of view—both online and in IRL bookstores also—so I rarely have to encounter an argument I haven't already learned how to refute. (Not using logic of course: I just figure out what I can pick on in an adversary, focus on that and then turn it all around and play the victim, once they get upset.)
I must say, it's been a fabulous system thus far. 10/10 would use to help hide my racist tendencies behind a wall of white guilt & histrionics, again.
A better response than the one I was thinking of making
Agree here!
Sounds like someone might be suffering from white fragility...
A thought-terminating cliche
I guess I need to jerk off to some interracial porn to cleanse my conscience
No such thing.
Yeah. Guess I need to add some Robin DiAngelo to my TBR. Although I'll likely get around to reading the autobiography of that esteemed scholar Trever Noah, titled 'Born A Crime' first. And I absolutely won't ever go anywhere near Kaufmann's 'Whiteshift' anytime soon. Pinky swear.
I learned that most PhD-level research & papers in the social sciences are comprised of gobbledygook, double-speak, and nonsense!
What a loser
300 miles in 3 days? Ask an ultra marathoner if, after an ultra marathon, they could do another the following day, and then another after that.
White libs think black people are magical creatures.
I have a cousin who's ranked in the top few ultramarathon runners at Canadian races, and it still took him 20+ hours to complete 100 miles. Arday's story reads like folk legends you'd hear in middle age towns.
Which makes sense. Medieval legends were generally outgrowths of local folk ways/religions.
White Progs believe black people are magical creatures, so you can easily see them believing this is just another example of their magic.
I think they just know what would happen if they disputed the legend. Self-preservation is a strong motivator and academics would be shunned if someone whispered the R word about them.
There is no public record of him ever completing any organised run whatsoever - not even a local parkrun.
The guy definitely excels at one thing, and we all know it's not athletics or academics.
https://marathonguide.com/results/runner-search/?first_name=Jason&last_name=Arday
https://www.athlinks.com/search/unclaimed?category=unclaimed&term=Jason%20Arday
your post has been hidden by substack
I originally wanted to say the mofo is as real as the eyeliner he's wearing.
The advanced substack AI must have read my mind and now it's trying to preempt all my thought crimes!
You will be in substack jail real soon
Maybe Substack’s poaching twitter staff?
LOL
It's unhidden now.
Well, technically. He's not even excelling at that. You'd at least have a fake Strava account or something to semi back up your clainms. He's also claimed to have raised £5m. That's the kind of thing that takes an ordinary person a lifetime to do even a 10th of that. He's just gone for, "cry racism if any claim is questioned, no matter how outlandish".
I respect his many talents. That's why I wouldn't deport him, I would have him run 30 marathons in 35 days back to Oonga Boonga.
100 miles a day are the equivalent of walking from the centre of Northern Italy to Padua. Bemusing and exasperating at the same time.
Unbelievable scenes...
To play Devil's Advocate: Eddie Izard a UK comic has managed 43 marathons. 300 miles in 3 days though is an elite ultra marathoner
Eddie Izzard is a millionaire and filmed his efforts. This guy claims to have done it off his own back with no publicity nor doing it for charity. 0% of this makes sense.
“White libs think black people are magical creatures.”
Actually, they don’t. They arrange their lives to be as far away from those “magical creatures” as possible.
They do wish it to be known, though, that 2+2 is sometimes 3, and sometimes 5, and that none should even suggest that they do not love Big Brother.
Presumably, he got too used to making up extracurriculars to put on applications and resumes.
Your last sentence is all too true. I'm reminded of this grifter in the US (at least there is video of him in competitive track meets, so that part is true, unlike Arday): Source: NBC News https://share.google/PZjZBFb3Hv6MTc2ey
Quite the expose. However hurtful, truth must win out and the perpetrators brought to justice. I'm not sure what justice looks like though.
This dude appears to have tried to introduce an affectation into his so-called "scholarship," quoting lyrics in the titles of his papers: "No one can see me cry" is from the R.E.M. song "Imitation of Life," "The Times They Are A-Changin" is obviously a Bob Dylan song title and lyric and "We'll see things they'll never see" is from an Oasis song ("Live Forever").
Great work on this article. This serial plagiarist should be stripped of his credentials and position.
> This serial plagiarist should be stripped of his credentials and position.
But he won't be. Cases like his are common. Look at the black woman who was running Harvard. Also found to be a plagiarist, "demoted" to a position where she earns $800k a year.
Universities are just jokes. We don't need them. Liquidate the lot and use the buildings for something more useful, like tourism.
i agree. he won't be.
in 2013, the director of education for the Toronto School Board was busted for plagiarism in his PhD thesis and more recent articles. he was fired and stripped of his PhD. that was mainly because of public outcry though
the universities are too far gone now
Des Moines Public Schools was in the news for hiring "Dr." Ian Roberts, an immigrant from Guyana with quite a colorful backstory, as Superintendent.
His published biography was full of fabrications. He also coauthored "Dangerous Indifference: The Case for Culturally Sensitive Leadership," in which he has commentary about George Floyd. In 2021, he earned a PhD from a for-profit online university, Trident University International. For his dissertation in PK-12 leadership, he administered an online questionnaire to 15 "African American or Latinx" people.
It gives the impression that a black job candidate just needs to show up in a nice suit to secure a position these days. Roberts earned $300k per year in his role as Superintendant.
it's the bigotry of low expectations. progressives don't see that it's actually racist to act like an entire cohort of people are unable to follow the same academic rules as everybody else.
Quite a leap from finding that there are some cheats in academia (as there are everywhere there are humans) to saying academia as a whole is a waste and universities are stupid. I think you need to do some research yourself.
I don't think the whole thing is a waste. I took a few courses that I absolutely loved. But the Humanities, at least, is in need of a major overhaul.
As an undergrad, I did a double major in English and History. Half of each history course was devoted to historiography (methods, viewpoints, interpretations, and biases in the writing of history). Michel Foucault was assigned reading in 85% of the courses I took in BOTH English and History. Outside of a nakedly propagandist aim, what could possibly justify assigning a single author as frequently as my professors did?
Almost invariably, we were handed theory with no history or context.
We were assigned Laura Mulvey’s "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" (which claims women in film are passive objects dehumanized and objectified by the “male gaze”) but not Lacan. We were assigned Foucault but not Nietzsche. We were assigned Judith Butler but not Simone de Beauvoir.
I went to University because I wanted to learn how to think. I ended up embarking on a program of retroactive retribution against cis het white males (something I bought into 100% at the time). I viewed every human interaction through the reductive social justice framework of oppressor v oppressed. All of history was the subjugation of women by men and the tyrannical patriarchy. I was ashamed of my civilizational inheritance because…slavery (my profs elided the facts that slavery during the Islamic conquests lasted three times as long as the Transatlantic slave trade and that indigenous Americans practiced it too). I was assigned none of the foundational texts of Western civilization. I had to pursue all that stuff on my own later, haphazardly.
Academics in the humanities are engaged in “me-search,” faux research wherein they use academic jargon and buzzwords in the service of navel gazing. They try to legitimize it by calling it “auto-ethnography” or “subjective inquiry” but it’s basically just an excuse to talk about oneself and call it rigorous academic work. This occurs mostly in the fields of Critical Race Theory and Gender Studies. Examples of me-search: Eliza Steinbock's Shimmering Images, Patricia Williams' The Alchemy of Race and Rights: Diary of a Law Professor, or anything published in The Journal of Loss and Trauma. There is no objective methodology. It's not real research.
Treating the humanities as a staging ground from which to project a political ideology or one's identity is solipsistic, narcissistic, and narrow minded.
If the Humanities are going to be resurrected, Universities need to reverse the far left's capture of their departments. It's unbelievable that institutions of higher learning need to be reminded that a singular viewpoint on all subjects will not result in a well-rounded education, or that teaching students to hate western civilization while demanding grants and tax breaks from the federal government is deeply hypocritical.
'Academics in the humanities are engaged in “me-search,” faux research wherein they use academic jargon and buzzwords in the service of navel gazing.'
Viewing this from the outside as a lifelong (hard) science nerd, I appreciate this description.
Wow, all I can say is my undergrad years now seem like a lifetime away because it was nothing like that.
When were you an undergrad?
I did my undergrad @ University of Toronto 2008-2013. I did a Master's the year after that before leaving academia entirely. I was upset about leaving at the time but hiring policies in Universities in the 2010s were quite openly looking for anyone who wasn't a straight white cis male. I'm glad now that I stopped mainlining postmodern deconstructionist relativist Marxist horseshit and pursued my own curriculum.
Those days pale in comparison to today. I remember noticing the signs and seeing those who mentioned it be called conspiracy theorists. But the direction was there.
The problem isn't the existence of cheats (as you point out, hardly a novel phenomenon); the problem is the (lack of) proper, moral institutional responses to them. I also don't think academia is useless or a waste, but it's definitely in danger of becoming so if it gives up all authority to maintain quality control. There's of course been a widespread loss of faith in many institutions since the mid-2010s, including academia. I don't think the others have quite deserved it as much as academia, though. At this point anyone who's worked recently in academia would have a story for you about a DEI hire who was protected from on high by the prince of darkness himself. My best example (of several), like Jason Arday, plagiarized quite a bit of his scholarly output and--once hired at my former institution--just kind of refused as a policy to attend any meetings, on the grounds that he didn't want to do "emotional labor." He missed several student oral exams because by his own admission he stayed up all night talking to women in Asia. This institution, by the way, is nominally a conservative Great Books school that recently has had to lay off quite a bit of non-tenured faculty because of budget cuts and the demographic cliff. Guess who's still there, beaming at one from every corner of the website? I don't really want colleges and universities to die for what amount, in the end, to aesthetic reasons. But they sure seem to be trying to commit suicide over this nonsense, helped along by the designated morons on the far right.
It isn't a matter of "some cheats". These "cheats" are placed there by the university regents. There is an agenda at work here (if it isn't already blatant to everyone) that has been playing out across all the major institutions of the West, leading to Western governments making policy and acting in ways that are directly against the interests of the populations they supposedly serve. These governments and institutions have obviously been captured. This is widespread coordinated political and cultural treason, not a handful of cheats acting independently.
I've read hundreds of academic papers across scores of fields over the past decade to reach this conclusion. Research: done.
Academia is rife with cheating at every level. Some fields are better or worse than others, but the few fields that aren't terrible are also easily handled better by industry. We don't need these organizations and they do everything possible to make us hate them.
Eliminate sociology at the public institutions for starters, and proceed from there until the weeds are torn out.
I think you need to go fuck yourself.
Wow like dude not called for at all
I wonder what he will do when he encounters plagiarism in his students' essays?
Bob Dylan, Oasis and R.E.M.? I am ... I mean ... I can't breathe!
I got my last degree in 1995. I’m sad to hear it’s all changed so much. I was warned not to go into academia but mostly because of the funding cuts and refusal to hire permanent professors, less because of ideological pressures. But I cannot deny that family members who graduated later had the same kind of narrow ideology pushed on them. Here’s to hoping the pendulum swings back because a life in academia can be so rewarding (I know many professors but from ages ago).
I hope the pendulum swings back too. It probably will. Universities have been around for too long to fail now. (The first time I went to Europe, it blew my mind that there were Universities from the 1200s.)
And the good teachers I had always made the bad ones worth enduring.
I used to want to be a professor. The first time I walked into a prof’s office, I was in heaven. Hardcover books lining all four walls. Student papers on the desk with confident notations in the margins. The tenured professors seemed so damn comfortable while the contract instructors all had the same wild-eyed, desperate, “please hire me” expression.
With the way the world is right now, it looks like we're heading for a collision course with Hard Reality. When that happens, all this woke rubbish will vanish with the morning mist. It may even reach the point - cue the smelling salts - that "toxic" male qualities will be required once more.
Hard reality? Where people are unequal depending on their gender, race, sexuality? Or equality where people can just be who they are and achieve based on their talents and effort? In a society that values humans or one that values power
The one thing this midwit managed to add to the plagiarized scholarship (which itself was fake research before he lifted it) is the title of the papers, which, being a midwit, he pulled from popular music. Of course.
Unfortunately too many credentialed people would be made to look very stupid for that to ever happen.
What a great piece! Not sure why it fell to Nathan to expose this huckster. Perhaps the thinking is that he may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.
Frausters like Arday must be laughing all the way to the bank, that is if they are even aware of the fact that they are fraudsters. It could be that they are so convinced by their own deceit that they no longer see it for what it is. Or perhaps they feel they deserve the money, plaudits and awards anyway, simply for being black.
Cambridge is an absolute disgrace run by cowards and racial grievance-mongers. More of these take-downs, please!
These types are miserable. I think on some level they know they were advanced beyond their ability and so they are constantly on defense. This is a huge part of why they see racism everywhere.
His argument is self-fulfilling.
Everyone else: "Your scholarship is suspect. You look like a fraud."
Miserable type: "Just look at all the racism! I can't breathe!"
Education is the safest, most coddled, least racist environment on Earth. Yet in every educational establishment I've been in, they act as though it's 1950s Alabama.
Agreed.
I think they tell themselves, whenever anyone engages in mild questioning of their scholarship, that it's white fragility and white conspiracy against them. They build a little rhetorical fortress around their own incompetence this way.
Yep, absolutely.
your comment has been hidden by substack
Oh, thanks for the heads-up. I hadn't realised it was so incendiary. Just out of curiosity, how did you see it if it's hidden?
Default settings may allow people to hide comments by reporting them. Trying to fix.
I would not be surprised if Substack claims " authors can decide the moderation decision rules " but in reality the AI moderator always has default background behaviour decided by Substack that author can't do much to prevent but only add to.
Yeah, I think it was AI. Should be off now.
Incidentally, next post is about how AI ruins everything.
I look forward to it.
It is listed as Hidden at the end of the comments section. You can click on it and see it.
I did not see anything controversial or incendiary either.
It's visible to some of us
I can see it just fine.
I know undergraduate students who have more substantive research experience and publications than this individual. Shocking to see what top institutions like Cambridge have become.
You need more solid research than that just to get into a good medical school in the US these days.
Insane stuff.
Great article, but you don't need an IQ of 140 to stand out in Education research. 120 is plenty.
I'm astonished that Cambridge would allow balderdash like this to be called a curriculum.
Have they lost critical thinking skills in the quest to pedestalise black people?
Have you been in a coma for the past 30 years?
These are the people who screen candidates with an extremely fine comb, and this level of academic debauchery is unheard of. This is like giving a doctorate to a retard.
It's not unheard of.
https://grokipedia.com/page/Claudine_Gay
I think we're just surprised to see it at a top institution here in the UK. There is plenty of grift in the social sciences, I know, but this guy getting a professorship and everyone at Cambridge lauding his "scholarship" just seems to be on another level.
I mean, look at him. He dresses like a weird tarot card reader. There is nothing convincing. I found a clip of him on the BBC talking about migrants and even as a panellist providing basic soundbites, he seems out of his depth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee1oanxkN90&t=50s
Conclusion: it's not actually "top" in any meaningful way.
We should have never stopped calling idiots idiots. Now they're among us (cit.).
Not only is it not "unheard of" but in current climes it is considered practically 'de rigueur' to bastardise the formerly hallowed halls of academia. And yes, it's supposed to irk you. It's supposed to make you angry, so you say or do something that can be forever used against you. Ask (virtually anyone who has been online for longer that 3 weeks) how they know.
I'm glad I decided against academia twenty years ago. This would have sent me on a crusade.
I just decided that it was far more fun to leave school with only GCSEs, go to work in the kind of jobs that only the young are ever supposed to have to do, work hard and play harder. I spent the better part of my youth drinking, taking lots of drugs, letting my flat become a flop-house and just had way more fun than any of my friends who went away to university. They too drank a bit and did the odd 'E', but they came back with useless degrees, a shit-tonne of student debt, and one of them was pregnant, so she just married the father and gave up on anything else.
Meanwhile, I was actually really good at working damn hard in stressful environments. I moved from bar work, to hospitality, worked on a ferry, managed hotels a bit. Then when it all got a bit tiring, I figured it was time to grow up, so I switched to an entry level job in a finance company, worked my way up and by the time I was 30 I was bringing home a salary not to be sniffed at, a full complement of benefits, a very competitive pension plan, and an amazing team with whom it was an absolute joy to have next to me at 'the coalface'.
I'm now in my 40s. I have zero debt. I have savings. I have investments. I have a pension. I still only have a GCSE level of formal education, but I sure as shit didn't see anyone coming home from university any smarter or better equipped to take on the world as a fully functioning, independent adult. I can appear rough around the edges or as clipped and reserved as the moment requires; but there IS something quite satisfying about knowing I was always just going to be better off, getting out into the working world, doing something legal for money (mostly so I could something a little illegal on the weekends, lol) and not being interested in accruing any debt along the way.
I was also away from the intense leftist brainrot that permeates almost every area of academia, choosing instead to learn about the things I wanted to, on my own time, using my own money to buy my own books. Sure I was more liberal when I was younger, but as the old adage goes "if you aren't a liberal when you're young, you have no heart; but if you aren't a conservative when you're a little older, then you have no brain." I fully concur with that amusing little quote. Thankfully I was still able to enter the world of dating, whilst there were still men who acted like men, and women who were very much glad of it! Feminism was never something I found much truck with...probably because I'm a huge misogynist and hate most women. I reality, most women do in fact hate other women; it's only those of us who chose to opt out of the entire 'Kabuki-theatre-of-the-absurd' who are happy/willing to admit that though. The sooner this is learned, the saner your life will turn out to be.
It's just a shame that those of us who came up through the 90s, were as chilled a liberal as you could hope to find, getting to experience life before the internet was unleashed upon us...only for the truly retarded amongst us to start demanding guide-rails and various other bureaucratic methods of control, because they weren't able to control *themselves*...but what they also really hated, was the fact that they hated not being able to control *everyone else*. So we invented made-up rules and regulations, had a phalanx of Reddit moderators released onto the web, where they proceeded to act like they owned the place, in between periods of perving on any woman with an actual photo in her bio...or engaging in some yiffing with anyone willing to put on a foxes head and have fellow furries do whatever else it is that those weirdos do in a convention centre corridor on a Friday night.
Ahem. Sorry about that. I got a little carried away. Guess it was all that reminiscing. Oh well, on the plus side YOU also didn't go to university and I'm fairly sure you've managed to exist in the world quite adequately, without having to admit that you took a BA in Communications because you had no idea what you wanted to do with your life, but those student loans upfront were just too hard to ignore; especially around Spring Break time. But what would I know. I'm just a dumb broad who left school before doing her A-Levels and is really only formally educated to a GCSE level.
However am l supposed to compare to these intellectual titans, out there writing papers nobody wants to have to grade, about topics nobody will ever be able to use when out searching for a job in the real world?
I can barely contain my indifference.
This is what I think about. I would have for sure been fired.
No, but I’ve often wished I had been.
"Have they lost critical thinking skills in the quest to pedestalise black people?"
It is a case of egalitarian woke ideology Über alles.
Increasing IQ by three standard deviations to get to prodigy level just like that is in the realm of unlikelyhood.
However, in the world of make believe and magic money trees it is quite possible
You don't understand. They have a different understanding of science to us. We will never be able to appreciate the beauty inherent in those who occupy the coastal jewel that is Sentinel Island...but if we hang around there long enough, I'm sure we'll get to find out just how enriching they find both us and our culture. Just because they've never taken a Myers-Briggs personality test, doesn't mean they doesn't possess the intellect and acumen to knock the socks off of anyone else currently in academia.
Of course he's going to knock your socks off.
He would consider it vile to leave them on your feet as he's adding you to the cauldron above the campfire.
All cultures are equally beautiful.
IQ knows no borders.
We have always been at war with Oceania.
This is a quite extraordinary and very depressing tale (I write as a former professor of sociology myself). I witnessed quite a few cases of plagiarism in my career but nothing as blatant and extensive as this. I once knew an Australian professor who lost his job over a couple of paragraphs of inadvertent plagiarism. How Cambridge can jeopardise the university's standing by keeping this shyster on its books is beyond me.
And it's not just the plagiarism. The bullshit passing as 'research' that reputable journals have chosen to publish by this man is staggering. So much for peer review.
Congratulations on the meticulous research you've done on this - if Arday's 'research' warrants a chair at Cambridge, yours must surely deserve at least a Nobel prize!
My brother in law is a big shot in business….CEO here, CFO there, Director of Sales somewhere else. Remarkable career. He told me big corporations pay the “black tax”. Whatever number of blacks and other minorities the EEOC and other racial bean counters/grievance merchants require them to hire, they do it. Give the DEI hires a desk, a title, performance reviews, appropriate raises, and some sort of work to do. Some are quite capable, most aren’t, but it matters not. Their employment is duly documented and reported to those interested, and in my bro-in-law’s words, this charade “adds a nickel to the cost of a box of Tide.”
Also, I have a new favorite neologism: “Serious work in the sociology of education.”
You could take the entire body of work ever produced in the sociology of education, throw it in a furnace, and very few would notice and no one would be affected.
>You could take the entire body of work ever produced in the sociology of education, throw it in a furnace, and very few would notice and no one would be affected.
So true. 99.9% of is probably net zero worth. A few interesting things scattered around like seaglass on a beach.
As is commonly said in the States, “ …you ain’t seen nothing yet…”. DEI aside, the concept of note in your missive is gross incompetence masked with lies and theft (plagiarism) abetted by disingenuous Whites. Soon it may not be so simple a process to unmask these people due to advances in AI or LLM’s.
Example, about a year or so ago, a commentary group that I posted to had a member disclose that he had for several months not written any of his comments himself, but merely fed the current discussion into his favorite AI and reposted the results/responses under his name. Until that point, his comments in the group discussion were read, responded to, and in my opinion, notable for their contribution to the discussion. In short, this commenter was well respected within the group for his postings. And I must admit, his “experimental” use of our group as his subjects quite enlightening. Indeed, it drove me to delve into AI science much more than previous.
One can only image how many budding Jason Ardays are out there waiting to be unmasked. The problem with AI is not that it will replace humans in the workforce as much as it will make the incompetent appear competent. Had Arday not been so stupid as to be as blatant as you describe in his career promotion, he might never have been outed. I fear the next “Arday” will not be so obvious.
I'm not so sure. If anything I think that those who utilise DEI to benefit themselves (and I'm talking about everyone who is involved in pushing the 'Didn't Earn It' candidates to the top of their game—not just the initial race-grifters themselves) will do all that they can to wring the last drops of money and power out of their hustle. But they will also start to become less subtle with what they're doing. They know that "woke" has become something of a dirty word in polite company, so they rejig the terminology, pretend to be doing everything they can to bring complete *equity* (ahem) to the educational realm...and yes....that's going to involve those working behind the scenes, intentionally choosing the least educated/most retarded mouthpieces they can, and pushing them into positions of power they ought not ever even know about...because they want the pushback. They want the argument. They're prepared for some pretty nasty fights, but they're going to get away with even more outrageous candidates being given insane qualifications, positions, salaries and grants before it's all over.
They're going to rub your nose in it.
The ultimate end to these means is the same as it has always been in far-left circles: they want to bring the system down, topple all of the pillars that hold a society together, and then after a time of arsing around with some cribbed version of the Hegelian Dialect, they'll happily smash all you think you know and love, together (as thesis meets antithesis) with the resulting synthesis being little more than yet more failed commie idealism, and do everything they can to contribute to the destruction of academia. These people don't care about the things they claim to become expert in. Their agitation works as nothing more than a wrecking ball, but they have no blueprints at the ready for the moment when the dictatorship of the proletariat are finally able to step back, and let real communism succeed for the first time ever.
Lol.
Until then, they're happy to just be able to use the tools to torment and prevent others from achieving anything worth working towards, because meritocracies are "problematic". Entire swathes of knowledge can be all but tossed to one side, as the next generation of victims come of age and are told to embrace the flux, get a septum piercing and post online about how you suck off dogs at the weekend (or something equally "exotic" sounding) because, like, THEY are totally not racist-towards-those-with-four-legs...and anyone who thinks it's gross is obviously a bigot.
And if you think the things I'm typing out here are mad, you want to see what they actually admit to in their own papers, books, seminars, lectures and sperg-outs on Twitter. I could only ever hope to invent something as batshit insane sounding as: "Straight Black Men Are the White People of Black People". Yet these nutty hucksters receive tenure for it. I'm sure the government are handling it all for us though. We're probably at the point where Andy Burnham is going to tell Britain that when it comes to 'stamping out racism' we just need to import another 500K migrants, to flatten the curve.
I mean, It's not like that "logic" wasn't a load of old bollocks the first time they rolled it out or anything...
🤔
Understood. That’s the reason I started off with “DEI aside…” in my comment. My intention was to make a generalization wrt potential fraud—academic and otherwise—outside of the all too commonly encountered “race hustlers” using the new development of AI. I did so fairly poorly as I read the comment again—a sure “tell” that AI was not used. 😉
"A sure "tell" that AI was not used." 😂
I do love that. I used to think that my form of rambling was so waffling and littered with cuss-words/insults, that nobody would ever think it was AI generated or edited. Then I was accused on Twitter of using AI to compose my tweets because of...and I shit you not here...my use of parentheses & punctuation—especially semi-colons. Because of this I immediately started to also use em dashes in my tweets/online comments, because they too are supposedly the tell-tale sign of someone who has been using AI on the sly...and I do love messing with people when I have the time to waste.
And you weren't in the wrong whatsoever in the way in which you couched your concerns. I think I was too quick to respond to the most outrageous aspects of DEI-ism in the world of academia, to properly reply to your remarks regarding the likely onslaught of candidates being less than judicious with their own use of AI as a means to both plagiarise from other authors and have it all reworked for them, in a tone decided to be their "authentic voice". You are right to worry and your own experience with the AI question/answer program, shows you just how easy it was to get everyone else to think that they were indeed conversing with another person.
I don't fear automation on a certain level. If anything it is one of the greatest tools we have at our disposal, which can actually help countries with a declining birthrate (which is basically all of them these days) reorient their economy & avoid the upward spiralling pitfalls which result from simply adding "infinity migrants" into the mix, and kicking the can down the road. But we're in another kind of 'Wild West' sort of era online. This time the world governments are all TOO ready, to come at us with their censorious tyranny & need for absolute control & monitoring of every human being in the county/country/continent/planet. It's something we're going to have to work out along the way I guess. But in the meantime, what you are talking about? That presents a very real threat to so many areas of our life.
Academia is no longer about aspiring to learn, becoming well versed in and maybe contributing to the literature in some genuinely edifying and/or original way. It's about box ticking. Not only do students get AI to write their homework for them (from your group's experiment, it appears they could also use an AI bot to respond to any queries their Professor/teacher/lecturer has about what they have submitted.) The only talent it heightens, is a talent for the immoral, the unethical and the criminal. This is fraud. And fraudsters should pay for their crimes. Yet, we all know that instead of a kangaroo court, said fraudsters will likely just be told to log onto the local 'Legal Portal' where their case will be assessed by a LLM, and any punishment incurred will likely involved a period of time when their access to the internet is blocked (thanks to universal online ID's 👍) or at the very least only limited to sites involving their studying or their work. Social credit points will be deducted for repeat offenders, but at no point will this cybercriminal ever have to interact with another human being to plead their case.
No. Much cleaner and tidier this way. Keep 'em all indoors, away from that scary outside where there's always a non-zero chance that today might just be the day when you get macheted to death in the street, by one of our most recently arrived "esteemed scholars". Don't go out there and antagonise them. This is their world now.
You're just a custodian of it.
Great to see this now getting traction.
DEI initiatives at Cambridge were insane while I was working there (2018-21). The institution was so sensitive to, and desperate to shake, accusations of elitism that it would seize any opportunity to bolster progressive/woke credentials. I sat in DEI training sessions that were complete absurdities, little different to religious indoctrination, and where the demand to leave our critical faculties at the door was almost explicit. So turning a blind eye to a sham employee does not surprise me in the slightest.
I say it over and over. The complete lack of viewpoint diversity in the social sciences and humanities, despite all the lip-service given to how important diversity is, has crippled this section of academia. It cannot see, or speak up against, deep-seated failures in scholarly work emanating from the field and seems entirely comfortable with the biases that will result from a population that 95% left v 5% right aligned.
Is it even left wing? It just sounds like an anti-intellectual movement driven by ideology.
e.g. the view that gender pay gaps are predominantly driven by discrimination vs the (far) more substantiated view of labour market economists.
This is infuriating and sickening. It evokes a bitter memory of my own (much smaller scale) experience of being denied a tenure-track promotion for a teaching position I had already held for over 20 years. In that time, I taught 13 different courses—8 of them self-authored— in the visual arts, English and philosophy, and curated the largest art exhibitions in my area, as well as co-writing and contributing to 2 best-selling books on art. As it happened, a DEI candidate with 1/10th the experience of another long-term colleague and myself was hired to complete an identitarian checklist. This individual’s sullen craft services the concerns du jour: Root Household Merits (RHM), Cultural Introspection Wealth (CIW), and Ecological Design Services (EDS)— whatever the hell those are. Throw in a little Gullah Geechee (look it up) and there’s a golden ticket from the Outer Banks to the Inner Circle.
This is neither academically serious, nor is it art; it is a box-checking Wokefest of Critical Social justice agitprop. And it is undermining and marginalizing capable and committed educators across disciplines, and stripping our truth-seeking and sense-making institutions of ethical and epstemic integrity.
Thanks for calling out the bullshit.
Worse, it is openly bigoted and frames so-called "whiteness" as a repackaging of original sin.
These race ideologues are sick in the head. They've confused moral conceitedness for 'morality' unto itself and that has led them to create bogus fields built on sophistry, not genuine scholarship.
It's a faith-based quasi-religion more toxic than plutonium. Spiteful and vindictive even. Creating environments of intimidation and fear to prevent people from calling out the idiocy.
Very interesting article. I know little about the field of sociology nor of what scholars do at Cambridge that's different from what they do elsewhere. Arday's weael-worded "Principal and Recent Publications" looks thin, but how much else he's published I don't know. And there are no links on his teaching section to actual classes taught....but maybe that's normal at Cambridge? They're all dead lazy? 🙂 But it does all add up to not very much of an academic track record as far as I can see, and it seems clear that his "Identity" is at the heart of all this; what else would justify the uncritical BBC piece: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64717079
?
I didn't include this in the article because I can't confirm it 100%, but it appears that he's never delivered a lecture course at Cambridge. This is highly unusual, even for the most senior faculty.
Maybe his ability to speak in public is late developing also. Just like his speaking voice. If we're lucky, he'll be ready to teach us all somewhere around the year 2040. I for one look forward to learning more from this modern-day miracle worker. 🙄
He will never have to actually speak. AI tools already permit him to copy someone else's speech into the prompt and have it spoken by another voice (Martin Luther King Jr or Nelson Mandela) with him nodding beside it as if he wrote or understands any of it. Fake scholarship, fake speech, fake voice.
But...but...he was kangz!
Judging by the stories I've heard, a lot of managers are fully aware that their diversity hires are dead weight and only keep them around (but away from important work) to game social metrics and/or ward off discrimination lawsuits.
Perhaps someone in Cambridge thinks the same...
But, to be fair, I did subsequently come across two books he's written or co-written: "We See Things They’ll Never See: Love, Hope, and Neurodiversity" (Princeton)
And
"Great and unfortunate things" (Simon and Schuster).
The 2nd of these seems to be an autobiography, which is coming out in August 2026. So, the recent attention may or may not be beneficial to its sales.
The fact I have seen it somewhere else just now and he now says he broke his leg while doing the marathons lol he is a serial lier and I have met them before they are actually very dangerous!
A noteworthy observation is that his recruitment to top universities and much of his scholarly "work" seem to have happened during the covid years or just after (aka the post-George Floyd era). Did anyone actually meet him in person during this time, or did he simply do a bunch of Zoom interviews before getting hired?
And has he ever actually set foot on campus while at Cambridge, or have ongoing "health problems" or his supposed neurodiversity kept him at home, conducting his lectures and seminars remotely? (Wouldn't surprise me one bit.)
Does Cambridge have any expectation whatsoever that he continue to publish while being a professor? It rather appears that he just banks his check every month but is for all intents and purposes a phantom faculty member.
Perhaps Cambridge professors approach IQs of 140-here's hoping but are there actually 1000 black people in the UK with an IQ of 140. It seems unlikely unless there is a significant proportion from international sources. If 3.5K have an IQ of 130+ then the the 155 of 25,000 professors in the BBC article are still overrepresented relative to the white population by a factor of 2.
Does this fellow just walk around the beautiful campus like a latter day Chauncey Gardner, spouting drivel that is interpreted as wisdom. Although, perhaps the running motif is more resonant of Gump.
Shrewsbury school the prestigious fee paying school flew the LGBT flag this week. These moronic universities and school, in particular the private or so called elite are soiled institutions. At another prep school a 5 year old boy was told by a teacher that boys can marry boys.. he’s f…..g SIX. She then went on to say Trump is a bad man… yep… indoctrinated from infants to uni… places of learning my a£$€.
Excellent and comprehensive.
I remember when I was getting published during law school, my paper (which was honestly a pedestrian analysis of a Supreme Court case!) was torn to SHREDS. Every citation was scrutinized by a team of other law students. I got my ass kicked, though the ultimate result was at least my own genuine analyses and conclusions.
Which is why I can’t believe stuff like this happens at the highest levels of scholarship! How are these papers not getting reviewed? Perhaps I’m being naive, but shouldn’t these papers be scrutinized as much as a college student’s?
Anyway, I enjoyed your systematic takedown. Cheers!
Well, being bad at law school means you will be a bad lawyer who can't win any cases. Being bad at the humanities, on the other hand, means that you can publish a highly regarded paper on how the standards by which you are "bad" are a product of whitecismaleheteronormativity.
One has an incentive to weed out ideas that don't hold up, the other doesn't.
Nothing says a welcoming and diverse student environment like hiring someone because of how much melanin they have in their skin, and then later being too scared to admit that you hired him for utterly retarded reasons.
He's not even good at plagiarism FFS!
He put so little effort into trying to make it less obvious that he was poaching anything and everything, off of anyone and everyone, that he's not even capable of utilising the work & research of others, without literally copying & pasting it into a word doc and using the 'Find' feature to change every instance of a certain author's favourite literary tic.
Too stupid to be a good plagiarist, lol.
He probably thinks he sounds like David Goggins (who, whilst impressive in his own way, is also a total nutter who used extreme athleticism as a form of exercise-purging, which he believed made him feel better about himself. I certainly wouldn't recommend doing half of the things Goggins has done, but I'm surprised he didn't go with 'Arday' as his first name, "Willcome" as his as his surname - he's certainly cringe enough to do so.)
This was a really lengthy, greatly detailed investigation into this total con-artist's lifelong grift. I can't remember when I first came across your stuff (maybe on Disaffected?) but I recognised the name as I started to read this. IIRC you had your own issues with DEI rulings within Cambridge university. I only hope that we're reaching peak-woke soon (maybe we already have) and we'll see perhaps, something of a return to the world where merit is what we judge to be most deserving. Until then, we need people like you to hold these lunatics' feet to the fire. Keep on revealing what has really been going on, because it's only once public awareness reaches a certain level, that we will see greater demands for the abolition of DEI.
Right now, I think they're trying to rebrand under different terminologies, but they're going to ride this gravy-train until they run out of rail. Things will continue to get worse before they get better, but hopefully more men like you will come forward with the kind of ammunition an article like this becomes in the right hands.
Thank you for sharing your work & findings.
I listen to Disaffected every week and have never heard Josh talk about Cofnas.
But this article would make perfect material for his show!
You could be right. You probably are actually, lol. I know I watched him on a couple of other shows around the same time. I think once was on 'Heretics: Richard Gold' and again on Benjamin Boyce's 'Calmversations'. And you're right about it maybe being of interest or use to Josh. Maybe I'll send it to him and see if he likes it. Yeah, think I'll do that now whilst I still remember. Thanks for the heads-up.
When our civilization launched into this whole anti-racism thing, the premise was that blacks were being held back unfairly by white prejudice: give them a chance and they’ll do as well as whites. We are now decades into this experiment and the empirically observable results are pretty damning. Not only are there verifiable, measurable differences between the races, but propping up the lie of interchangeability/equality has corrupted all our key truth-telling institutions. Scientists like Charles Murray have been muzzled and their findings suppressed. Universities have become diploma-mills for incompetents and bootcamps for subversive hysterics. Whole pseudo-subjects have emerged, dedicated to “interrogating” this and that, which are now treated as if they were as real as botany. The lies even reach into the past, with professional grievance-mongers re-writing history, trashing our heroes, misrepresenting our achievements, and doing their best to demoralize our next generation of leaders and thinkers. The rot is very advanced at this point and may not be remediable. Extreme courage and ruthlessness will be required to reverse this, and frankly I don’t see it happening.
This is right on.