These folks are yelling that it was a huge DEI disaster because they want it to be a huge DEI disaster
It was a DEI disaster because it was a DEI disaster. Those in authority, and Arday himself knew in real time this was a DEI situation and played those cards. Hindsight has nothing to do with this. Arday was made to order DEI who the whites ate up.
Arday's background: a PE major from an undistinguished university who became "a highly respected scholar of race, inequality and education, with a particular interest in improving the representation of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people in higher education."
And in its hiring announcement, Cambridge proudly proclaimed:
Cambridge has achieved some notable gains in attempting to diversify the landscape, but there is so much more to be done – here and across the sector
https://news.educ.cam.ac.uk/230223-jason-arday
I think it's safe to say he was a DEI hire.
@bradstevens Why would I? If an unqualified white man was hired for a job because he faked his resume, and he was caught out, would you claim it was another example of white privilege?
I'm not saying race is irrelevant, but c'mon. The guy faked his way into a job. It happens.
@bradstevens As I already said above, of course Cambridge played that up. Cambridge is notorious for not hiring black professors. Literally 0.3% of their professors are black. So when they finally found a black guy they could hang their hat on, of course they milked it for all the PR juice they could get from it. That doesn't make it a DEI hire. It's only a DEI hire if they knowingly hired an unqualified candidate because they wanted a black guy. And there's zero evidence that's what happened.
circumstantial evidence is evidence. Of course nobody will admit to it or leave a documental smoking gun.
@co-hoosier It's extremely weak evidence of him actually being a DEI hire. It's very strong evidence that the powers that be in Cambridge were desperate to get some good press for diversity & inclusion purposes.
@co-hoosier They are mutually consistent with each other, but that doesn't mean evidence for one is evidence for the other. That's a form of conjunction fallacy.
@co-hoosier They are mutually consistent with each other, but that doesn't mean evidence for one is evidence for the other. That's a form of conjunction fallacy.
Zero evidence? Are you high on something right now?@bradstevens As I already said above, of course Cambridge played that up. Cambridge is notorious for not hiring black professors. Literally 0.3% of their professors are black. So when they finally found a black guy they could hang their hat on, of course they milked it for all the PR juice they could get from it. That doesn't make it a DEI hire. It's only a DEI hire if they knowingly hired an unqualified candidate because they wanted a black guy. And there's zero evidence that's what happened.
If that guy had a bunch of bullshit "scholarship" and said he couldn't read? Yeah, I'd call that white privilege, or nepotism, or blackmail, or something. I sure as hell wouldn't claim there was "no evidence" that he was unqualified for Cambridge.@bradstevens Why would I? If an unqualified white man was hired for a job because he faked his resume, and he was caught out, would you claim it was another example of white privilege?
I'm not saying race is irrelevant, but c'mon. The guy faked his way into a job. It happens.
There are other black scholars--ACTUAL scholars, in ACTUAL academic areas--that exist. Here's one:
https://www.thefp.com/p/jason-arday-cambridge-academia-mediocrity
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2026/08/11/john-mcwhorter-on-jason-arday/
If that guy had a bunch of bullshit "scholarship" and said he couldn't read? Yeah, I'd call that white privilege, or nepotism, or blackmail, or something. I sure as hell wouldn't claim there was "no evidence" that he was unqualified for Cambridge.@bradstevens Why would I? If an unqualified white man was hired for a job because he faked his resume, and he was caught out, would you claim it was another example of white privilege?
I'm not saying race is irrelevant, but c'mon. The guy faked his way into a job. It happens.
There are other black scholars--ACTUAL scholars, in ACTUAL academic areas--that exist. Here's one:
https://www.thefp.com/p/jason-arday-cambridge-academia-mediocrity
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2026/08/11/john-mcwhorter-on-jason-arday/
Another example of someone stating what they think should have been obvious. The article is a week old. What did he say about it three years ago?
It was obvious.If that guy had a bunch of bullshit "scholarship" and said he couldn't read? Yeah, I'd call that white privilege, or nepotism, or blackmail, or something. I sure as hell wouldn't claim there was "no evidence" that he was unqualified for Cambridge.@bradstevens Why would I? If an unqualified white man was hired for a job because he faked his resume, and he was caught out, would you claim it was another example of white privilege?
I'm not saying race is irrelevant, but c'mon. The guy faked his way into a job. It happens.
There are other black scholars--ACTUAL scholars, in ACTUAL academic areas--that exist. Here's one:
https://www.thefp.com/p/jason-arday-cambridge-academia-mediocrity
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2026/08/11/john-mcwhorter-on-jason-arday/
Another example of someone stating what they think should have been obvious. The article is a week old. What did he say about it three years ago?
I posted what Cambridge posted when they hired him. Did you read it?
I mean, they literally hired him to teach DEI and announced it was a DEI achievement given his background. It's all there in black and white.
@bradstevens I feel like we are talking past each other.
I agree they played up his identity when they announced his hire. As I have said multiple times, that's to be expected. Cambridge doesn't have a strong history - or really any history - of D&I hires, so they jumped on the opportunity. That doesn't prove they hired him because they were gunning for a black guy. They hired him because he was (so it seemed) qualified for the job. I'm saying their playing up his identity when they hired him was a bit disingenuous. My evidence for this is the fact that they do actually have pretty much zero reputation for engaging in that sort of hiring. They have over 700 full-time professors. Literally 4 of them are black. They aren't stocking the cupboards with diversity hires. It's not their thing.
Ironically, once this whole thing hit the fan, some of Arday's most prominent critics were other black UK academics, because they felt that his actions were falsely painting them as a community in a bad light, precisely because D&I hiring at top academic levels wasn't something that top UK universities were known for, and they had to work their butts off to get where they were, and they were afraid this mistaken narrative about Arday would reflect badly on them.
Now, is it impossible they decided in this one instance they were going to find a black guy, and that's why they settled on him? No, of course it's not impossible. But the simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually the right one, and the simplest explanation is this: they got snookered by a liar, they took the opportunity of his hire to try to score PR points, and it eventually blew up.
You're engaging in a logical fallacy similar to CO here. You see A) they hired a black guy who turned out to be unqualified and conclude B) they hired an unqualified guy because he was black. Unheard of? No. It's possible. But logically, it doesn't necessarily follow. And I think my read on the situation better fits all the facts, not just the two facts that 1) he was unqualified and 2) he was black.
You're engaging in a logical fallacy similar to CO here. You see A) they hired a black guy who turned out to be unqualified and conclude B) they hired an unqualified guy because he was black. Unheard of? No. It's possible. But logically, it doesn't necessarily follow. And I think my read on the situation better fits all the facts, not just the two facts that 1) he was unqualified and 2) he was black.
I’ll give you points for creativity. But your “conjunctive fallacy” argument doesn’t fit these facts. My point is about the insidious mind rot notions of White Supremacy brings to an organization. Arday is dead because of the eagerness of all involved to set aside the fiction of white supremacy.