4 ms·

For whatever he did, he never needed to be the product of an international pile-on. Even having known and read about this feels like being a party to a tragedy.

bragh 2mo ago
He did claim harassment with the police against the journalist who was initally investigating him: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rd9y99grzo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rd9y99grzo Now consider that this was in UK.
- NewJazz 2mo ago
  Uh, what about it being in the uk? I guess I've heard the press can be aggressive, but not sure if that's what you meant.
  - dist-epoch 2mo ago
    The UK has no legal freedom of speech protection. Which means you can use the courts to silence the press, as Russian oligarchs have been doing for many years: > Government vows to stop Russian oligarchs ‘abusing’ British courts. Dominic Raab said the government was ‘taking action’ to end the ‘bullying’ to ‘protect our free press’ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/russia-ukraine-oligarchs-british-courts-free-speech-b2037951.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/russia-ukrain... > UK vows to stop the super-rich using courts to silence critics https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60773942 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60773942
    - foldr 2mo ago
      > The UK has no legal freedom of speech protection. This is completely untrue, as you can confirm by googling. The UK has historically had a problem with overly restrictive libel laws and libel tourism, but that point can be made without making statements that are obviously false.
      - dahdum 2mo ago
        From an American viewpoint, no one else has “free speech”, UK included. The First Amendment is globally unique. So it’s a matter of definitions. > The First Amendment to the US Constitution provides almost absolute protection to freedom of expression. By contrast, European and EU law curtails the right to freedom of expression. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/772890/EPRS_BRI(2025)772890_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/7728...
        owebmaster 2mo ago
        > From an American viewpoint, no one else has “free speech”, UK included. That's funny as we see what happens regularly to people trying to exercise their free speech right against a small country in the middle east.
        foldr 2mo ago
        Yes, the First Amendment is unusually permissive. But the sentence "the UK has no legal freedom of speech protection" isn't sensible way to make that point. We're commenting on events which have received extensive (and probably disproportionate) coverage in the UK press, despite the best efforts of Arday and Cambridge. Clearly, their scheme to exploit UK law to silence the press didn't work out. Also, on a minor note, this is an article about something that happened in the UK. An American viewpoint is as valid as any other, but it's not the most relevant here.
Georgelemental 2mo ago
Had Cambridge applied the appropriate sanctions against Arday, the story would never have blown up like it did. Unfortunate
- UncleMeat 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mangodrunk 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - UncleMeat 2mo ago
      Arday being a liar doesn't change people's motivations for making this into a story. People have publicly stated their reasoning.
      - kelseyfrog 2mo ago
        The world is black and white. One side has to be entirely good and one entirely bad. Arday can't be both a liar and a victim. People who pointed his lying out can't have other motivations. We have to wrap it up into a nice little story.
  - Georgelemental 2mo ago
    Source?
    - TimorousBestie 2mo ago
      Nathan Cofnas, the whistleblower, is a “race realist”: > Under a colorblind system that judged applicants only by academic qualifications, blacks would make up 0.7% of Harvard students. (Even that might be an overestimate, since high-school credentials are sometimes given a boost by affirmative action.) In a meritocracy, Harvard faculty would be recruited from the best of the best students, which means the number of black professors would approach 0%. Blacks would disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment. https://ncofnas.com/p/a-guide-for-the-hereditarian-revolution https://ncofnas.com/p/a-guide-for-the-hereditarian-revolutio... (2024) You can agree with his reasoning or not, but his desired political outcome is unquestionably the removal of almost all Black professors from academia.
JuniperMesos 2mo ago
[flagged]
- insane_dreamer 2mo ago
  > he deserved being the product of an international pile-on ... for brazenly lying about his own life and accomplishments for a long time so what? did he defraud anyone? rob them of their savings? get elected as a public official based on it? was he a bad professor? incapable of educating his students? should he have been awarded a PhD? perhaps not, but that's partly on the people who awarded him the doctorate and professorship, since at least some of his lies were apparently easily verifiable
  - JuniperMesos 2mo ago
    > so what? did he defraud anyone? rob them of their savings? get elected as a public official based on it? was he a bad professor? incapable of educating his students? Yes he was a bad professor. The fact that he didn't rob anyone of their savings is hardly a defense of his actual fraudulent conduct, any more than the fact that Sam Bankman-Fried didn't personally murder anyone constitutes a defense of his own fraud. > should he have been awarded a PhD? perhaps not, but that's partly on the people who awarded him the doctorate and professorship, since at least some of his lies were apparently easily verifiable No he shouldn't have been awarded a PhD. I agree that many people within British Academia bear some responsibility for being negligently credulous of Arday, but Arday himself bears responsibility for his own lies and misrepresentations (as well as for invoking the British police to try to dissuade people who were investigating his claims).

bragh 2mo ago

He did claim harassment with the police against the journalist who was initally investigating him: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rd9y99grzo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rd9y99grzo Now consider that this was in UK.

NewJazz 2mo ago
Uh, what about it being in the uk? I guess I've heard the press can be aggressive, but not sure if that's what you meant.
- dist-epoch 2mo ago
  The UK has no legal freedom of speech protection. Which means you can use the courts to silence the press, as Russian oligarchs have been doing for many years: > Government vows to stop Russian oligarchs ‘abusing’ British courts. Dominic Raab said the government was ‘taking action’ to end the ‘bullying’ to ‘protect our free press’ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/russia-ukraine-oligarchs-british-courts-free-speech-b2037951.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/russia-ukrain... > UK vows to stop the super-rich using courts to silence critics https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60773942 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60773942
  - foldr 2mo ago
    > The UK has no legal freedom of speech protection. This is completely untrue, as you can confirm by googling. The UK has historically had a problem with overly restrictive libel laws and libel tourism, but that point can be made without making statements that are obviously false.
    - dahdum 2mo ago
      From an American viewpoint, no one else has “free speech”, UK included. The First Amendment is globally unique. So it’s a matter of definitions. > The First Amendment to the US Constitution provides almost absolute protection to freedom of expression. By contrast, European and EU law curtails the right to freedom of expression. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/772890/EPRS_BRI(2025)772890_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/7728...
      - owebmaster 2mo ago
        > From an American viewpoint, no one else has “free speech”, UK included. That's funny as we see what happens regularly to people trying to exercise their free speech right against a small country in the middle east.
      - foldr 2mo ago
        Yes, the First Amendment is unusually permissive. But the sentence "the UK has no legal freedom of speech protection" isn't sensible way to make that point. We're commenting on events which have received extensive (and probably disproportionate) coverage in the UK press, despite the best efforts of Arday and Cambridge. Clearly, their scheme to exploit UK law to silence the press didn't work out. Also, on a minor note, this is an article about something that happened in the UK. An American viewpoint is as valid as any other, but it's not the most relevant here.

Georgelemental 2mo ago

Had Cambridge applied the appropriate sanctions against Arday, the story would never have blown up like it did. Unfortunate

UncleMeat 2mo ago
[flagged]
- mangodrunk 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - UncleMeat 2mo ago
    Arday being a liar doesn't change people's motivations for making this into a story. People have publicly stated their reasoning.
    - kelseyfrog 2mo ago
      The world is black and white. One side has to be entirely good and one entirely bad. Arday can't be both a liar and a victim. People who pointed his lying out can't have other motivations. We have to wrap it up into a nice little story.
- Georgelemental 2mo ago
  Source?
  - TimorousBestie 2mo ago
    Nathan Cofnas, the whistleblower, is a “race realist”: > Under a colorblind system that judged applicants only by academic qualifications, blacks would make up 0.7% of Harvard students. (Even that might be an overestimate, since high-school credentials are sometimes given a boost by affirmative action.) In a meritocracy, Harvard faculty would be recruited from the best of the best students, which means the number of black professors would approach 0%. Blacks would disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment. https://ncofnas.com/p/a-guide-for-the-hereditarian-revolution https://ncofnas.com/p/a-guide-for-the-hereditarian-revolutio... (2024) You can agree with his reasoning or not, but his desired political outcome is unquestionably the removal of almost all Black professors from academia.

JuniperMesos 2mo ago

[flagged]

insane_dreamer 2mo ago
> he deserved being the product of an international pile-on ... for brazenly lying about his own life and accomplishments for a long time so what? did he defraud anyone? rob them of their savings? get elected as a public official based on it? was he a bad professor? incapable of educating his students? should he have been awarded a PhD? perhaps not, but that's partly on the people who awarded him the doctorate and professorship, since at least some of his lies were apparently easily verifiable
- JuniperMesos 2mo ago
  > so what? did he defraud anyone? rob them of their savings? get elected as a public official based on it? was he a bad professor? incapable of educating his students? Yes he was a bad professor. The fact that he didn't rob anyone of their savings is hardly a defense of his actual fraudulent conduct, any more than the fact that Sam Bankman-Fried didn't personally murder anyone constitutes a defense of his own fraud. > should he have been awarded a PhD? perhaps not, but that's partly on the people who awarded him the doctorate and professorship, since at least some of his lies were apparently easily verifiable No he shouldn't have been awarded a PhD. I agree that many people within British Academia bear some responsibility for being negligently credulous of Arday, but Arday himself bears responsibility for his own lies and misrepresentations (as well as for invoking the British police to try to dissuade people who were investigating his claims).