In fact, their attitude strikes me as profoundly racist and not in the least “progressive”. The subtext is, “Black and disabled people can’t manage it, let’s turn a blind eye to any flaws and let this guy in anyway, so we can look good.”
This is exactly the problem. The soft bigotry of low expectations....
"In a piece in The Telegraph, Professor Alex Edmans said:
But the real scandal is not Jason Arday. It is an entire ecosystem that wanted Jason Arday to be true. His supervisors approved his thesis, journals published his work, and Cambridge appointed him as a professor.
This, to me, gets to the heart of the matter." And Edmans is the right person to make this point.
Edmans also makes the important point that insane appointment like Ardayh's take away opportunities from deserving candidates.
That BBC clip featuring Arday and Cremin is cringeworthy to the max. She should be kicked out for not having done her job.
That is another thing which dismays me. There may have been really good academics who were overlooked for that position. I think of how hard I worked to get where I am, and how I would feel were I overlooked for an appointment like this.
That's what really rubs ... isnt it. This charismatic working class black man was better then the supremicists who think whiteness gives them a free no questions asked pass. As if marathon running has anything to do with professorship. As if a PhD is necessary for Professorship. As if sexual assault and plagairising your own students if wrapped in whiteness is unremarakable.
Well, precisely. A lawyer also wields considerable power over peoples’ lives - albeit in not such an immediate way - consequently, I would not want anyone to qualify who was not in fact qualified.
I believe that sometimes an unqualified minority candidate is purposefully selected over qualified minority (and majority) candidates in order to generate hostility. This ties into the bigotry of low expectations. In the USA, the appointment of Justice Jackson to SCOTUS is a case in point. Our previous President (who I believe is a bigot) had already stated he was going to select a black female, and there were a number of well-respected and experienced black female jurists that could have been appointed. But reading the opinions of Jackson, he seemed to have selected someone with a lack of basic understanding of the law. This then gives ammunition to those who already "doubt the worth of all Black or disabled scholars more generally."
I confess that I don’t usually follow SCOTUS, because they mainly do public and constitutional law stuff, which isn’t my bag. I personally don’t have any sense of why someone was appointed or what’s going on—not my country—but I just did a search, to get a sense of what’s going on and… oh dear. At least one other judge on the bench is prepared to say that she doesn’t rate Jackson’s judgments, right?
To your point "The sole relevant consideration is does this person produce good work, and can they do what is needed?"
This is going to sound like the start of a joke, but here goes. When I was promoted to my first supervisor's position, I (POP, a person of pallor) had to fill a vacancy. Interviewed a lot of people, but I ended up hiring a black guy in a wheelchair.
My manager was quite concerned (I'd not discussed it with him, this was my decision). However, the young man was terrific at his job: hardworking, got along well with coworkers, and provided excellent customer service. In other words...he did what he was hired to do and he brought real value to the org. None of which, I might add, Arday seemed to do.
My hire's status as disabled or POC was irrelevant. He was a decent kid and we enjoyed having him on the team. Which is all I asked of any employee.
Never read a better essay on these topics in my whole life. Yes, yes, yes. Thank you so much for this essay - I definitely subscribed and can't wait to read more of your essays.
Ardays gailures aren't something that was just ignored. He wasn't given his posts despite his lack of skills and capabilities, but because of them.
He is the poster child for DEI, exactly the archetype of a black, disabled person, critical race theory is based on.
If he was talented, capable and smart, if he could write his texts on his own and if he was generally professional, he wouldn't need DEI or supporters of critical race theory.
Reaching his post might have taken longer, maybe even unduly so, but as we could see before critical race theory raised its ugly head, despite all negative conditions black and disabled people were facing, the truly capable always found a way.
Even during slavery and Jim Crow, smart black people found a way, and it was black people, especially those who showed their incredible capabilities, who set the stage for the liberation of slaves and the downfall of Jim Crow.
Critical race theory wants to keep black people and other focus groups small to keep their grift going, that's why they promote exclusively unsuited, untalented people.
Because doing otherwise would mean to acknowledge that especially black people didn't need saviours or DEI or pandering. They clawed their way out of poverty all by their own, and their impressive feats made white people step aside and let them do it bit by bit.
In the 90s, the segregation laws were history, and the black population had already risen out of absolutely nothing to nearly the level of white people, without anyone handing them anything for free.
The gap between white and black was slowly closing, just a few more years, and black culture would have been everywhere, including white spaces.
But with the first black president in office in the united states, it became clear that if we did nothing, the cash flow to black organisations for equality was running dry.
So the critical race theory segregation began.
At first, they re-established segregation. By gatekeeping black culture and reducing ot to certain music, random clothes items, hairstyles and foods, they cut white customers from predominantly black entrepreneurs offering those things for sale. Limiting market availability and access to white customers to white products, and black people can only access the full matket by selling products with no black cultural ties. Otherwise, they can only sell to blacks.
At the same time, there's no such limit on any other company, no matter to what ethnicity thry belong. While white people are shamed for embracing black culture and with that black coded products, there's no such limit on selling those products. So while blacks can't profit from white customers, anyone can still sell anything from blacks.
As a result, since the 90s, the influence of black culture has almost vanished. In the 90s, black actors were often leads in new movies, whole new series and films were made from the scratch with black stars in mind and putting them front and center. Goldberg and Washington come to mind, but so many more were given the chance to represent black culture in a deep, meaningful way by filling their own characters with life.
But under the influence of CRT, that stopped entirely. Since you can't market black culture influences to the whole customer base, since white people are accused of cultural appropriation when they buy black coded products, black representation shrank to modern blackface: black actors either play fully white coded roles in a raceswap, or they're given slanderous roles ehere black culture is reduced to bad attributes, playing characters who cause their own misery, are unsympathetic, often plain dumb, criminal and arrogant, often morally questionable even when supposedly playing the heroes.
Black culture os reduced to black skin colour, locks, bonnets, braids and rab music. That's it. Black people's struggles are reduced to oppression often in contexts that aren't really oppressive, or carrying the burden of slavery.
The ingenious, capable and smart blacks are pushed into the background, true black icons in history, who actually expanded black culture itself, are actively erased in favour of minor contributions to white culture.
Instead of celebrating a man who wrote a book during slavery that was so smart and moving it eventually led to the abolition of slavery, CRT wants to celebrate zhe false claims that black slaves invented blue jeans because of one, single contribution to the growth of indigo in the US, instead of buying it cheaply from Europe.
Instead of celebrating the rich and brilliant accomplishments of ethnic clothes black people actually invented or have based on their heritage, CRT invests in the claim the french bonnet, a nightcap, was a black cultural achievement.
And no one sees it.
Black people are pressed into a racist caricature on their actual culture, it's modern day blackface, just that now the blacks become the minsttels themselves, and happily celebrate criminals, idiots and imposters instead of black archievers.
This year, a black astronaut and highl achieving man was chosen to go to space, but instead of celebrating him and his outstanding achievements that prove how capable and smart black people can be, the black community argues that putting a black murderer in prison for stabbing a white boy is structural racism because it's somehow not thst black boys fault that he comizted murder.
And that is were Arday enters the picture.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of black men and women who are incredibly smart and successful, who show incredible tenacity and reach admirable goals every day. They could have easily found a truly talented and generally inspiring black person for the job.
But they hired Arday, because he needed DEI, he couldn't have gotten thr job without his performative grifter saviours giving it to him.
Crooks and pretenders like Arday promote the need for DEI, and the smart, talented and brilliant blacks who would have deserved the position... do not.
The problem is that if you post a job ad calling for someone “diverse” as your main criteria, you’ll likely get a person who is prepared to leverage any disadvantage to the max, and emphasise oppression, not a person who wants to be hired on their own merits. If I saw an ad saying disabled applicants were preferred, unless it were somehow relevant to the position and the skills needed, I would not apply. I have self-respect. I don’t want people to think I’m appointed for that alone.
Moreover, I consider myself very lucky, not oppressed. Someone once asked me: “What era in the past would you like to have been born into?” The answer is none. In a different age, I’d have died at birth or early in childhood. I’m always aware of that.
"We live in a world where, increasingly, who you are is more important than what you do." I would like to expand on this.
The identity of the claimant as a proxy for the quality of the claim made is a quick heuristic we all use - we do it to judge papers we lack the time to read and defer to experts from fields we do not know. However adcoms are not a place for employing quick heuristics, in fact the pursuit of quick decision making defeats the whole purpose of accumulating detailed info about candidates. Neither is it appropriate to dismiss well supported claims about a fellow academic because the claimant has (other) questionable beliefs, as so many in academia have done recently.
The fact that these are avenues or slow, not fast, thinking yet we resort to the latter demonstrates the "tick the box" approach which universities and other institutions have taken to DEI activities.
First, I know it's incidental to the primary subject, but please elaborate on "it was nothing to do with taxation or tax law, contrary to what may be your first instinct." I'm so curious!
Second, beautiful essay. Big agree. That said, you note that you don't want disabled/minority academics to be pitied, but appraised on the value of their work. Yet in the wake of his lies, you say "There is a part of me which feels a little sorry for Arday, despite it all" & "You [universities/institutions] have done a disservice to [Arday]...".
I've seen a lot of this "pity element" in more nuanced takes on this story, but I think as we should not have taken pity on him for his disabilities, neither should we take pity on him for the consequences of his ethical failures. I'm no fan of mob rule, but the man allowed himself to be trotted about on television and agreed to lie in public addresses. I pity him very little, if at all. At best, I can only hope that the pile-on doesn't weigh so heavily on his mind he goes down a path of self-annihilation. He can still do good in the world, outside of academia of course, if he is willing to accept responsibility & course correct, and he would be praised for it.
This is not to say that the university doesn't bear a portion of the blame, nor that their actions caused no little harm to black academics, students, and to the humanities. Both the institution and the man committed grave errors, but I pity neither.
As to point (1) I would be so delighted! I was looking at a particular structure called the Asset Protection Trust. I discovered that it was mainly used to protect beneficiaries from liability - often civil liability for debt or damages - but sometimes other kinds of liability (family law etc). It is particularly favoured by US clients, so our research went down this rabbit hole on US law, and how US courts responded to these structures - if they can, the Federal Bankruptcy Court just effectively “bulldozes” them. My co-author and I want to put the chapter up on SSRN - have sought the permission of the publisher.
As to point (2), a friend who has left academia because it has become so unpleasant made the same point to me. She doesn’t feel any pity at all - she just thinks “get out, you make everything worse.” Speaking personally, I couldn’t take a position if I couldn’t do the job, and it’s unimaginable to me that I wouldn’t either try to pull my socks up or quit and try something else. There’s a part of me which fundamentally doesn’t understand why someone could take a position in these circumstances. And I also don’t understand why other academics let this pass. I don’t care what I’d be labelled as—I’d stand up and say, “This guy can’t write.” I have to say I’m not a fan of the kind of jargon favoured in some disciplines: I read some bits of his PhD and felt physically ill at the level of deliberate obscurantism. I’m a freaking lawyer - we’re the Kings and Queens of Bullshit Jargon - if I can write clearly, then other people can too.
I suppose part of my point is - this is so much broader than just this institution and this one guy. Absolutely, you don’t have to pity them personally, but they’re responding to incentives which extend right through the Anglosphere and beyond. There are reasons why this is a problem everywhere. And I want people to understand - this is not just a one-off. People and institutions acted like this because they respond to incentives. Let’s change the incentives, because they’ve changed the academy into a very dysfunctional place.
There is another possibility. There are people who have some sort of psychological compulsion to tell lies, even lies they have no need to tell in the same way that some kleptomaniacs have a compulsion to steal things even though they don't need or even particularly want them - see Pseudologia Fantastica.
I did also wonder if there were some deeper problem here. I’m not a psychologist, but some of these claims seem so absurdly easy to disprove - eg, Arday wasn’t born when ‘7 Up’ was filmed! - that it is quite strange. If this is the case, he needs treatment or help, if possible.
Yes, but presumably there was as vetting process in place at Liverpool and Cambridge ... what we have learned about this fabulist makes it hard to believe that people did not notice. I mean surely they read what he allegedly wrote, no?
I have literally just finished marking a dissertation by a black, disabled (to a similar level that Arday probably is, as opposed to his claims) student.
It was rather good. Better than most I mark, and good enough that I did not need to see details of any special educational needs to give him credit or extra assistance. He did this on his own, under the same conditions as any other student except he had a mentor in our Teams meetings. I suspect he would be a better scholar than "Dr" Arday.
His degree class will get him onto post-graduate courses if he wants them, but now why would he? Anything he does academically will be marked with the stain spread by those who forced Jason Arday to the top of academia.
Good luck to your student, and I hope he does do further study, if he wants. He should be like my own past student - proud of his achievements, all under his own steam.
Well I have promised him a good reference to any job or course he might want to apply for, including a discussion with the manager or course leader if they are concerned about his needs.
And yet in a few years time someone will insist your student didn't earn it but was given a DEI pass... because his only legitimate achievements are in sports or entertainment. That's how it works.
He is entitled to special assistance if disabled and accepting it is not a sign of waekeness. Its a sign of you not doing your job properly if you don't ensure he gets the support he needs.
Given 96.6 of Oxbridge academics are white, Jason is hardly to blame for your student being discouraged.
"We live in a world where, increasingly, who you are is more important than what you do."
The only real quibble I have this piece is the word 'increasingly'. Britain still has a deeply ingrained class system, and people predominantly view the world through a series of simplistic narratives about heroes and villains. Who you are (or aren't) has always been much more important than what you do -- though the effect of this is concentrated in professions where responsibility is widely diffused, or where a person's competency is decreed by critical or audience consensus.
Progressivism demands we do something about the extremes of inequality that in part result from this, and the response from the powerful has been to invent a few new categories of hero archetype which in theory allow for a wider variety of people to succeed beyond their wildest dreams, but in practice lay an already corrupt system open to even more embarrassing scams.
I’m Australian, but I did live 6 years of my childhood in England. The English class system was something that really startled me, as a teenager who ended up at a selective school in Manchester (long story). My parents came from very working-class backgrounds: the first to go to school past the age of 14, to finish “matric.”, to do undergraduate degrees, to do postgraduate degrees, in their immediate families. At least eight of my ancestors were convicts. If we’d have grown up in England, I don’t think my family would have gotten anywhere in life. We’d have been marked by our class, accents, background, and so forth. Being Australian—we were immune to it somewhat—everyone expects us to be uncouth!
This is something I want to make very clear: presuming Arday is should be a professor because the Honourable Pooty-Pooh said he’s a fine lad, and he went to Eton with my sister’s son is *not* an acceptable heuristic either. I entirely accept that this heuristic has always existed in England, in a way it (mostly) hasn’t in Australia. Nonetheless, I have felt it at times, even now, in my career. The Arday heuristic exists in part to counter that; but it’s not the answer. It’s just flipping the same flawed assessment - an inversion as you say. It still means that someone who doesn’t deserve the position gets it over someone who might have more skills and ability.
Also I am totally with you on “heroes”and “villains.” I’m not a hero, nor am I perfect. The fact I have suffered disadvantage in life does not make me good. If you put me on a pedestal, I will inevitably fall. The simple binaries of the present narrative drive me nuts.In part, I think it is reflected in popular culture. I haven’t watched any Hollywood films since Star Wars VIII put me off. I got into Asian drama instead.
But you see, Jason Arday is more useful than, say, Thomas Sowell. Sowell, being competent, doesn't need you. Much better to have someone who is dependent on your good will.
Thomas Sowell is a great scholar. I often think about his comment that it’s trade offs, all the way down. But yes, he doesn’t comply with what people think that someone like him “should” do. How inconvenient for them that he should have a very, very fine mind of his own! That his answers don’t confirm their biases! Yes, I sound snarky, but I feel pretty snarky about it all. Many so-called “progressives” actually do not want people from minority groups to buck their narrative. How dare they think for themselves?
This whole thing is completely overblown, since everything except the specific names was already known since at least Claudine Gay: this should have been priced in.
But that is not how the world works! So everyone _is_ surprised, and you are right to capitalise on that and make a big deal out of this. Thank you, because for whatever reason your piece made me realise this, and has motivated me as an alumni to write to Melbourne Uni to ask them to confirm that no such case exists at Melbourne.
And it does help me understand the jihadi/burn it all down to purify it mentality, though, so there's always that.
So, I am sorry to say that I am not surprised at all, except at the extraordinary nature of some of the tales. Running marathons on a broken leg?! Being on Seven Up??! Like - why?
And this does also help me understand that “burn it down” mentality. There are still many of us who are good people, and knowledgeable, but the academy is increasingly dysfunctional, because of the perverse incentives.
I keep thinking - hang in there KB, ten more years until I’m likely to have to retire, given my disabilities. My old boss said recently, “It would be a real pity if you quit, because you were born to do this.”
I really like my subject matter and my teaching. I just hate all of THIS stuff. I understand those who are furious. I have had moments of it myself in the past.
And there it is. What this situation reveals is the stark toxuc racism that Jason had to endure. Once those views are expressed nothing else you say has any significance. You can not reason with people who think the moon is made out of cheese.
Excellent analysis of the problem of lowering the bar for students with ‘desirable’ characteristics. But no mention of the obvious solution: anonymise the candidates and ensure the assessor is not aware of the personal characteristics of the candidate they are assessing.
I agree that this is the solution. The student from the housing estate whom I encouraged to complete his degree - he got into law through an anonymised LSAT score - showing he had the natural aptitude. No one could judge him on his background or class. I think there should be more of this, but I suppose it would depend by field.
Journal publications are already anonymised. How do you anonymise a PhD. Grading in HE is largely anonymised, yet inequlities persist. But i guess if you believe in phrenology this makes complete sense.
You wrote:
In fact, their attitude strikes me as profoundly racist and not in the least “progressive”. The subtext is, “Black and disabled people can’t manage it, let’s turn a blind eye to any flaws and let this guy in anyway, so we can look good.”
This is exactly the problem. The soft bigotry of low expectations....
As I noted in more detail in this comment elsewhere on substack - https://substack.com/profile/13379579-francis-turner/note/c-296179748
Regarding your story about visiting the library. Good on you!
Your comment is spot on. This does a disservice to all concerned.
PS Expanded into a full post - https://ombreolivier.substack.com/p/the-racists-who-enabled-jason-arday?r=7yrqz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Excellent post.
Very much so.
"In a piece in The Telegraph, Professor Alex Edmans said:
But the real scandal is not Jason Arday. It is an entire ecosystem that wanted Jason Arday to be true. His supervisors approved his thesis, journals published his work, and Cambridge appointed him as a professor.
This, to me, gets to the heart of the matter." And Edmans is the right person to make this point.
Edmans also makes the important point that insane appointment like Ardayh's take away opportunities from deserving candidates.
That BBC clip featuring Arday and Cremin is cringeworthy to the max. She should be kicked out for not having done her job.
That is another thing which dismays me. There may have been really good academics who were overlooked for that position. I think of how hard I worked to get where I am, and how I would feel were I overlooked for an appointment like this.
That's what really rubs ... isnt it. This charismatic working class black man was better then the supremicists who think whiteness gives them a free no questions asked pass. As if marathon running has anything to do with professorship. As if a PhD is necessary for Professorship. As if sexual assault and plagairising your own students if wrapped in whiteness is unremarakable.
Amazing.
It's heartwarming and progressive until they start doing this with pilots and doctors.
Well, precisely. A lawyer also wields considerable power over peoples’ lives - albeit in not such an immediate way - consequently, I would not want anyone to qualify who was not in fact qualified.
I believe that sometimes an unqualified minority candidate is purposefully selected over qualified minority (and majority) candidates in order to generate hostility. This ties into the bigotry of low expectations. In the USA, the appointment of Justice Jackson to SCOTUS is a case in point. Our previous President (who I believe is a bigot) had already stated he was going to select a black female, and there were a number of well-respected and experienced black female jurists that could have been appointed. But reading the opinions of Jackson, he seemed to have selected someone with a lack of basic understanding of the law. This then gives ammunition to those who already "doubt the worth of all Black or disabled scholars more generally."
I confess that I don’t usually follow SCOTUS, because they mainly do public and constitutional law stuff, which isn’t my bag. I personally don’t have any sense of why someone was appointed or what’s going on—not my country—but I just did a search, to get a sense of what’s going on and… oh dear. At least one other judge on the bench is prepared to say that she doesn’t rate Jackson’s judgments, right?
Yes, Jackson has been rebuked by several of the justices. She is an embarrassment.
Goodness me. If I didn’t have the confidence of several of my brother and sister judges, I’d want to quit. Very embarrassing.
I agree about Jackson, but I disagree with the imputed motive. Never impute to malice that which can be explained by political calculus!
And re-read Meditations on Moloch: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
To your point "The sole relevant consideration is does this person produce good work, and can they do what is needed?"
This is going to sound like the start of a joke, but here goes. When I was promoted to my first supervisor's position, I (POP, a person of pallor) had to fill a vacancy. Interviewed a lot of people, but I ended up hiring a black guy in a wheelchair.
My manager was quite concerned (I'd not discussed it with him, this was my decision). However, the young man was terrific at his job: hardworking, got along well with coworkers, and provided excellent customer service. In other words...he did what he was hired to do and he brought real value to the org. None of which, I might add, Arday seemed to do.
My hire's status as disabled or POC was irrelevant. He was a decent kid and we enjoyed having him on the team. Which is all I asked of any employee.
This is exactly how it should work.
Never read a better essay on these topics in my whole life. Yes, yes, yes. Thank you so much for this essay - I definitely subscribed and can't wait to read more of your essays.
Thank you so much! I am so glad you enjoyed it.
Ardays gailures aren't something that was just ignored. He wasn't given his posts despite his lack of skills and capabilities, but because of them.
He is the poster child for DEI, exactly the archetype of a black, disabled person, critical race theory is based on.
If he was talented, capable and smart, if he could write his texts on his own and if he was generally professional, he wouldn't need DEI or supporters of critical race theory.
Reaching his post might have taken longer, maybe even unduly so, but as we could see before critical race theory raised its ugly head, despite all negative conditions black and disabled people were facing, the truly capable always found a way.
Even during slavery and Jim Crow, smart black people found a way, and it was black people, especially those who showed their incredible capabilities, who set the stage for the liberation of slaves and the downfall of Jim Crow.
Critical race theory wants to keep black people and other focus groups small to keep their grift going, that's why they promote exclusively unsuited, untalented people.
Because doing otherwise would mean to acknowledge that especially black people didn't need saviours or DEI or pandering. They clawed their way out of poverty all by their own, and their impressive feats made white people step aside and let them do it bit by bit.
In the 90s, the segregation laws were history, and the black population had already risen out of absolutely nothing to nearly the level of white people, without anyone handing them anything for free.
The gap between white and black was slowly closing, just a few more years, and black culture would have been everywhere, including white spaces.
But with the first black president in office in the united states, it became clear that if we did nothing, the cash flow to black organisations for equality was running dry.
So the critical race theory segregation began.
At first, they re-established segregation. By gatekeeping black culture and reducing ot to certain music, random clothes items, hairstyles and foods, they cut white customers from predominantly black entrepreneurs offering those things for sale. Limiting market availability and access to white customers to white products, and black people can only access the full matket by selling products with no black cultural ties. Otherwise, they can only sell to blacks.
At the same time, there's no such limit on any other company, no matter to what ethnicity thry belong. While white people are shamed for embracing black culture and with that black coded products, there's no such limit on selling those products. So while blacks can't profit from white customers, anyone can still sell anything from blacks.
As a result, since the 90s, the influence of black culture has almost vanished. In the 90s, black actors were often leads in new movies, whole new series and films were made from the scratch with black stars in mind and putting them front and center. Goldberg and Washington come to mind, but so many more were given the chance to represent black culture in a deep, meaningful way by filling their own characters with life.
But under the influence of CRT, that stopped entirely. Since you can't market black culture influences to the whole customer base, since white people are accused of cultural appropriation when they buy black coded products, black representation shrank to modern blackface: black actors either play fully white coded roles in a raceswap, or they're given slanderous roles ehere black culture is reduced to bad attributes, playing characters who cause their own misery, are unsympathetic, often plain dumb, criminal and arrogant, often morally questionable even when supposedly playing the heroes.
Black culture os reduced to black skin colour, locks, bonnets, braids and rab music. That's it. Black people's struggles are reduced to oppression often in contexts that aren't really oppressive, or carrying the burden of slavery.
The ingenious, capable and smart blacks are pushed into the background, true black icons in history, who actually expanded black culture itself, are actively erased in favour of minor contributions to white culture.
Instead of celebrating a man who wrote a book during slavery that was so smart and moving it eventually led to the abolition of slavery, CRT wants to celebrate zhe false claims that black slaves invented blue jeans because of one, single contribution to the growth of indigo in the US, instead of buying it cheaply from Europe.
Instead of celebrating the rich and brilliant accomplishments of ethnic clothes black people actually invented or have based on their heritage, CRT invests in the claim the french bonnet, a nightcap, was a black cultural achievement.
And no one sees it.
Black people are pressed into a racist caricature on their actual culture, it's modern day blackface, just that now the blacks become the minsttels themselves, and happily celebrate criminals, idiots and imposters instead of black archievers.
This year, a black astronaut and highl achieving man was chosen to go to space, but instead of celebrating him and his outstanding achievements that prove how capable and smart black people can be, the black community argues that putting a black murderer in prison for stabbing a white boy is structural racism because it's somehow not thst black boys fault that he comizted murder.
And that is were Arday enters the picture.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of black men and women who are incredibly smart and successful, who show incredible tenacity and reach admirable goals every day. They could have easily found a truly talented and generally inspiring black person for the job.
But they hired Arday, because he needed DEI, he couldn't have gotten thr job without his performative grifter saviours giving it to him.
Crooks and pretenders like Arday promote the need for DEI, and the smart, talented and brilliant blacks who would have deserved the position... do not.
This is what makes me mad. Who got passed over?
The problem is that if you post a job ad calling for someone “diverse” as your main criteria, you’ll likely get a person who is prepared to leverage any disadvantage to the max, and emphasise oppression, not a person who wants to be hired on their own merits. If I saw an ad saying disabled applicants were preferred, unless it were somehow relevant to the position and the skills needed, I would not apply. I have self-respect. I don’t want people to think I’m appointed for that alone.
Moreover, I consider myself very lucky, not oppressed. Someone once asked me: “What era in the past would you like to have been born into?” The answer is none. In a different age, I’d have died at birth or early in childhood. I’m always aware of that.
"We live in a world where, increasingly, who you are is more important than what you do." I would like to expand on this.
The identity of the claimant as a proxy for the quality of the claim made is a quick heuristic we all use - we do it to judge papers we lack the time to read and defer to experts from fields we do not know. However adcoms are not a place for employing quick heuristics, in fact the pursuit of quick decision making defeats the whole purpose of accumulating detailed info about candidates. Neither is it appropriate to dismiss well supported claims about a fellow academic because the claimant has (other) questionable beliefs, as so many in academia have done recently.
The fact that these are avenues or slow, not fast, thinking yet we resort to the latter demonstrates the "tick the box" approach which universities and other institutions have taken to DEI activities.
Just so. It’s the opposite of the kind of thinking the academy should be doing.
First, I know it's incidental to the primary subject, but please elaborate on "it was nothing to do with taxation or tax law, contrary to what may be your first instinct." I'm so curious!
Second, beautiful essay. Big agree. That said, you note that you don't want disabled/minority academics to be pitied, but appraised on the value of their work. Yet in the wake of his lies, you say "There is a part of me which feels a little sorry for Arday, despite it all" & "You [universities/institutions] have done a disservice to [Arday]...".
I've seen a lot of this "pity element" in more nuanced takes on this story, but I think as we should not have taken pity on him for his disabilities, neither should we take pity on him for the consequences of his ethical failures. I'm no fan of mob rule, but the man allowed himself to be trotted about on television and agreed to lie in public addresses. I pity him very little, if at all. At best, I can only hope that the pile-on doesn't weigh so heavily on his mind he goes down a path of self-annihilation. He can still do good in the world, outside of academia of course, if he is willing to accept responsibility & course correct, and he would be praised for it.
This is not to say that the university doesn't bear a portion of the blame, nor that their actions caused no little harm to black academics, students, and to the humanities. Both the institution and the man committed grave errors, but I pity neither.
As to point (1) I would be so delighted! I was looking at a particular structure called the Asset Protection Trust. I discovered that it was mainly used to protect beneficiaries from liability - often civil liability for debt or damages - but sometimes other kinds of liability (family law etc). It is particularly favoured by US clients, so our research went down this rabbit hole on US law, and how US courts responded to these structures - if they can, the Federal Bankruptcy Court just effectively “bulldozes” them. My co-author and I want to put the chapter up on SSRN - have sought the permission of the publisher.
As to point (2), a friend who has left academia because it has become so unpleasant made the same point to me. She doesn’t feel any pity at all - she just thinks “get out, you make everything worse.” Speaking personally, I couldn’t take a position if I couldn’t do the job, and it’s unimaginable to me that I wouldn’t either try to pull my socks up or quit and try something else. There’s a part of me which fundamentally doesn’t understand why someone could take a position in these circumstances. And I also don’t understand why other academics let this pass. I don’t care what I’d be labelled as—I’d stand up and say, “This guy can’t write.” I have to say I’m not a fan of the kind of jargon favoured in some disciplines: I read some bits of his PhD and felt physically ill at the level of deliberate obscurantism. I’m a freaking lawyer - we’re the Kings and Queens of Bullshit Jargon - if I can write clearly, then other people can too.
I suppose part of my point is - this is so much broader than just this institution and this one guy. Absolutely, you don’t have to pity them personally, but they’re responding to incentives which extend right through the Anglosphere and beyond. There are reasons why this is a problem everywhere. And I want people to understand - this is not just a one-off. People and institutions acted like this because they respond to incentives. Let’s change the incentives, because they’ve changed the academy into a very dysfunctional place.
There is another possibility. There are people who have some sort of psychological compulsion to tell lies, even lies they have no need to tell in the same way that some kleptomaniacs have a compulsion to steal things even though they don't need or even particularly want them - see Pseudologia Fantastica.
I did also wonder if there were some deeper problem here. I’m not a psychologist, but some of these claims seem so absurdly easy to disprove - eg, Arday wasn’t born when ‘7 Up’ was filmed! - that it is quite strange. If this is the case, he needs treatment or help, if possible.
Yes, but presumably there was as vetting process in place at Liverpool and Cambridge ... what we have learned about this fabulist makes it hard to believe that people did not notice. I mean surely they read what he allegedly wrote, no?
Great article.
I have literally just finished marking a dissertation by a black, disabled (to a similar level that Arday probably is, as opposed to his claims) student.
It was rather good. Better than most I mark, and good enough that I did not need to see details of any special educational needs to give him credit or extra assistance. He did this on his own, under the same conditions as any other student except he had a mentor in our Teams meetings. I suspect he would be a better scholar than "Dr" Arday.
His degree class will get him onto post-graduate courses if he wants them, but now why would he? Anything he does academically will be marked with the stain spread by those who forced Jason Arday to the top of academia.
Precisely this. It makes me sick.
Good luck to your student, and I hope he does do further study, if he wants. He should be like my own past student - proud of his achievements, all under his own steam.
Well I have promised him a good reference to any job or course he might want to apply for, including a discussion with the manager or course leader if they are concerned about his needs.
EXCELLENT.
And yet in a few years time someone will insist your student didn't earn it but was given a DEI pass... because his only legitimate achievements are in sports or entertainment. That's how it works.
He is entitled to special assistance if disabled and accepting it is not a sign of waekeness. Its a sign of you not doing your job properly if you don't ensure he gets the support he needs.
Given 96.6 of Oxbridge academics are white, Jason is hardly to blame for your student being discouraged.
"We live in a world where, increasingly, who you are is more important than what you do."
The only real quibble I have this piece is the word 'increasingly'. Britain still has a deeply ingrained class system, and people predominantly view the world through a series of simplistic narratives about heroes and villains. Who you are (or aren't) has always been much more important than what you do -- though the effect of this is concentrated in professions where responsibility is widely diffused, or where a person's competency is decreed by critical or audience consensus.
Progressivism demands we do something about the extremes of inequality that in part result from this, and the response from the powerful has been to invent a few new categories of hero archetype which in theory allow for a wider variety of people to succeed beyond their wildest dreams, but in practice lay an already corrupt system open to even more embarrassing scams.
I’m Australian, but I did live 6 years of my childhood in England. The English class system was something that really startled me, as a teenager who ended up at a selective school in Manchester (long story). My parents came from very working-class backgrounds: the first to go to school past the age of 14, to finish “matric.”, to do undergraduate degrees, to do postgraduate degrees, in their immediate families. At least eight of my ancestors were convicts. If we’d have grown up in England, I don’t think my family would have gotten anywhere in life. We’d have been marked by our class, accents, background, and so forth. Being Australian—we were immune to it somewhat—everyone expects us to be uncouth!
This is something I want to make very clear: presuming Arday is should be a professor because the Honourable Pooty-Pooh said he’s a fine lad, and he went to Eton with my sister’s son is *not* an acceptable heuristic either. I entirely accept that this heuristic has always existed in England, in a way it (mostly) hasn’t in Australia. Nonetheless, I have felt it at times, even now, in my career. The Arday heuristic exists in part to counter that; but it’s not the answer. It’s just flipping the same flawed assessment - an inversion as you say. It still means that someone who doesn’t deserve the position gets it over someone who might have more skills and ability.
Also I am totally with you on “heroes”and “villains.” I’m not a hero, nor am I perfect. The fact I have suffered disadvantage in life does not make me good. If you put me on a pedestal, I will inevitably fall. The simple binaries of the present narrative drive me nuts.In part, I think it is reflected in popular culture. I haven’t watched any Hollywood films since Star Wars VIII put me off. I got into Asian drama instead.
But you see, Jason Arday is more useful than, say, Thomas Sowell. Sowell, being competent, doesn't need you. Much better to have someone who is dependent on your good will.
Thomas Sowell is a great scholar. I often think about his comment that it’s trade offs, all the way down. But yes, he doesn’t comply with what people think that someone like him “should” do. How inconvenient for them that he should have a very, very fine mind of his own! That his answers don’t confirm their biases! Yes, I sound snarky, but I feel pretty snarky about it all. Many so-called “progressives” actually do not want people from minority groups to buck their narrative. How dare they think for themselves?
This whole thing is completely overblown, since everything except the specific names was already known since at least Claudine Gay: this should have been priced in.
But that is not how the world works! So everyone _is_ surprised, and you are right to capitalise on that and make a big deal out of this. Thank you, because for whatever reason your piece made me realise this, and has motivated me as an alumni to write to Melbourne Uni to ask them to confirm that no such case exists at Melbourne.
And it does help me understand the jihadi/burn it all down to purify it mentality, though, so there's always that.
So, I am sorry to say that I am not surprised at all, except at the extraordinary nature of some of the tales. Running marathons on a broken leg?! Being on Seven Up??! Like - why?
And this does also help me understand that “burn it down” mentality. There are still many of us who are good people, and knowledgeable, but the academy is increasingly dysfunctional, because of the perverse incentives.
I keep thinking - hang in there KB, ten more years until I’m likely to have to retire, given my disabilities. My old boss said recently, “It would be a real pity if you quit, because you were born to do this.”
I really like my subject matter and my teaching. I just hate all of THIS stuff. I understand those who are furious. I have had moments of it myself in the past.
Please do continue! Even if it must be exhausting at times (over and above the actual work).
He ran 7 marathons in 7 days. He later found a hairline fracture. He never claimed to be part of the 7up project.
Surely if black achievement is limited to sports and entertainment, you'd be happy with marathom running on a brocken leg?
Indeed if he had stuck to making up sports performances that would have been fine by me!
And there it is. What this situation reveals is the stark toxuc racism that Jason had to endure. Once those views are expressed nothing else you say has any significance. You can not reason with people who think the moon is made out of cheese.
https://youtu.be/wxL9Zka927M?si=5cXjTkLzxkE3_-oi
Excellent analysis of the problem of lowering the bar for students with ‘desirable’ characteristics. But no mention of the obvious solution: anonymise the candidates and ensure the assessor is not aware of the personal characteristics of the candidate they are assessing.
I agree that this is the solution. The student from the housing estate whom I encouraged to complete his degree - he got into law through an anonymised LSAT score - showing he had the natural aptitude. No one could judge him on his background or class. I think there should be more of this, but I suppose it would depend by field.
Journal publications are already anonymised. How do you anonymise a PhD. Grading in HE is largely anonymised, yet inequlities persist. But i guess if you believe in phrenology this makes complete sense.