I guess the penalty for plagiarism is psychological torment followed by death now, but only if you’re black.
Did he actually get found guilty of plagiarism? I thought most if not all investigations put him in the clear for that.
Liverpool cleared him, and Cambridge opened an investigation but it never completed. Doesn’t really matter at this point whether he did or not, it was a completely overblown and racially motivated response to academic misconduct either way
I think there were other institutions that he had been associated with that also cleared him. Cambridge will likely only look at work he’s done while with them, and defer to Liverpool or others for work he did elsewhere.
Congratulations Telegraph, Daily Mail and all the right wing echo chambers, you got what you wanted.
Add the guardian to that list as they’ve been banging on about this as headline news as well in a totally disproportionate way
I noticed that too. The amount of coverage wasn’t even remotely consistent with the newsworthiness of the story.
He was a black person promoted to a position of prestige over white people, possibly motivated by an inclusion policy, it’s catnip to the gutter press and it’s a story tailor made to go viral in this day and age with the story amplified by places like twatter and farcebook.
It’s a textbook example of inherent racial bias in the system where even the slightest mistake by a person of colour, or a woman, or a disabled person is leapt upon but the countless examples of white men doing the same thing are glossed over, ignored and pass by without comment.
Oh no that’s genuinely terrible
Important to note here that apparently it isn’t completely proven if he plagiarised, yet. If he did, I can sympathise with people who get caught up in their own lies. I’ve been there myself. Rest in Peace Jason Arday
Most of the investigations into his allegations of plagiarism, the ones that have concluded, determined that he did not plagiarise.
Allegations that were made by a self-described “race-realist”.
Much more important to note that the claims of plagiarism against a black autistic man were brought by the American self-declared “race realist” Nathan Cofnas who doesn’t believe that black men and women are intelligent enough to hold academic positions and on merit would “disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment”. Cofnas targeted Arday because he knew Arday was a vulnerable man.
Not to mention anyone with a large breadth of work can be accused of plagiarism at some level, especially in a bad faith argument. There’s a bit of nuance required to catch plagiarism outside of a direct copy/paste so an active witch hunt should be an immediate disqualifier. Shame on all of the outlets promoting that hogwash story
Agreed.
I think a lot of people don’t realise that academic texts, especially in the humanities, are sometimes 90% quotes of someone else’s work. It’s easy to paraphrase someone a bit too close for comfort, and fail to cite previous works sufficiently or properly.
This being said, even if this poor guy did plagiarise blatantly, hardly a national news story let alone so much coverage. Something that could have been dealt with internally and reported on when it was resolved. Quite obviously a deliberate racist right wing witch hunt.
even if this poor guy did plagiarise blatantly
From what I understand, he didn’t. He lied and embellished his previous experience, but I don’t think any of the claims of plagiarism have stuck.
Wouldn’t be surprised. I used the ‘if’ in my comment above advisedly.
A lynch mob. A vulnerable, autistic black man. Fingers need to be pointed!
Don’t infantilize the guy while ignoring that this lynch mob was whipped up and directed as part of a systemic and deliberate conspiracy.
As is tradition, btw.
Who is infantalising anyone? He was a vulnerable man. You don’t grow up autistic and suddenly become neurotypical - even if you’re a professor. Part of the reason that Cofnas targeted him was that Cofnas thought he was “weird”.
Given permission, they would hunt us all down for sport
you mean ‘given exclusive publishing rights’
Please don’t try to infantilise me by giving me a link to a wikipedia. I’ll just repeat: he was a vulnerable man.
