A colleague of mine is BAME. She is very intelligent, but has still had to work incredibly hard over many years to get to the point of beginning her Phd. “Dumbing down” entry requirements just to fulfil a quota is incredibly insulting to those who have got there on genuine merit and extremely hard work, not because of their skin colour.
Jason Arday #2
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Jason Arday Threads
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Thats irrelevant, honestly. The sheer number of articles is madness.
There'll be the usual hand wringing "how do we prevent this" from the very same people who enable this behaviour, as usual.
The way we prevent it is by not elevating individuals beyond their capabilities because they present a palatable, individualistic triumph over adversity story that allows their enablers to ignore the systemic, structural ways we disadvantage people based on socioeconomic class, sex, race etc. and instead presents an old fashioned "pull yourself up by your bootstrap" narrative.
There is something so deeply conservative about this kind of supposedly progressive storytelling (see also Jack Monroe). If one exceptional individual can overcome poverty, racism, disability or educational disadvantage through sufficient determination and resilience, there is no need to ask why thousands of equally capable people facing the same barriers do not. Structural inequality becomes an obstacle course for exceptional individuals to conquer rather than a collective problem Arday's enablers are obligated to dismantle.
Institutions benefit twice. They get to present the exceptional individual as evidence of their inclusivity while avoiding scrutiny of the structures that made that person's story exceptional in the first place. The individual becomes both an inspirational story and proof that the system works. Look, he made it to Cambridge!
It creates perverse incentives. The messier and more mundane truth, that achievement is usually some combination of ability, work, opportunity, support, luck and circumstance, is less marketable than a heroic narrative in which every disadvantage is overcome by extraordinary personal qualities. People like Arday end up rewarded for how compellingly they can narrate themselves irrespective of their capabilities.
Then everyone expresses astonishment when some of those narratives turn out to have been embellished or fabricated.
The answer isn't to stop giving opportunities to people from unconventional or disadvantaged backgrounds. Equality should mean that an ordinary but academically talented working-class, black, disabled or otherwise disadvantaged person gets a fair chance to be as ordinary in their personal lives as anyone else.
The way we prevent it is by not elevating individuals beyond their capabilities because they present a palatable, individualistic triumph over adversity story that allows their enablers to ignore the systemic, structural ways we disadvantage people based on socioeconomic class, sex, race etc. and instead presents an old fashioned "pull yourself up by your bootstrap" narrative.
There is something so deeply conservative about this kind of supposedly progressive storytelling (see also Jack Monroe). If one exceptional individual can overcome poverty, racism, disability or educational disadvantage through sufficient determination and resilience, there is no need to ask why thousands of equally capable people facing the same barriers do not. Structural inequality becomes an obstacle course for exceptional individuals to conquer rather than a collective problem Arday's enablers are obligated to dismantle.
Institutions benefit twice. They get to present the exceptional individual as evidence of their inclusivity while avoiding scrutiny of the structures that made that person's story exceptional in the first place. The individual becomes both an inspirational story and proof that the system works. Look, he made it to Cambridge!
It creates perverse incentives. The messier and more mundane truth, that achievement is usually some combination of ability, work, opportunity, support, luck and circumstance, is less marketable than a heroic narrative in which every disadvantage is overcome by extraordinary personal qualities. People like Arday end up rewarded for how compellingly they can narrate themselves irrespective of their capabilities.
Then everyone expresses astonishment when some of those narratives turn out to have been embellished or fabricated.
The answer isn't to stop giving opportunities to people from unconventional or disadvantaged backgrounds. Equality should mean that an ordinary but academically talented working-class, black, disabled or otherwise disadvantaged person gets a fair chance to be as ordinary in their personal lives as anyone else.
Last edited:
What about the mental health of the education journalist who suddenly had the Police on him because of Arday? What about the mental health of his students feeling gaslit by institutions?
And due to the disaster of higher education marketisation universities are not held to account appropriately by either the state, by regulations or by shareholders / boards. The OIA is toothless, slow, and can only fine unis £5k. Which when it was set up was a decent amount of money, now it doesn’t make much impact on a students debt
And due to the disaster of higher education marketisation universities are not held to account appropriately by either the state, by regulations or by shareholders / boards. The OIA is toothless, slow, and can only fine unis £5k. Which when it was set up was a decent amount of money, now it doesn’t make much impact on a students debt
Problem is as others have said this is already being reduced down now. It is tragic that JA felt his only option was this. It wasn't. No-one wanted that. However I saw some Newsthump of all places going 'here's a story about a cambridge professor who got caught plagiarising, aha it wasn't Jason Arday it was a white guy and no-one cared' and it's like did that other professor say he ran 6 marathons on a broken leg and raised millions for charity, was anointed the second coming by a wise old shaman woman having not spoken, read or wrote anything until he was 18? That is why the attention was so intense, and the book release threw petrol all over an inferno of media scrutiny.
But now that is all being dismissed and it was simply racism.
But now that is all being dismissed and it was simply racism.
This is the reason why the Jack Monroes of this world get away with the fab
I've yet to meet anybody who has even heard of Tattle IRL, which is a huge shame, because Tattlers are remarkably astute.
Educating people about The Ways of Grifters & Narcs is of supreme importance and of public interest IMHO. So many people are pulled in by them.
I've yet to meet anybody who has even heard of Tattle IRL, which is a huge shame, because Tattlers are remarkably astute.
This is the vacuum I was on about earlier. Also, I must say Mary Beard's response gave me a cynical chuckle this morning about laying off asking Cambridge more questions! She has the career, plaudits, accolades and fame that probably Arday wished for himself. Also, hasn't she herself called for critical thinking and questioning in her endless podcasts, books, videos, tv and so on.This is a tin hat argument. By that logic, are we going to absolve those held up on criminal charges, who shouldn’t be put through the judicial system, or serve time in [badly run] prisons that create more hardened criminals, because of their mental health? I think we already do.
Southport killer Axel Rudakubana appears to be manipulating the system, families' lawyer says
On Thursday, Axel Rudakubana was moved from prison to a secure psychiatric hospital in Berkshire.www.bbc.co.uk
What if they were to hang themselves in their cell?! Whose fault will that be, Sadiq? The prosecution? The arresting and investigative officers? The media that followed the story? Maybe their victim can blame themselves for pressing charges?!
This is precisely what I was saying before. This is the kind of culture that is being propagated by people like Sadiq Khan, that we do not hold people responsible because of some feigned victimhood, or mental health concern.
It is creating a landslide of unscrupulous people who won’t take accountability for themselves, and they will opportunistically take advantage of this kind of liberalism, so Sadiq can duck off with his self-righteous bull. As per.
Defending your employer so you don't get the boot also. That was my gut impression.
Last edited:
I find that video of him accepting the NY holiday extremely creepy. His answers are very carefully couched to evade out and out lying on TV, his facial expressions are skin-crawlingly obsequious, and his ex must have known she was lying in his behalf or she was deluded to fk.
Surely this is because the majority of the news media have become celebrity-fawning rags? There's a tit ton happening in the wider world that the press could be doing investigative and factual reporting about. It isn't happening because many people prefer to read about who is wearing what bikini and where to buy it from. If goldfish bought tabloids and had online shopping terminals in their tanks, the tabloid media would be back in the money with their current strategies. #idiocracyisNOW
*sigh* seeing videos shared about an upcoming Trafalgar Square vigil. “If you saw JA as a human, show up.” As opposed to what? A lying alien?
Can anyone explain why he popped up on Surprise Surprise, or whatever telly show it was…
Why would a serious academic need to go on a Saturday night light entertainment show?
Was it because his wife wanted to ‘do something nice for him’, or was it because they thought they deserved to be famous by any means?
When I want to do something nice for my old harold we go out for the day.
I wonder if he was ever touted for Celebrity Big Brother?
Why would a serious academic need to go on a Saturday night light entertainment show?
Was it because his wife wanted to ‘do something nice for him’, or was it because they thought they deserved to be famous by any means?
When I want to do something nice for my old harold we go out for the day.
I wonder if he was ever touted for Celebrity Big Brother?
I think he always wanted to be famous, hence the confabulation and the massive exaggeration of his various achievements. He didn't want to just be good, he wanted to be great and he wanted to be revered by absolutely everyone. When he realised he was fast becoming a joke, he couldn't bear the humiliation.
I watched The Curse of Love Island and listening to the contestants talk about the fame that was bestowed on them in the first few weeks after leaving the show, was enlightening. These people were suddenly thrust into the spotlight and they didn't want it to end. Such a shallow and vacuous way to live.
Someone on here (or elsewhere?) postulated that he wife applied for the show and made up the story about not being able to talk until 11 and read and write until 18 so they could get the holiday in New York, and that from then he had to stick to the story, which turned out to open a lot of other doors.
While he was alive, Arday was used by people who wanted some of his reflected glory and now he's gone those same people have immediately (as in, within hours at most) pivoted to wanting some of his reflected tragedy.
Cambridge first used him to avoid scrutiny over their commitment to diversity, accessibility and inclusion and now they're using him to avoid scrutiny over their hiring practices, treatment of staff and conduct of internal investigations.
It's also no coincidence that many of the people now rushing to demonise the media and general public are also people who wish to avoid any kind of scrutiny themselves (politicians, "influencers", "activists" etc.).
Cambridge first used him to avoid scrutiny over their commitment to diversity, accessibility and inclusion and now they're using him to avoid scrutiny over their hiring practices, treatment of staff and conduct of internal investigations.
It's also no coincidence that many of the people now rushing to demonise the media and general public are also people who wish to avoid any kind of scrutiny themselves (politicians, "influencers", "activists" etc.).
He lived like a fraud and by killing himself has now cemented his legacy as a martyr
If it was Surprise Surprise that ended in 2015, so before he was in academia. No idea why JA's then wife nominated him, it could even have been at his own suggestion, but it conflicts with his statements that he was a private person who didn't like showing off
Last edited:
All his statements conflict. Like with guest et al, so many lies, they can't remember which way is up so badly they end up facetuning the sky.
This is exactly how I feel. The story about him plagiarising an essay for his PhD. was of little interest to me. Surely that would require an internal investigation, and it may have included a criminal investigation. I have no idea if he crossed the line with regards to the law.
The story that engaged me were the claims of running marathons with broken legs, playing for Crystal Palace, being on Seven up when he wasn’t born. Outlandish stories in a self seeking autobiography, that were just asking to be lampooned.
Second to this story gaining traction, and on a more serious note, was his appointment at Cambridge University by a very pious woman, who clearly could not see past his colour and failed to do her due diligence. Thusly throwing the whole academic institution into disrepute.
He was a DEI hire, no doubt after students at Cambridge had asked for there to be decolonisation when recruiting staff in 2020, right around the time of the heightened tensions of the BLM movement.
His appointment should still be investigated and I really hope this obsession and overreach of DEI is dismantled. This current system is not working. It undermines everything.
Didn’t someone else here mention seeing him at a speaking event, and he was treated like some sort of rock star?
You do wonder if the persistent adulation went to his head.
You do wonder if the persistent adulation went to his head.
Right? I have no idea why the hiring policies for sociology professors are being treated like a matter of national security. I feel like 90 percent of the people outraged by it couldn't name a single other academic.
- Status