Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

“It would seem impossible that the way Jason Arday was treated - as public enemy number one - did not contribute to where he ended up.” Did the incessant coverage of Jason Arday, even after his resignation, cross over into a ‘full-blown witch hunt’? Jon Sopel | Lewis Goodall

302,003 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

The people behind Professor Arday - and the racism row over the academic whistleblower. Jason Arday is the barrel I can’t stop scraping. This week, more footage has emerged to cast doubt on his fantastical claims. A former school friend of his says that Jason was not only able to speak, but he was able to maintain an acapella harmony. And a clip from Surprise Surprise had his girlfriend reeling off his achievements while Jason sweats listening to the bullshit piling up. None of the evidence mounting against him has stopped the usual suspects from rushing to the trenches to defend him. Dr Shola Mos-Eisley-Cantina-bing-bong accused everyone of racism. She could be the next diversity academic to be scrutinised. Bus station tramp James O’Brien put down the bottle of cooking sherry long enough to tell us that only a racist would question Arday - unwittingly making an excellent case for racism, as he implies they’re the only people brave enough to pursue the truth. Nathan Cofnas, an academic who broke rank to ask awkward questions about Professor Arday, was indeed accused of racism for doing so. Journalist Dan Neidle asked “Why was the Jason Arday story broken by a racist blogger and not the mainstream press?”, a question that answers itself (anyone who broke the story would be accused of being a racist blogger by you, Dan). And who were the academics who propelled Professor Arday to such an improbable position? His boss at Cambridge, Hilary Cremin, doesn’t seem to have a professional relationship with him. She holds his hands, stares into his eyes, and gushes over him in a way we wouldn’t see if Jason was a 55-year-old white professor with male-pattern baldness and spectacles. Other academics on the board that unanimously selected him seem to have their own racism problem, condemning “whiteness”, which they described as “pernicious”, and calling for the “re-education of whites”. Haven’t we had enough re-education already? The appointment of Professor Arday, and the condemnation of Nathan Cofnas as “racist” for correctly questioning his appointment, point to a bigger problem in academia where the truth is ignored in favour of expedient ideology. Nathan has researched race science - such landmines as the distribution of IQ by demographic group and the heritability of IQ - and has been condemned for it. It’s academia’s flat-earth belief. No amount of evidence will convince them to drop the mantra that we’re all absolutely equal when it comes to IQ. (I’m being a bit unfair to flat-earthers here because at least the earth looks flat up close.) Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner explicitly states on stage: even if proponents of hereditarian views on intelligence (whom he refers to as “the bad guys”) are correct, “life is short, and we have to make choices about how we spend our time...even if the scientific evidence doesn’t support it.” Yeah, who needs such outmoded ideas as scientific evidence? Certainly not the academic community, that’s for sure.

Leo Kearse - see me on tour! Links in bio

136,244 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen

The Free Speech Union is taking an interest in the story of Jason Arday for a number of reasons. First, we want to know who paid for the threatening letter from the law firm Carter-Ruck — effectively a SLAPP — that was sent to Times Higher Education in an attempt to get journalist Jack Grove to stop asking Professor Arday questions about his academic record. Was it Jason Arday himself? The University of Cambridge? Or the Good Law Project? Second, we want to know who reported both the academic and former professor David Harris and Times Higher Education journalist Jack Grove to the police, alleging harassment after they began asking Arday questions about his academic and extracurricular record. In David Harris’s case, the Metropolitan Police referred the complaint to Devon and Cornwall Police, which rightly decided there was nothing to investigate. But in Jack Grove’s case, he was contacted by the police and informed that he had been the subject of a four-month investigation by the Met. While officers said they would be taking no further action, he was told he should refrain from questioning Jason Arday again because it was also affecting Arday’s mental health. The police should never be telling journalists whom they can and cannot question — particularly when there are legitimate questions that need answering. Powerful people should not be able to use the police to silence journalists and academics who are simply asking questions and doing their jobs. The Free Speech Union has written to Sir Mark Rowley, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, to ask what on earth his officers were playing at. He has yet to reply. If Jason Arday was the person who reported these individuals to the police, that is one thing. But if it was the University of Cambridge, that would be even more serious — and is something FSU General Secretary Lord Young will be raising in Parliament in due course. Watch Lord Young below 👇

The Free Speech Union

383,543 Aufrufe • vor 7 Tagen