Many thanks as ever for this miraculous overview and analysis of the overflowing river on all aspects of the intriguing Jason Arday story. For most of us who struggle and fail to even read a fraction of the stuff let alone know how to get our heads around it all, reading a careful balanced account is wonderful. It's therapeutic in the way great investigative journalism or great history or great inquiry reports are therapeutic. But those take years if not decades of team work to produce. Helen does it in a few days, and presumably single handed. The key feature is her simple recognition of the limits of what she can and can't be sure of, her own biases, and what she said that she now revises. It wouldn't be therapeutic if you didn't trust your therapist!
PS Further evidence of superhuman powers is to do this decade of work in a few days while playing "speed chess" with scores of dissenters on X to the point of (let's call it) "being cancelled" for now, and not need a few weeks convalescence to recover.
PPS And like the NHS you get the same service as those who subscribe (aka pay our taxes!)
In 2001, Spike Lee did a university lecture tour in which he lamented Hollywood's use of the damaging trope of the Magic Negro. Presumably he did not visit Cambridge.
Ash Sarkar, a usual suspect of course, is quoted by you as saying some are treating Jason Arday as “a stand-in for an entire race”. This is precisely what Diane Abbott has claimed for him in her Trafalgar Square speech.
Thank you for your detailed and balanced analysis.
I had saved your post but I am now unable to navigate to it on Substack however I try. It gives me a blank frozen screen. I am fortunately not a conspiracy theorist!
Thank you for a superb summary of this complex and multifaceted story. I am not sure it could have broken in quite the way it has at an easier moment. Cracks are appearing around identity ideology in all its forms which are allowing a space to appear to make connections that would not have been possible a few short years ago.
Another excellent essay by Helen Pluckrose (unsurprising, I know!).
Meanwhile, there have been so many people whose careers and reputations, not to mention lives, have been destroyed by the woke mobs -- and who didn't lie and confabulate or sic powerful law firms on their critics -- yet who haven't received even a fraction of the attention Arday is receiving. Richard Bilkszto, to cite just one example:
"Former principal who sued TDSB over alleged bullying during anti-racism training dies by suicide"
I also found the story, and the man, fascinating. And cannot keep my brain from speculating about both his thought processes and the actual facts of his life. He can no longer provide these so will remain a mystery. Or an ink blot onto which others will project their preferred stories.
My own imagined Jason Arday starts as a very smart kid of very modest means and some degree of learning disability who, like many (most?) people, wanted more from life but lived in a world that offered little possibility of that. (A few escape via athletics; that seems to have been his initial plan). Then he encountered the CSJ script. It had a leading, high status character, the victim/hero, that looked like a good fit for him. He studied the role for years, learned the lines and sailed through the auditions. No one seemed interested in whether his actual life matched the character’s, so he made the character bigger and bigger. The producers loved it and he ended up on the big stage. He really liked it on that stage and was genuinely distressed and thought it unfair when some people tried to take it away from him because of the divergence between his actual backstory and the character’s.
As to the claims that it is racist to point out the divergence: CSJ theory, and more specifically Critical Race Theory, are extraordinarily reductionist frameworks for understanding the world. Those who have been steeped in it long enough simply have no analytic lens other than ‘racism’ to make sense of the situation. On the other hand, some CRTers are more opportunist than true believer and know that an accusation of racism has been a very effective defense against scrutiny of dubious claims and practices. But at some point most people are going to have to acknowledge that even if the Emperor isn’t completely naked, he’s rather scantily clad.
Helen’s piece is by far the most helpful set of reflections about the Jason Arday tragedy which I have come across in the past few days: a deeply thoughtful, extremely well-informed, genuinely compassionate yet courageously honest attempt to make sense of an incredibly complex issue for the benefit of both herself and others, which nevertheless recognises the inevitable limitations of such an attempt. As Helen implies, none of us will ever ‘know the truth’, but her piece strikes me as an exemplary model - sadly ignored, forgotten or simply never learned by many who have weighed in on this topic - for how to get very much closer to it as intelligently, charitably and humanely as possible.
Another fantastic piece on Arday, Helen! Your writings on this have been excellent.
The only thing I would add is one of the reasons the press - both right and left - covered his story so much was simply timing. It broke during parliamentary recess when there has been a lot less going on to crowd the news cycle. Timing often plays a big role in press scrutiny.
It seems clear that at least one of the types of racism which helped lead to the Jason Arday tragedy and which is prominent in the discourse surrounding it was that which was identified by the black American academic John McWhorter in his 2021 book, ‘Woke Racism’? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Woke-Racism-Religion-Betrayed-America/dp/B09RLWJDTJ
To become a professor at any university requires multiple degrees and across those degrees, lengthy interactions with dozens of mentors/professors. Apparently no one caught the plagiarism or addressed the unbelievably wild stories. Low expectations, laziness, DEI/postmodern absolutions and professors fears of being accused of racism are a few explanations. But, clearly this mess should have never occurred.
I can't speak to the issues of plagerism ., but the preposterous stories he kept inventing about himself should have raised flags and that alone would lead to more careful scrutiny as to who he was. I still don't understand how all of that went without closer inspection. He was reinventing himself as P.T. Barnum.. I think those stories alone brought an increased interest as more of them continued to be brought to light. The attention was of his doing.
My grandmother was a farmer, who among many other things, raised chickens. Luckily, I did not witness this on my summer visits, but I was certainly disturbed when she shared that often when one chicken was injured others pecked it to death. There's no question in my mind that some of those who piled on the very odd case of Jason Arday were following that base instinct. You should be ashamed.
More generally, to use...again a very ODD individual case ... to prove or disprove a theory is just so ridiculous.
Weird things happen. These are not the proper basis for scholarly, or any other kind of rational analysis.
The investigation by Cambridge which was in process was the proper format for this to be considered.
I’m under the impression that absent the intense media scrutiny Cambridge would have continued its several year history of refusing to investigate and of denouncing as racist anyone raising the issue.
For example, the New York Times got hold of a draft letter from Cambridge, that they wrote in expectation of a critical article in the Times Higher Education, about a year ago (the article never appeared owing to legal threats). This draft letter simply dismissed the allegations as “racist”. They then did nothing for a year until the Cofnas Substack article, whereupon their first reaction was to again simply dismiss the allegations as “racist”.
sorry, but a reference to a "draft" letter, related to an article that never appeared, being described by you... and then your description of their subsequent reaction to a substack... pretty short of what anybody looking for reliable sources should accept.
Come on, those statements by Cambridge justify the suggestion you were replying to. If that isn’t sufficient, what sort of substantiation are you seeking?
I'd have to get a better picture of what they were initially responding to, and exactly what they said.... it seems like more recent communications regarding what was in process is more relevant at this point.
JA was not simply an injured victim. I could list the ways - but this has been done so ad nauseum in the last few weeks. The chicken analogy fails on many levels - most notably that JA killed himself (nb it is far from uncommon for people in the public eye to be horribly pecked - ask JK Rowling); the 'pecking chickens' were not just doing so out of sadism/racism (no doubt some were), but clear outrage at what they regard as racist 'anti-racism', which has been growing as a socio-political force for decades (aka wokism); the abuse of law - calling up the the police and Cart--Ruck; the shameful denials from Cambridge, trying to cover their own sins by making desperate accusations of racism.
I agree that, ideally, the proper format for investigation was Cambridge - however, as CH pointed out, they had already failed, several times to even take the accusations at all seriously. Rather they just reacted, essentially, with name-calling. As eg. many organisations (police, politicians, companies etc) do when accused of malfeasance - denial, coverups, own investigations find nothing....then media and popular pressure forces the inquiry, finds them very guilty etc. Although I have no doubt Cambridge's eventual change was not only by external pressure (media etc) but also internal pressure (other Cambridge academics infuriation at the affair. IE: The idea that the people/media should just shut up and let the accused part investigate themselves is ......without merit.
I spent much of my professional life working in race equality. One thing I learned is that racism rarely announces itself as racism. It usually presents itself as a reasonable question, an objective standard or a concern about quality—applied with remarkable persistence to some people and rather less enthusiasm to others.
There may have been legitimate questions to ask about Jason Arday’s work. That does not explain why one Black academic became prey, why every aspect of his life was opened to public ridicule, or why the racial ideology and organised purpose of the man driving the campaign received so little attention. Scrutiny is not neutral merely because journalists call it scrutiny. We must also ask who selected the target, who supplied the frame and why the story was pursued with such appetite.
David Hume once dismissed a learned Black man as being like “a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly”. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica confidently declared Black people mentally inferior. Today we are more civilised. We use AI detectors to ask whether a Black man’s words and intelligence were really his—and then another machine awards the resulting article a certificate saying it is “98% human”.
Many thanks as ever for this miraculous overview and analysis of the overflowing river on all aspects of the intriguing Jason Arday story. For most of us who struggle and fail to even read a fraction of the stuff let alone know how to get our heads around it all, reading a careful balanced account is wonderful. It's therapeutic in the way great investigative journalism or great history or great inquiry reports are therapeutic. But those take years if not decades of team work to produce. Helen does it in a few days, and presumably single handed. The key feature is her simple recognition of the limits of what she can and can't be sure of, her own biases, and what she said that she now revises. It wouldn't be therapeutic if you didn't trust your therapist!
PS Further evidence of superhuman powers is to do this decade of work in a few days while playing "speed chess" with scores of dissenters on X to the point of (let's call it) "being cancelled" for now, and not need a few weeks convalescence to recover.
PPS And like the NHS you get the same service as those who subscribe (aka pay our taxes!)
In 2001, Spike Lee did a university lecture tour in which he lamented Hollywood's use of the damaging trope of the Magic Negro. Presumably he did not visit Cambridge.
Ash Sarkar, a usual suspect of course, is quoted by you as saying some are treating Jason Arday as “a stand-in for an entire race”. This is precisely what Diane Abbott has claimed for him in her Trafalgar Square speech.
Thank you for your detailed and balanced analysis.
The link in my saved to own mail message no longer works. Perhaps I have been censored!
I had saved your post but I am now unable to navigate to it on Substack however I try. It gives me a blank frozen screen. I am fortunately not a conspiracy theorist!
Oh! Yes, well done at not becoming a conspiracy theorist. Substack will absolutely not censor me!
As usual, cogent and well-expressed. Thank you for being on the front lines.
Thank you for a superb summary of this complex and multifaceted story. I am not sure it could have broken in quite the way it has at an easier moment. Cracks are appearing around identity ideology in all its forms which are allowing a space to appear to make connections that would not have been possible a few short years ago.
Still waiting for this to happen in Canada. Seeing no signs of it abating here.
Another excellent essay by Helen Pluckrose (unsurprising, I know!).
Meanwhile, there have been so many people whose careers and reputations, not to mention lives, have been destroyed by the woke mobs -- and who didn't lie and confabulate or sic powerful law firms on their critics -- yet who haven't received even a fraction of the attention Arday is receiving. Richard Bilkszto, to cite just one example:
"Former principal who sued TDSB over alleged bullying during anti-racism training dies by suicide"
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/former-principal-who-sued-tdsb-over-alleged-bullying-during-anti-racism-training-dies-by-suicide/article_4b9f98a9-7394-5517-909b-c69eb581aec9.html
I also found the story, and the man, fascinating. And cannot keep my brain from speculating about both his thought processes and the actual facts of his life. He can no longer provide these so will remain a mystery. Or an ink blot onto which others will project their preferred stories.
My own imagined Jason Arday starts as a very smart kid of very modest means and some degree of learning disability who, like many (most?) people, wanted more from life but lived in a world that offered little possibility of that. (A few escape via athletics; that seems to have been his initial plan). Then he encountered the CSJ script. It had a leading, high status character, the victim/hero, that looked like a good fit for him. He studied the role for years, learned the lines and sailed through the auditions. No one seemed interested in whether his actual life matched the character’s, so he made the character bigger and bigger. The producers loved it and he ended up on the big stage. He really liked it on that stage and was genuinely distressed and thought it unfair when some people tried to take it away from him because of the divergence between his actual backstory and the character’s.
As to the claims that it is racist to point out the divergence: CSJ theory, and more specifically Critical Race Theory, are extraordinarily reductionist frameworks for understanding the world. Those who have been steeped in it long enough simply have no analytic lens other than ‘racism’ to make sense of the situation. On the other hand, some CRTers are more opportunist than true believer and know that an accusation of racism has been a very effective defense against scrutiny of dubious claims and practices. But at some point most people are going to have to acknowledge that even if the Emperor isn’t completely naked, he’s rather scantily clad.
Helen’s piece is by far the most helpful set of reflections about the Jason Arday tragedy which I have come across in the past few days: a deeply thoughtful, extremely well-informed, genuinely compassionate yet courageously honest attempt to make sense of an incredibly complex issue for the benefit of both herself and others, which nevertheless recognises the inevitable limitations of such an attempt. As Helen implies, none of us will ever ‘know the truth’, but her piece strikes me as an exemplary model - sadly ignored, forgotten or simply never learned by many who have weighed in on this topic - for how to get very much closer to it as intelligently, charitably and humanely as possible.
Another fantastic piece on Arday, Helen! Your writings on this have been excellent.
The only thing I would add is one of the reasons the press - both right and left - covered his story so much was simply timing. It broke during parliamentary recess when there has been a lot less going on to crowd the news cycle. Timing often plays a big role in press scrutiny.
It seems clear that at least one of the types of racism which helped lead to the Jason Arday tragedy and which is prominent in the discourse surrounding it was that which was identified by the black American academic John McWhorter in his 2021 book, ‘Woke Racism’? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Woke-Racism-Religion-Betrayed-America/dp/B09RLWJDTJ
To become a professor at any university requires multiple degrees and across those degrees, lengthy interactions with dozens of mentors/professors. Apparently no one caught the plagiarism or addressed the unbelievably wild stories. Low expectations, laziness, DEI/postmodern absolutions and professors fears of being accused of racism are a few explanations. But, clearly this mess should have never occurred.
Steven Pinker’s concept of common knowledge explains how the Jason Arday story unfolded like the fairy tale The Emperor’s New Clothes.
Many people in academia privately suspected problems with his credentials.
Everyone kept quiet because they thought they were the only ones.
Public whistleblowers and journalists exposed the truth openly.
This did not reveal new facts to the insiders.
It acted like the little boy shouting that the emperor is naked.
Suddenly, everyone realized that everyone else knew the truth too.
The illusion shattered instantly.
The crowd shifted from polite praise to public criticism.
I can't speak to the issues of plagerism ., but the preposterous stories he kept inventing about himself should have raised flags and that alone would lead to more careful scrutiny as to who he was. I still don't understand how all of that went without closer inspection. He was reinventing himself as P.T. Barnum.. I think those stories alone brought an increased interest as more of them continued to be brought to light. The attention was of his doing.
My grandmother was a farmer, who among many other things, raised chickens. Luckily, I did not witness this on my summer visits, but I was certainly disturbed when she shared that often when one chicken was injured others pecked it to death. There's no question in my mind that some of those who piled on the very odd case of Jason Arday were following that base instinct. You should be ashamed.
More generally, to use...again a very ODD individual case ... to prove or disprove a theory is just so ridiculous.
Weird things happen. These are not the proper basis for scholarly, or any other kind of rational analysis.
The investigation by Cambridge which was in process was the proper format for this to be considered.
I’m under the impression that absent the intense media scrutiny Cambridge would have continued its several year history of refusing to investigate and of denouncing as racist anyone raising the issue.
I would really appreciate your sharing any credible sources you have to confirm this info about Cambridge.
For example, the New York Times got hold of a draft letter from Cambridge, that they wrote in expectation of a critical article in the Times Higher Education, about a year ago (the article never appeared owing to legal threats). This draft letter simply dismissed the allegations as “racist”. They then did nothing for a year until the Cofnas Substack article, whereupon their first reaction was to again simply dismiss the allegations as “racist”.
sorry, but a reference to a "draft" letter, related to an article that never appeared, being described by you... and then your description of their subsequent reaction to a substack... pretty short of what anybody looking for reliable sources should accept.
Come on, those statements by Cambridge justify the suggestion you were replying to. If that isn’t sufficient, what sort of substantiation are you seeking?
what statements? You're not even quoting; just characterizing. Valid sources are from the source.
Do you not think it's a reasonable inference based on what we know about how they responded to the initial reports?
I'd have to get a better picture of what they were initially responding to, and exactly what they said.... it seems like more recent communications regarding what was in process is more relevant at this point.
Fair point.
JA was not simply an injured victim. I could list the ways - but this has been done so ad nauseum in the last few weeks. The chicken analogy fails on many levels - most notably that JA killed himself (nb it is far from uncommon for people in the public eye to be horribly pecked - ask JK Rowling); the 'pecking chickens' were not just doing so out of sadism/racism (no doubt some were), but clear outrage at what they regard as racist 'anti-racism', which has been growing as a socio-political force for decades (aka wokism); the abuse of law - calling up the the police and Cart--Ruck; the shameful denials from Cambridge, trying to cover their own sins by making desperate accusations of racism.
I agree that, ideally, the proper format for investigation was Cambridge - however, as CH pointed out, they had already failed, several times to even take the accusations at all seriously. Rather they just reacted, essentially, with name-calling. As eg. many organisations (police, politicians, companies etc) do when accused of malfeasance - denial, coverups, own investigations find nothing....then media and popular pressure forces the inquiry, finds them very guilty etc. Although I have no doubt Cambridge's eventual change was not only by external pressure (media etc) but also internal pressure (other Cambridge academics infuriation at the affair. IE: The idea that the people/media should just shut up and let the accused part investigate themselves is ......without merit.
I spent much of my professional life working in race equality. One thing I learned is that racism rarely announces itself as racism. It usually presents itself as a reasonable question, an objective standard or a concern about quality—applied with remarkable persistence to some people and rather less enthusiasm to others.
There may have been legitimate questions to ask about Jason Arday’s work. That does not explain why one Black academic became prey, why every aspect of his life was opened to public ridicule, or why the racial ideology and organised purpose of the man driving the campaign received so little attention. Scrutiny is not neutral merely because journalists call it scrutiny. We must also ask who selected the target, who supplied the frame and why the story was pursued with such appetite.
David Hume once dismissed a learned Black man as being like “a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly”. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica confidently declared Black people mentally inferior. Today we are more civilised. We use AI detectors to ask whether a Black man’s words and intelligence were really his—and then another machine awards the resulting article a certificate saying it is “98% human”.
The technology is new. The suspicion is very old.
Brilliant Post ,Helen. Thank You