Arday claimed that he ran 30 marathons in 35 days. He claimed that he didn't speak until the age of 11 and was illiterate until 18. He claimed that he was featured on the television show "Seven Up", which aired two decades before he was even born. He claimed that he had brain cancer, testicular cancer, epilepsy and locked in syndrome.
If he was a mentally ill, serial fabulist what conclusion should we draw about his enablers in academia and the media? Anybody with a gram of common sense would read those claims and know instantly they were nonsense. Instead, he got a pass from supposed experts based on his skin color.
If he was in the grips of mental illness he deserves sympathy and compassion but it is madness itself to believe that should extend to a professorship at Cambridge and a million dollar book deal. The two sides of the debate are not equivalent here.
This should not be one side versus another. The crime belongs to Cambridge and those incompetently managing the institution. They set the stage for this tragedy. So called elite institution have worked to do to regain their elite status.
And they used this poor man for their own aggrandizement. Which has been the conservative position all along (I never saw any commentary from that side that he was the “worst man in the world”). It is well to remember Malcolm X’s warnings about white liberals. He understood that the people who declared themselves “allies” were not motivated by the love of black people, but by their own urgent psychological needs, and so were dangerous for black people to turn their backs on.
That’s the problem, or at least a big part of it. Arday’s race should have been irrelevant in the decision to hire him, publish him, and publicly defend him against accusations that turned out to be true. But it wasn’t. And that drove a lot of the disastrous series of events that ended in his death. While we should be aware of systemic biases involving race, we shouldn’t use that awareness as an alternative to being fair and honest in our assessment of a particular individual. Racism is stupid and destructive regardless of how it’s expressed.
When a deeply flawed person kills themselves, there's little to be gained by casting blame. However, when a beloved academic, like Daniel Kahneman, decides to end his life in the manner in which he did, and the entire field of psychology stays silent, it kind of makes me wonder. A lot.
We can be confident he had _some_ sort of mental health problems, but I am far from the first to point out that autism is likely to be another of his lies - someone who genuinely has a neurological disability that makes it hard for them to read subtle social cues is unlikely to be able to charm and con their way into a prestigious position that they are academically unqualified for.
ever notice how the authors of these "actually, everyone is at fault" articles always place themselves above the fray, making a cool-eyed appraisal before concluding, once again, "yup, EVERYONE is racist"?
Except he wasn’t the same as other dishonest academics. He was a fabulist and an fraud to an absolutely ridiculous degree who used his race and diagnosis as a shield against critique. It’s rough justice but it comes as no surprise that these qualities were used a cudgel.
No there have been many dishonest ones. Rachel Dolezal, even ones who pretended to be holocaust survivors. The identity that matters isn’t race but victim status
Very well said. I don’t think I’m alone that I’ve always been uncomfortable with treating minorities “as” anything in the context of politics. People aren’t symbols. Treat Arday as an individual and an unpleasant picture emerges that no one wants to reckon with if they’re determined to make it about politics.
Do you ever notice how your prognosis of conservative culture is exemplified within the circumstances of the subject in your writing, while your critique of the left's intersection with the same subject is always nebulous?
Like you point directly to specific trends in academia that the right takes issue with, but when it comes to the left it's suddenly "I don't know the specifics of how this person got here, but I do know that The Left elevates minorities in all aspects of power because they're minorities most, if not all, of the time."
Why is it that you can draw a straight line of pointed criticism toward right wings takes as they directly relate to Arday's position and circumstance, but your criticism targeted leftward is broad, nebulous, and indirect? It's not even just this article, it is a pattern in both your analysis and your writing.
Equating tangible, demonstrable, critiques of ghoulish right wing thought, and non-specific, vibes-based, critiques of the left is the hallmark of your bad faith enlightened centrism.
Just to be clear, you are stating that the 3rd world is subhuman-not Miller. Also, how else are people supposed to judge Arday, "as a human," other than than information that is available about that (former)human?
whatever new relationship we form, it should be formed on the foundation of mutual trust, respect, and charity.
Or… the principles of the university. Principles he violated. If we’re to have a new relationship, it starts with calling the bad actors to account and demanding that those who would seek to educate and form us are first educated and formed by the principles required from our foundations.
If you want a new relationship, it starts with telling the deadbeats to rise to the occasion.
So, I generally totally agree with you. Both sides of the aisle absolutely have an unhealthy relationship with minorities. And we all know that anything that one side decides to focus on will be written about in the most hyperbolic way possible -such is the case here from the right. THAT SAID, this case, was an unfortunate exception. This was not a "both sides are equally delusional" case. This man lied over and over and over again. He didn't just fudge some facts. He also used race as a defense whenever someone tried to call him out on discrepancies. Suicide or any sort of death is utterly tragic - no one should have died because of this. But this was not some innocent man being pushed by the winds of right wing and left wing elites, he played his own role in this very sad demise.
Arday claimed that he ran 30 marathons in 35 days. He claimed that he didn't speak until the age of 11 and was illiterate until 18. He claimed that he was featured on the television show "Seven Up", which aired two decades before he was even born. He claimed that he had brain cancer, testicular cancer, epilepsy and locked in syndrome.
If he was a mentally ill, serial fabulist what conclusion should we draw about his enablers in academia and the media? Anybody with a gram of common sense would read those claims and know instantly they were nonsense. Instead, he got a pass from supposed experts based on his skin color.
If he was in the grips of mental illness he deserves sympathy and compassion but it is madness itself to believe that should extend to a professorship at Cambridge and a million dollar book deal. The two sides of the debate are not equivalent here.
So what I’m hearing is that Columbia should hire George Santos as his successor? :D
do you have a professorship?
fuck that, do you even have a professional career ...
Do you even professor, bro?
lol maxxing
Do you even run 30 marathons with a broken leg?
Fuck that, do you even sign NDAs for fundraising….
ive ran 3 miles with a cracked hip
Your new speaker position at Oxford awaits.
As if Oxford students arent shuffled in by networks for less.... some of the dumbest privileged people sit in these schools
So since the system is already crap let's go ahead and make it even crappier.
Works great for government too. As compared to trying the opposite tack and improving things.
What do you think?
This should not be one side versus another. The crime belongs to Cambridge and those incompetently managing the institution. They set the stage for this tragedy. So called elite institution have worked to do to regain their elite status.
And they used this poor man for their own aggrandizement. Which has been the conservative position all along (I never saw any commentary from that side that he was the “worst man in the world”). It is well to remember Malcolm X’s warnings about white liberals. He understood that the people who declared themselves “allies” were not motivated by the love of black people, but by their own urgent psychological needs, and so were dangerous for black people to turn their backs on.
Accurate take.
https://rawnathan.substack.com/p/did-dei-just-die
The left committed this fraud, and the right pointed it out. It’s hilarious how you blame the right more.
That's the most disingenuous comment I have seen on this.
“Minorities Like Jason Arday”
That’s the problem, or at least a big part of it. Arday’s race should have been irrelevant in the decision to hire him, publish him, and publicly defend him against accusations that turned out to be true. But it wasn’t. And that drove a lot of the disastrous series of events that ended in his death. While we should be aware of systemic biases involving race, we shouldn’t use that awareness as an alternative to being fair and honest in our assessment of a particular individual. Racism is stupid and destructive regardless of how it’s expressed.
Do we *know* he was on the spectrum or are we just taking his word for it?
When a deeply flawed person kills themselves, there's little to be gained by casting blame. However, when a beloved academic, like Daniel Kahneman, decides to end his life in the manner in which he did, and the entire field of psychology stays silent, it kind of makes me wonder. A lot.
We can be confident he had _some_ sort of mental health problems, but I am far from the first to point out that autism is likely to be another of his lies - someone who genuinely has a neurological disability that makes it hard for them to read subtle social cues is unlikely to be able to charm and con their way into a prestigious position that they are academically unqualified for.
Narcissism and autism have overlapping symptoms...
But they aren’t the same thing
ever notice how the authors of these "actually, everyone is at fault" articles always place themselves above the fray, making a cool-eyed appraisal before concluding, once again, "yup, EVERYONE is racist"?
Except he wasn’t the same as other dishonest academics. He was a fabulist and an fraud to an absolutely ridiculous degree who used his race and diagnosis as a shield against critique. It’s rough justice but it comes as no surprise that these qualities were used a cudgel.
No there have been many dishonest ones. Rachel Dolezal, even ones who pretended to be holocaust survivors. The identity that matters isn’t race but victim status
How nice. Again, I am a racist.
I suggest, you, you are the problem.
Tell me a whole swath of society is racist because, well, conservative, while you tell me how we shouldn't say things about whole swaths of society.
Do you really, not see, oh never mind. Now, feel free to tell me how I am too self deluded or just an evile racist...
Very well said. I don’t think I’m alone that I’ve always been uncomfortable with treating minorities “as” anything in the context of politics. People aren’t symbols. Treat Arday as an individual and an unpleasant picture emerges that no one wants to reckon with if they’re determined to make it about politics.
Do you ever notice how your prognosis of conservative culture is exemplified within the circumstances of the subject in your writing, while your critique of the left's intersection with the same subject is always nebulous?
Like you point directly to specific trends in academia that the right takes issue with, but when it comes to the left it's suddenly "I don't know the specifics of how this person got here, but I do know that The Left elevates minorities in all aspects of power because they're minorities most, if not all, of the time."
Why is it that you can draw a straight line of pointed criticism toward right wings takes as they directly relate to Arday's position and circumstance, but your criticism targeted leftward is broad, nebulous, and indirect? It's not even just this article, it is a pattern in both your analysis and your writing.
Equating tangible, demonstrable, critiques of ghoulish right wing thought, and non-specific, vibes-based, critiques of the left is the hallmark of your bad faith enlightened centrism.
Just to be clear, you are stating that the 3rd world is subhuman-not Miller. Also, how else are people supposed to judge Arday, "as a human," other than than information that is available about that (former)human?
No
whatever new relationship we form, it should be formed on the foundation of mutual trust, respect, and charity.
Or… the principles of the university. Principles he violated. If we’re to have a new relationship, it starts with calling the bad actors to account and demanding that those who would seek to educate and form us are first educated and formed by the principles required from our foundations.
If you want a new relationship, it starts with telling the deadbeats to rise to the occasion.
So, I generally totally agree with you. Both sides of the aisle absolutely have an unhealthy relationship with minorities. And we all know that anything that one side decides to focus on will be written about in the most hyperbolic way possible -such is the case here from the right. THAT SAID, this case, was an unfortunate exception. This was not a "both sides are equally delusional" case. This man lied over and over and over again. He didn't just fudge some facts. He also used race as a defense whenever someone tried to call him out on discrepancies. Suicide or any sort of death is utterly tragic - no one should have died because of this. But this was not some innocent man being pushed by the winds of right wing and left wing elites, he played his own role in this very sad demise.