Ep. 1823 - Cambridge’s DEI Superstar Was A Serial Liar, Plagiarist & Hate Hoaxer

Jason R. Day was a serial liar, thug, narcissist, criminal, and plagiarist who quickly rose to the ranks of full professor at Cambridge, one of the most prestigious and sought after jobs in all of academia. R. Day was awarded his job as a professor of sociology of education, not because of his talent or scholarship, but because he was a black activist. He told liberal white women what they wanted to hear. R. Day fabricated elaborate, obviously fraudulent narratives about how racist had oppressed him throughout his life. He also concocted bizarre stories about how masked men with knives were chasing him around campus, how he supposedly discovered a pig's head on the porch of his family home, despite clear evidence that R. Day was delusional, the leaders of Cambridge, mostly white liberal women, of course, fell in love with him on the spot. They passed over thousands of other qualified, much more qualified applicants, many of them white, in order to sell a story to the public about the virtues of D.I. Cambridge promoted R. Day as a shiny example of a strong black man who had overcome tremendous adversity, claimed he couldn't even read or write until he was 18 years old, and became the youngest black professor in the university's history. And then, when it all came crashing down, when R. Day was exposed as the complete fraud he was, he apparently took his own life, faced with some actual adversity for once in his life, R. Day immediately opted for the cowards way out. He left his two children behind rather than face the consequences of his own life long deception. And through it all, Cambridge and many other race hustlers, including the UK's new prime minister, have stood by R. Day. Many mainstream media outlets in this country have run sympathetic stories on him as well, where they suggest that his critics are responsible for his death. Jason R. Day chose to lie and plagiarize, and then chose to end his life, apparently. And the only person not responsible for any of Jason R. Day's disastrous decisions we are told is Jason R. Day himself. Watch. The death of high-profile academic Jason R. Day has intensified scrutiny of the media coverage of him beforehand. Jason R. Day, a sociologist who was once celebrated as the youngest ever black professor at Cambridge University, was found dead on Friday. That's just nine days after he resigned over allegations of plagiarism in his academic work. His family said in a statement released by his publisher, the campaign of misinformation was too much for Jason, as he had been subjected to a campaign of sustained abuse, sustained in the job. The British prime minister called his death a tragedy on so many levels. A really sad, sad and sorry state of affairs and I think that it's all today, I think that Jason is contribution and his family in front of him. Some British media stories call the 41-year-old Professor plagiarism and a poster boy for diversity. He acknowledged some mistakes in his work, he said what partly due to a lack of supervision, but denied plagiarism. Questions surrounding his athletic and fundraising achievements also dominated media coverage. As the story about him continued to gain traction, R. Day said in a letter posted online that he resigned because he "reached the limits of what any person should reasonably be expected to endure". R. Day was found unresponsive in South London on Friday and was later pronounced dead at the scene. A spokesperson for the metropolitan police told CNN. Following his death, Cambridge University said in a statement, "We are desperately saddened to hear this tragic news. Our heartfelt sympathies go to Jason, R. Day's family and friends at this incredibly difficult time." So he didn't plagiarize, they were just mistakes in his work that were due to lack of supervision. He didn't lift whole passages from other authors on purpose, it was an accident. He tripped fell and, you know, copy and paste and other people's work with that attribution. It happens. It happens to the best of us. CNN also told us that questions were raised about R. Day's other alleged achievements, but they didn't go any further into that. This is drive by news coverage that's designed to convince people that R. Day was smeared by white supremacists. Within reality, he deserved everything that happened to it. But the true story of R. Day's fall is much bigger than the sorted collapse of one phony academic at a failing school in the UK. This is also a story about why whenever they seek to find the most qualified black candidates for high-level jobs, whether they're looking for a justice on the Supreme Court or a president of Harvard University or a White House press secretary or a vice president of the United States or a full professor at Cambridge, white liberals inevitably select imbecils who are as morally stunted as they are intellectually stunted and obviously unqualified for the job. Now, you would think with unlimited resources to find the most qualified black candidates available, they'd come up with someone worthwhile. You'd think that, you know, might happen at least occasionally, but it's not happening. And we need to talk about why. We also need to discuss the backlash against Nathan Kaufness, a former fellow at Cambridge, who lost his job because he told the truth about anti-white discrimination in universities all over the world. Kaufness with the help of other academics and outlets, most notably Retraction Watch, exposed R. Day's fraud over the summer. And for that, he has been subjected to a smear campaign by Cambridge University, as well as various left-wing academics and activists. So the very thing they accuse Kaufness of provoking against R. Day in unfair, vengeful, politically motivated smear campaign is precisely, of course, what they're doing to him. In fact, it's not just Kaufness that they're going after. The left is demonizing anyone who reports the truth about R. Day, including mainstream outlets like the telegraph the Guardian, even the New York Times. The reaction has been nothing short of psychotic. There is an all-out effort to intimidate and harass critics of the serial fabulous in part because they realize that if people keep digging, they're going to find out that he was not an aberration. The vast majority of liberal arts scholarships at every university, including Cambridge, as well as the entire DEI industry are all just as fraudulent as R. Day himself was. And right now, all of these scammers are terrified that they're going to be exposed as well. That would include a woman named Hillary Kremlin, who serves as the head of faculty and professor of education at Cambridge. She's one of the faculty members who hired R. Day in 2023. The BBC was on the scene to cover this momentous development in a puff piece that has not aged especially well, and Kremlin is the white woman at the end of the segment just to be clear watch. I always felt it was a privilege to have a period of 11 years where maybe I couldn't speak and I couldn't converse in a way that everyone else could because it allowed me to see things in a different way. Professor Jason R. Day was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder at the age of three. He couldn't speak until he was 11 and read or write until he was 18. Throughout his early years, his parents continued to believe in him. At 18, my mum had got to a point where there was only so much she could do and she was brilliant. Even though she had this belief that, you know, he'll do something okay, but she was just this idea. I need someone else to believe in him as much as I believe in him. Therapist predicted he would need full-time assistance throughout his life, how wrong they were, and now Jason is days away from achieving another ambition. Here's his new boss at Cambridge. We do have a lot of work to do, but I feel really optimistic. Half his research will look at new ways to make higher education more accessible for everyone. What can we do to ensure that this isn't a market appointment in five years' time? How can this become the norm? We've listened to the voices of our Black scholars and our Black students and some of it has not been easy to hear to be honest, but we're able to face up to some of the structural issues that people face. There will be days I think this is a tokenistic appointment. What are your thoughts on this? The board of electors on your interview day were absolutely unanimous. We are so lucky to have you. You are the best in the world in terms of the research that you do. Oh, there's nothing quite like being forced to watch. The sexual tension in the Cambridge Sociology Department between a man who looks like a long-lost member of Millie Vanilli and a woman who looks and acts like she should be starring in a PSA about the dangers of brain parasites from cats. Hillary Kremlin is living the fantasy of every white liberal female on the planet right now. This is the equivalent of like a BTS concert for millions of adult women. She gets the opportunity to fawn over a black guy to apologize to him on behalf of white people. They love nothing more than that. They love to do that. And to present herself as a exceedingly wise introspective academic who's willing to do the work and to really sell the message, there's even the dramatic close-up of the interracial handshake like it's a modern-day Renaissance painting. So who is this person? Who is Hillary Kremlin exactly? Well, I looked up at her CV and as you expect, she hasn't done anything worthwhile in her entire career. Her publications have titles like violence and institutional racism in schools, inter-disciplinary perspectives on restorative justice. And is it possible to access the voice of preschool children? Now she throws in every woke buzzword you'd expect. Admittedly, I didn't read any of it, of course. But from what I can tell, no one else is reading this stuff either. Professor named Alex Edmunds took a look at Kremlin's work on Google Scholar. And found that she's been cited only about 2,000 times in her entire career, which has lasted for more than 26 years. And for comparison, he says that a senior professor in finance might have 2000 citations in a single year. In other words, Hillary Kremlin, like virtually every other academic in the liberal arts, is a net negative on society. She consumes a significant amount of taxpayer funding. She hires faculty members on the basis of their skin color and her research, if we can call it that, which nobody cares about in the first place and does not contribute to the reserves of human knowledge in any way, is all about finding new methods to discriminate against white people. The world would be a better place if professors like Hillary Kremlin were purged from society. It's as simple as that. This help explains, helps explain why Kremlin might say that Jason R. Day is the best in the world. It also explains why she refused to fire R. Day or even criticize him when evidence of his plagiarism surfaced, frauds tend to look out for one another. They understand that when one of them falls, the others are also in jeopardy. Arda himself understood that concept very well. In April, he spoke at the British Sociological Association's 75th Anniversary Conference, where he lamented the fact that right wing activists were exposing black frauds in academia, including Claudine Gay, as the former president of Harvard, Arda stated that, quote, "the instruments that are designed to protect academic integrity designed to protect our well-being and our intellectual property are weaponized. There isn't any room to sit there and watch your fellows suffer for no reason. It's a porn. It's a disgrace and quite frankly evil. That's the cancer that we need to eradicate from academia." Now, of course, Arda was not worried about eradicating a cancer from academia. He knew that he was the cancer, along with every other unqualified activist who's elevated solely on the basis of skin color. So let's get specific about what exactly Arda was guilty of and how obvious it was. On July 21st, Nathan Coffness published an article on his subset called "Dei Fraud and Cover Up at Cambridge." And in the article, he describes running Arda's 2015 PDHD PhD dissertation through plagiarism detection software. And he found that on several occasions, Arda stole the wording with minimal changes from a 2009 dissertation written by a student in London. And we'll put some of the side-by-sides up on the screen right now. You can see that the yellow highlights indicate verbatim copying, green indicates a paraphrase. So there's a lot of verbatim copying. As you can see, the plagiarism is obvious. It's extensive. There are many more examples as well, including plagiarism from other sources. But it's important to understand that Arda's plagiarism extended well beyond his dissertation. I mean, that's bad enough on its own. Several of his published papers were plagiarized as well. Unfortunately for Arda, a retired professor named Dave Harris came across one of these published papers entitled "Attempting to break the chain, reimagining inclusive pedagogy and decolonizing the curriculum within the academy." And Harris noticed some apparent plagiarism. Now, why you would even need to plagiarize nonsense about decolonizing the curriculum when it's all made up, drivel anyway, is beyond me. I mean, you could just make up whatever you want. It doesn't mean anything decolonizing the curriculum. I could write a paper on that subject in 45 minutes. You're just making it up. I mean, that's the fun of it, isn't it? Isn't that the one thing that should make this fun? Being in this totally nonsensical academic field, you can just make up whatever you want. Be creative. Have fun with it. That's maybe the worst thing about the Arda scandal. Not only was he a plagiarist, but he was plagiarizing gibberish. I mean, it's like copying a preschooler's chalk drawing of a tree and trying to pass it off as your own. You could have just made your own tree, really? Get a copy of that one. Anyway, Harris wrote an email to Arda seeking an explanation. It was a polite email that simply asked Arda to explain the quote, "puzzling similarities between his work and previously published materials." In response, a week later, Arda wrote that it was quote, "disappointing that you have imposed yourself on me in the manner you have, i.e. without any reflexivity or humility whatsoever." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black there. Arda added quote, "You'll likely know from your literature reviews, not from experience, but the academy is a hostile place for black scholars. There are very few of us that become professors, but even fewer in the fortunate or precarious position I am in, which is having the platform to represent and uplift other people of color even beyond academia." As a black autistic man with global developmental delay and severe dyslexia, the odds are even less likely. My hope has always been that people like me feel inspired to pursue academia and that people like you can make space for this instead of spending your time trying to dismantle racism and ableism. You have spent what I assume is hours coming through my work looking for mistakes." Arda concluded quote, "Please do not email me again. Should you have the time to spare? I invite you to direct your resources elsewhere. Anything further from you will be considered bullying and harassment." Then I mean, all that reads like a parody of what a, you know, what a black academic activist would write in response to being accused rightly of plagiarism. Why are you imposing yourself on me? You're imposing yourself. I've stolen from you, but by you pointing that out, you are imposing yourself on me. Why would you impose yourself? Don't you know I have dyslexia? Don't you know I'm autistic? And if that, if the self-parity wasn't enough, Arda then contacted the police who refer the matter to the Devon and Cornwell Police for investigation. So to be clear, Arda reported a professor to the police and claimed that he was a victim of a hate crime, a hate crime, presumably, also harassment, in order to shut down a legitimate inquiry into his fraudulent work. Rather than denying the accusation and providing context to clear his name, he started rambling about how he's black and autistic. Which is about as close to an admission of guilt as you'll get. The police declined to pursue the case after investigating it, but they should have been, they should have just put Arda in handcuffs at that point, and he should have been fired immediately. There's no place in a university for a professor who tries to have his critics arrested, obviously, and filing a phony complaint with the police is a crime. Arda should have gone to jail for it. He is a criminal in addition to everything else. Arda resorted to intimidation because it usually worked for him. Most notably in September of 25, Arda received an email from the Times Higher Education, which was about to report on his extensive plagiarism. Arda responded by bringing in the top defamation law firm in the UK, Carter Ruck, to send a cease and desist to the newspaper. It's unclear if Arda was paying the firm's bills or Cambridge was, but somebody was. In the cease and desist, the law firm said that the paper was relying on a source who did not understand the academic process. The law firm also accused the newspaper of harassment and mocked the idea that there was actually a story here. In the end, it worked. The Times Higher Education shamefully caved. They never ran the story, but Coffness didn't give up. He went through all of Arda's prominent published papers, including the one flagged by Harris and found even more plagiarism. A lot more. Again, we'll throw some of the examples up on screen. These are all flagrant examples of plagiarism. It didn't require any kind of careful line-by-line comparison. A plagiarism detection software picked up on all of these problems immediately. You know, there may be cases of plagiarists who are clever enough to cover up their theft or obscure it to a large degree. Jason Arda was not clever. And we can assume that there are even more examples that the program hasn't found yet. Again, other than Coffness and a few professors, nobody with any resources has been looking into this guy. But when you zoom out, things get even worse for our name. Here's the most important image from Coffness' sub-stack article. It's a summary of his findings after looking through all 10 of Arda's most prominent publications. And as you can see, at least four of the 10 articles involve some amount of plagiarism with extensive plagiarism and at least two of the articles. But that's not even the most important takeaway here. The really important takeaway is that if you eliminate the plagiarized papers, then Arda has not produced any actual scholarship. You're left only with interviews. He supposedly conducted about racist white people. So there's nothing to indicate that Arda has any academic qualifications whatsoever. Now, when these concerns were raised with Cambridge, the university, of course, said it didn't care because the plagiarism took place before he was hired at Cambridge. They said that, quote, "In this instance, the research that your concerns relate to was carried out before Professor Arda joined the university that would normally be for the institution at which the work was done to consider any research integrity concerns with a particular paper published in their name. As such, we do not consider it within our remit to investigate the paper to which you refer." In other words, they hired him because of his research, but they don't care if the research is fake. I mean, it's like if a hospital hired a doctor and then you pointed out to the hospital that, oh, that doctor's whole resume is fake, he doesn't even have a real medical degree. And then the hospital said, yeah, but that happened before. That was then, this is now. I mean, yeah, the guy's currently operating on your heart, but But you know, that happens way in the past. That's not up to us to look and do. Meanwhile, the journals that published Ardae's articles took them offline allowed him to make edits before they went back online. The journals all stated that the edits were relatively minor and merely involved, quote, "Making it clear where ideas were adapted from past research." But in truth, as Retraction Watch found, the edits were actually extensive. So to give just one example, Ardae's articles in the article in the journal Social Sciences, originally stated that he had analyzed interview transcripts with, quote, "Internative coding scheme using N-Vivo qualitative data analysis software before having a researcher code data to enhance the validity of emerging themes and claims." So that sounds all very technical. Sounds like he did some actual work in the original version. But in the revised version of the article, Ardae merely says that he recorded the interviews, transcribed them, and analyzed them by using, quote, "Review and reflection." The initially Retraction Watch also found that Ardae had plagiarized some of these interviews from other sources. So he wasn't even conducting them himself. This guy was not simply a plagiarist, in other words. He was actively fabricating data in order to push a certain narrative. He was engaging in deliberate deception in multiple different ways. So this is institutional corruption at every level. Cambridge refused to punish the black guy. They hired as a token. And the peer-reviewed scientific journals allowed Ardae to cover his tracks with stealth edits even after his plagiarism was brought to their attention. And on top of that, even before all the plagiarism was uncovered, Ardae was lying about every aspect of his life, in a very pathological and blatant fashion. First of all, he claimed that he ran 30 marathons in 35 days even after suffering a leg fracture around the 21st marathon. Nobody who's looked into this rather extraordinary claim has been able to verify it. There's a news article where he tells a reporter that he ran 30 marathons, but it's based solely on his own claims. And there's nothing in the article about a leg fracture. Ardae also claimed at various points that he ran 300 miles in three days, or 600 miles in six days, depending on where you look. If true, that would mean that Jason Ardae is nearly on par with the greatest runners who have ever lived. As Coffness writes, "For comparison, Janus Choros, who has been described as the greatest ultra runner of all time, set a world record in 1984 when he ran 359 miles in three days." As a side note, I have to say it's very funny that a grown man was making this kind of thing up. It sounds like a lie, a third grader might tell. His friends, when he gets back to school after summer vacation, you know what I did? You know what I did? I ran so far, like 300 miles, and then I got attacked by a bear. That's my Jason Ardae impression. Then there's the claim that Ardae couldn't read or write until he was 18, even though on its face, it's absurd to think that somebody who's illiterate in 18 could start publishing academic papers so quickly. But then again, since he copied all the papers and his whole field of study is made up gibberish anyway, and maybe that claim isn't actually so implausible. I mean, there was a lot of people saying, "Oh, he clearly was not illiterate." He made that up. That's like the one thing he claimed that I'm willing to believe. He might still be illiterate. Or, I mean, he might have still been illiterate before, you know. And yet, Ardae graduated high school with a certificate that requires literacy, which seems incompatible with the idea that he couldn't read. And additionally, the New York Times just spoke to several of Ardae's classmates as well as a speech professional who worked with him when he was a child. They all said he could speak English and did so often. So the idea that he couldn't speak at all until age 11 as he claimed is absurd. There's no way that child goes from being unable to speak English to being fluent overnight, but he kept making that claim again and again. Cambridge sent Ardae out on a press tour to illustrate how inclusive they are. Watch. - I was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder when I was three. So a hybrid of autism, as per just syndrome, and global development delay. And I guess it's been well kind of publicized now, but it didn't learn to speak until I was 11. And I didn't learn to read and write until I was 18. - So tell me about you being a little boy there and what was going on in your mind at that time? - Well, I mean, one of the things that I think people tend to think with neurodivergent children is that it's a disadvantage. And while I wouldn't want to trivialize the difficulties that come with that, for me, there was a beauty in the paralysis of speech. Not being able to be vocal and I guess, converse with people in what it's seen in a more conventional way. I was able to absorb the world and construct my reality in a different way really through the efforts of my mother and my friends and family around me. - Now as a few people have pointed out, when our day was three years old, neither Asperger's nor Global Development Delay were formally diagnosed by the UK's National Health Service. Global Development Delay was first used around 2003 while Asperger's became a diagnosis in 1992. Four years after our day was that age. So there's a lot of reasons to doubt what he's saying. And none of it received any mainstream pushback whatsoever. There are also some more questionable claims in our day's memoir as Sarah Didham points out on her sub-stack, already claims that he had several tumors, including one in his brain and one in his testicle. He claimed he developed epilepsy after being beaten by four people. He says he was comatose after being hit by a car. Some of these claims are from his memoir itself. Others are from the book proposal. They're all riseable and observed at the point of being laughably implausible taken together. And by the way, while we're at it, Simon and Schuster published our day's memoir, which they clearly did not fact check in any way. That's yet another institution that totally folded in the name of DEI and racial equity. You know, it used to be that when you bought a nonfiction book an editor and fact checker had looked at it. But that wasn't the case here. He lied about everything from his autism to his athletic accomplishments and nobody at any point in the editing process flagged any of it, apparently because there was no editing process. But for my money, the most extraordinary fairytale from Ardae are the ones exposed by the guardian of all places. This word becomes evident that this guy is a fabricator on the level of Jesse Smollett. So this is where he throws away all of his credibility, what infinitesimal amount of it he had, without even realizing it though. It's from an open letter that Ardae wrote last summer to a minister in the government outlining the alleged racism he experienced. So listen to this quote Ardae claimed to have been confronted at his faculty building on two separate occasions by a masked man threatening to harm him if he did not resign and evading detection both times. On the second occasion, Ardae said the intruder produced a knife and threatened him with it. The intruder was not picked up by CCTV on either occasion and no one in the faculty reported seeing anything suspicious. Ardae did not report either intrusion at the time, telling the guardian that after the second incident he continued his working day and even conducted a PhD oral exam for a student less than two hours later. They're not informed colleagues that a masked man with a knife was in the faculty building. This is one of those lies that's so bad and so poorly thought out that it actually stops being beneficial to the liar. You know, it's a fake story that if it were true, it would make you worse, makes you look worse, not better. Because if it's true, that means that your colleagues and the PhD students are going to wonder why you didn't find the time to mention the masked homicidal maniac with a knife who's roaming around campus and making threats to murder people. That's one of those things that, in most circumstances, you might want to mention to somebody like a certain amount of urgency. But according to Ardae's own version of events, he kept the information to himself. He was confronted by the masked man with a knife. He managed to escape somehow. Maybe he repelled up a down a wall or didn't injure karate moves or something. We don't know, but he managed to escape. And then he thought, like, well, I'm not worried about anybody else, that's their problem. I got away from that guy. That's everyone else's problem. I'm not even going to tell anybody. And he just went about his day as if nothing happened. Now, of course, the story is not remotely true. It's a variation of what Jesse Somalette was doing at Fox when he wrote those letters to himself pretending to be white supremacists who wanted Fox to fire him. But Cambridge pretended to take the lie seriously and so the lies kept coming. And in his open letter, Ardae also claimed that mutilated animals had been sent to his parents' home and that bananas and bullets had been mailed to him. Quote, Ardae confirmed an interview with the Guardian that the mutilated animal sent to his family home mentioned in the open letter was a severed pig's head, delivered in a large cardboard box to his parents' home address in South London. He claimed to have intercepted the package and immediately thrown it away, only telling the police several months later. And a subsequent interview he claimed the police investigated checking with butchers in South London if they had sold a pig, eventually finding one that had sold a whole hog on the morning the head was left outside the family home. When the Guardian checked those details with the local butchers, Ardae named. They said no police officers had come in to ask them about a pig. When asked if they were sure, the butchers said that's the kind of thing we'd remember. When the details already gave about the pig's head investigation, we were checked by London's Metropolitan Police. The Guardian was told they were categorically incorrect and no investigation had taken place. So Ardae had fantasized a scenario where he was being tormented like someone who had gotten on the wrong side of Don Corleone. Of course, I will say some of the most tender and flavorful cuts of pork are the cheeks and jowls. So it seems possible that this- white supremacist was just trying to send him a delicious meal, that could have been it. Wait, maybe it wasn't white supremacist. Maybe it was just someone trying to do him a favor. You know, at least that would be a plausible theory of the white supremacist existed, which he doesn't. As you'd expect, there's also no evidence of the bananas or bullets that were supposedly sent to him. Arda never took any photographs of these items when they were mailed to his house, nor did he mention them to anyone at the time. Like, that's the strange thing about these race hustlers you'll notice. You know, they're desperate to claim racism wherever they can find it. And then one day, a white supremacist sends them a box full of bananas and bullets, and they don't even think to snap a picture of it. Strange. When the Guardian asked him about all these issues, he replied and quote, and said, I quote, "To be honest with you, I thought you just believe me. Why would I lie?" That's an extraordinary reply. That's really what he said. You know, what he's confessing here is that he never even developed a plan for defending his lies, like typically a liar, you know, if he's vaguely intelligent, will be aware that his lie might be exposed. And so it come up with some kind of plan B, some sort of defense, some sort of deflection, like the guy cheating with his secretary hopes that, you know, his wife won't notice the motel room charge on the credit card. But if she does, well, he's ready to claim that he generously rented a room for a hypothermic homeless man that he found huddled on the sidewalk or something. What he won't say if the room charge is raised is, oh, I didn't think you'd ask me about that. Oh, you want to know what I was doing in the motel? I didn't, honestly, I didn't think you'd ask me. That's it. Anyway, what do you want for dinner? So in this case, we're dealing with someone so narcissistic and so profoundly stupid that he simply thought he could make up whatever he wanted and nobody would question him or his motivations. And the really shameful empathetic thing is that actually he was right, at least for a while. But here's the amazing thing. I mean, even if Arda hadn't plagiarized anything and even if he'd never lied about his life story, there would still be no reason to hire him at Cambridge or anywhere else. It would still be a scandal that he got hired in the first place. Everything we've talked about up to this point relates to unethical or criminal conduct that should have disqualified him from employment at any university regardless of how talented he was and regardless of how much research he was doing. But even if you forget about everything I've said, his credentials are still non-existent. So this is from The New York Times. Quote, "When Cambridge University interviewed Jason Ardae for one of the most prestigious sociology positions in the world, he was an early career scholar and underqualified by the school's own standards. Cambridge's requirements, reviewed by The New York Times, called for an outstanding research record of international stature and a proven successful track record supervising PhD students. Dr. Ardae had a modest publication record and it bounced from one university to the next, not staying long enough to oversee a full three year or more doctorate. Cambridge hired him anyway in 2023." This is one of the key points that needs to be made here. The plagiarism is not the biggest issue. It's extremely unethical and everybody involved should be terminated, sure, but the bigger problem is that all of academia is fraudulent. They have no standards for anything. It's all a ruse. The average Cambridge faculty member is no more worthwhile than Jason Ardae. They give themselves awards and titles, but there are no standards, particularly when it comes to non-white candidates. As the evidence of Ardae's plagiarism and fabricated stories began to circulate, his former students came forward to describe him as a terrible teacher on top of everything else. This is from one of Ardae's former students at another school, the University of Roehampton. Quote, "In the end, Ardae gave me 70% from my essay, particularly as Ardae had given my work no feedback. I asked for a meeting." At Roehampton, marking his blind so he wouldn't have known who written which essay. In our meeting, I explained that 70% was a low mark for me and asked him to provide feedback. Suddenly, his friendly confident demeanor changed. I now saw a side of him I'd never seen before, angry but also scared. Ardae implied that I was racist and said that the only reason I wasn't happy with 70% was due to my white privilege. He was clearly upset at being questioned and I ended the meeting as quickly as possible. Now, we should say this student who's making his claims is anonymous. The Times in London said they verify the student's identity, but it's pretty remarkable that he can't simply come out in public with his own name on the op-ed. Even now, after Ardae has been clearly exposed as a fraud, it's still a career suicide to speak out against him. Camper's put out multiple statements denouncing the "viral campaign" against Ardae. And indeed, now that Ardae has taken his own life, as predicted, black activists are claiming that white racists are responsible. So here's one such analysis. From somebody calling yourself Dr. Shola Mos Shogba Mimu. Shogba Mimu. That's her name. Beautiful name. Watch. This is exactly what you wanted to achieve. I told you I knew you wanted to kill him or get him killed. I hope you are all satisfied now. Every single one of you bloody evil racist, your white supremacist waste of freaking human space. Those of you who jumped on his bandwagon to publicly execute him for what? Who held into a different standard that you hold white people and made you all get exactly what you deserve? Every single thing you did, it is last two weeks. Every single one of you that took pleasure and glee. This is exactly what you wanted. You wanted to kill him and get him killed. I hope to God you get everything that you have coming to you. Are you happy now? Are you happy now? Are you satisfied? You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Every single one of you. You are murderous. You are killers. Are you happy now? Shogba Mimu asks. Are you happy? Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll say that I'm not happy. No part of this story makes me happy, but I also feel no pity for this guy at all, especially now that he's dead. Because of all the selfish evil pathetic things this man did, and his was a life filled with selfish evil pathetic things, the manner of his death surpasses all of it. Now, if you're looking for an explanation as to the psychology behind why Jason R. Day took the coward's way out, here's your answer. He was a committed pathological narcissist to the very end. And he decided that rather than live with the consequences of his actions, he wanted to go out as a victim, as a kind of perverse hero for the swarms of black activists. We're always looking for a reason to attack whites, and that's exactly what he's become. Predictable. There's going to be a march today in Trafalgar Square entitled "Vigil" for Jason R. Day stand against racist witch hunts. Because, of course, you see, when you report on black fraudsters, the only conceivable reason for doing so is that you hate black people. The implication is that this would never happen to a white guy in academia. But actually, white men in academia have had their lives destroyed for far less. Strangely enough to give just one example, there were no marches against racist witch hunts for a white school principal in Toronto named Richard Bilksow, who killed himself in 2023. And what was his crime? Well, he dared to suggest during a DEI struggle session that Canada is not a racist country. And for that crime, he was publicly reprimanded by the superintendent and relentlessly accused of white supremacy by his colleagues. He was branded a racist all over social media and eventually he killed himself. Now, Richard Bilksow was not a career fraudster or a criminal or a plagiarist. He was a white principal who dared to question the wisdom of anti-white propaganda, which he questioned very mildly, by the way. So they destroyed his reputation and his career. But he doesn't get any marches or any remembrance. The communists are glad he's dead. They celebrated his suicide on social media. The reason Jason Arda is different is that he's black. And if people dwell on his fraud too much, they might realize that the underlying rationale of DEI is a complete lie. Not to be outdone, the grandmaster of racial grifting himself, Ebermex Kendi, whose real name is Henry Rogers, has decided to weigh in. And that's not surprising because as you can see here, Arda and Henry Rogers went to the same DEI stylist to really nail the whole like serious but exotic vibe that drives white women crazy. And they have something else in common too. They're both fraudsters. Henry Rogers anti-racism center at Boston University was shut down after burning through tens of millions of dollars, which no one can trace. And beyond telling black people that they should be racist against whites, Rogers struggled to articulate any coherent thoughts whatsoever. And now this same Henry Rogers, aka Ebermex Kendi, is declaring that this why would it looks like Jason Arda was in fact murdered. Henry just wrote a piece entitled, "The media lynched Jason Arda." And here's how he introduced it, quote, "The death of Jason Arda hits so close to home that I had no words yesterday, but I woke up with words to be a prominent anti-racist black scholar is today." know you are a target, almost totally surrounded by resentments. You know that at any point, the attacks can come like a lynch mob, and if you die from all the attacks, the media still calls the attacks on you accusations to wash their hands of the blood. Your lynchers announce your death is if they had no role in your lynching. Well Henry, the reason this hit so close to home is that you are a despicable fraud also. You have every incentive to accuse our days critics of murder right now because you're desperate to avoid scrutiny yourself. You are an anti-racist expert who can't even define the word racism. It's like a veterinarian who doesn't know what an animal is. If you never saw this, it's from the so-called Aspen Ideas Festival a few years ago, and other than watching M.I. Racist, it's the best possible way to sum up the fraud that it is, Henry Rodgers, as well as the entire DEI grift in general, watch. You talked about the importance of defining racism. How do you define racism? Sure. So racism, I would define it as a collection of racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas. And anti-racism is pretty simple using the same terms. Anti-racism is a collection of anti-racist policies leading to racial or anyone who take guess. Equity that are substantiated by anti-racist ideas. So racism is when you're racist, anti-racism is when you're not racist. Racist policies are, what is a racist policy? Well, you know, racist policy is, it's a racist policy, any questions? I guess the one thing you can say in defense of Henry Rodgers, at least, is that he probably didn't plagiarize any of that. If he was going to copy somebody else's work, it would have probably made sense or maybe not, as we saw with R.D., maybe even that was plagiarized, we should look into that. Henry Rodgers alleged scholarship is so idiotic that it could only come from the mind of the single dumbest person in the D.I. industry, which is Henry Rodgers himself. In the article, defending R.D., Rodgers states that quote, "The attacks are wielded by racist propagandists resenting you for shining a light on anti-black racism. They hope everyone finally picks up their baseless claims. They know that to dim your light is to dim the light on their anti-blackness." In 2023, only the financial times covered extensively that William O. Riley, a white Cambridge professor, was found guilty of plagiarism, all told a black Cambridge professor, endure 249 times more media coverage for an accusation of plagiarism by a known racist. Well, I went and looked up this story. First of all, William O. Riley was not presented by Cambridge as the leader in his field. They didn't send him out to every mainstream media outlet to do a puff piece on his appointment. Nor did he lie about every single aspect of his biography to an absurd degree, and Cambridge didn't suspend all of their alleged standards in order to hire him in the first place, nor did they give him any kind of preferential treatment because of his skin color. So, it shouldn't be surprising that there's more media attention on R.D., someone Cambridge deliberately chose to turn into a star solely on the basis of his skin color. When an institution like Cambridge decides to discriminate against more qualified applicants in such a flagrant manner on the basis of race, that is a much bigger story than one random professor plagiarizing a couple of paragraphs. And most importantly, from what I can tell, there was a single paper that O. Riley plagiarized from his student's work, a tribunal determined that his plagiarism was negligent rather than deliberate. And while that's still bad and he should be fired for it, there's been no finding that he plagiarized every important academic paper he ever wrote. If you've never read the Odyssey, the basic premise is pretty simple. A guy goes off to fight a war, the war ends after 10 years, then it takes him about 10 more years to get home. And during those 10 years, pretty much everything that can go wrong does go wrong. He gets shipwrecked and counters monsters, gets trapped on an island, deals with various gods and temptations, and generally has a much harder time getting home than you would think should be necessary. But what makes the Odyssey interesting isn't just the adventure. And what Odysseus actually wants at the end of it, at one point, he's offered immortality. He can live forever in comfort without any of the responsibilities or difficulties of ordinary life. And he turns it down. He would rather go home to his wife and resume his ordinary life than live forever in paradise. Apparently, Homer was writing this before avoiding responsibility and became a virtue. That's really the point. Odysseus understands something that we seem to have forgotten. An easy life isn't necessarily a good life. Some family, duty, and loyalty are worth more than comfort or glory. That's why the Odyssey has remained relevant for nearly 3,000 years, and it's also why Hillsdale College is offering a free online course dedicated to Homer's great epic, Top Eye Professor Benedict Whalen. The course explores the Odyssey, and it's timeless lessons about courage, leadership, temptation, perseverance, and the search for home. This course includes engaging lectures and can be completed entirely at your own pace. Go to Hillsdale.edu/walls to enroll. Totally free. Start reading. Learn the classics. Rediscover the West. Start right now at Hillsdale.edu/walls. Over the years, I've spent a lot of time talking about the evils of abortion, and obviously it's important to fight this battle politically and culturally. But there's also something you can do right now. It's very concrete. You can help save an actual child. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order an abortion pill online. Sometimes before anyone has had the opportunity to tell her that there is another option, pre-born is trying to reach these women first. The pre-born network clinics, mothers receive compassion, practical support, and a free ultrasound. And more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women who see their baby on an ultrasound at a pre-born network clinic choose life. Just think about that. For just 28 bucks, you can provide one of those ultrasounds. $140 helps arrest you five babies. It's not an abstract political argument. This is a mother seeing her child for the first time and choosing life. And through pre-born, it's also an opportunity to share the hope of Jesus Christ with this woman you were made for this moment, dial pound to 50 and say, baby, that's pound to 50. Baby, go to pre-born.com/walsh, again, pre-born.com/walsh. So the scale of plagiarism is nowhere close to Jason Arden. And also, by the way, white people were not rallying around this guy to defend him and to accuse his critics of racism. And that happened in this case, which makes it an even bigger story. And it's a bigger story because it's a controversy, but it's something the left never understands. When somebody is accused of doing something bad and everyone says, oh, yeah, they did that bad thing. Like, sure, that was bad. Yeah, he plagiarized. He shouldn't have done that. He shouldn't be fired. Okay. When that happens, there's really no, there's nothing else to say, like the story's over. But when you have someone who's accused of doing something bad and they did do the bad thing and you've got mobs of people flanking them, surrounding them to protect them and claiming that actually this bad thing isn't bad or it's okay in his case or whatever, that makes it a controversy. And so then the controversy itself turns into the story. Now one of the main tactics that our days defenders are using is to minimize all these details. They don't want to talk about what our day actually did. And so they want to speak in very general terms to convince people that he was lynched somehow. So here's PBS anchor an NBC contributor, Jeff Bennett, for instance, taking an issue with the New York Times reporting on our day's fraud, quote, "A man dies at 41 after weeks of her relentless public scrutiny. The New York Times the next day says he was underqualified for his job. Whatever the merits of the underlying questions, publishing this now is ghoulish. First of all, spare me the whining about public scrutiny. Okay, I've faced public scrutiny plenty of times. It comes with the territory in any prominent position these days. You can't run around doing media interviews, trying to get your face on camera as much as possible, doing and saying things and making claims, clearly designed to attract attention. And then cry like a baby when the public scrutiny comes. You literally asked for it. Now it's here. Stand up like a man and take it. But Jason R.D. was no man at all. He just based on this tweet alone, this Jeff guy should be fired from PBS and whatever other news organization he works for. He can't have anybody working for a news organization who's willing to misrepresent basic facts like this. No, the times did not say he was underqualified. They also said he was a, they didn't just say that. They also said he was a serial liar and plagiarist. And no, R.D. was not just a random man. He was a professor at a major university that collects taxpayer money, a university that has an international reputation. He's emblematic of a much larger DEI regime that operates in the vast majority of universities and workplaces all over the world. So if a journalist is going to ignore all of this, then he should quit and go work in communications for the NAACP or something, maybe it's disgraceful. Here's another take along these lines from the podcast of one Kahinday Andrews. There's a metaphor we cheap and lynching. So I didn't use it last week, it's like last week it's public storm. It was a metaphorically a lynching. Now it's just a lynching man's dead because of the press. of the media because of this campaign. And because people, including Cambridge, but not just Cambridge, didn't support it. That's the reality that we have to bear here. And so I've been getting a lot of phone calls from, obviously, from Press Press, who's still handing him, by the way, press outside his parents house. Man's dead, outside his parents, that's what they're trying to get a picture of, like a picture of the month, that you leave him alone. Stop. The enough is enough, honestly. But they just can't stop, right? Like a feeding frenzy. You have to talk accountability. This didn't just happen in a vacuum. This happened for many, many, many reasons. And there is a whole lot of shame, shame pie, if you like, to go around. This was a mob. This was a smear. This was vial tactics. And instead of seeing that, many of us looked away and said, ah, nah, nah, I'm not sure. In fact, in fact, instead of seeing that, many of us, man's being lynched and we're there checking his credentials, say, hold on a second, we support him. So bizarre. What's the respectability politics? Because you couldn't just see what was happening and backcase. Now you've got a lot of women as a point. I ain't enough. That's enough of that. Fairly understanding. The effect of clips like this should be to make you go back and take another look at the reports of lynchings that you learn about in high school. Now, these black activists are describing legitimate lawful criticism as a lynching. They're saying that if you challenge a fraudulent black academic by pointing out that he's a liar and a fraud, which he is, then you are lynching him. And if that's the case, we should revisit like every single alleged lynching that we're told took place during this country's history. I mean, how many of those were just light criticisms? How many of those were justified responses to heinous crimes? If this is a lynching, then we have no choice. We have to go back and look at, okay, if that's what you mean when you say lynching, then what was going on back here? And you're not crazy for asking that question based on how these people lie to your face all the time, particularly about lynchings. Every single time they try to claim somebody was a lynch, it turns out to be a completely fake story. So they don't get to talk about lynching anymore. And if they don't like it tough, this is what happens when you, when you devalue the meaning of word, which is what the left does insensibly, incessantly. Here's another post with thousands of likes from somebody using the name Nell's Abby, quote, white supremacy killed Jason R. Day, murdered him, exposed, criticized, murdered, what's the difference, right? There's even a petition with tens of thousands of signatures, including faculty members at Cambridge and members of the British government demanding a government investigation into the media because, quote, self-regulation of the press has comprehensively failed. So they're begging for media censorship because the media reported the truth about a black fraudster. We respectfully ask you to commission an immediate public inquiry into how to ensure a responsible press given its contribution to Dr. R. Day's tragic death. Consider how far the West has fallen in order for tens of thousands of people in a Western country to demand government action to silence people for telling the truth about anything, much less DEI, which is another word for anti-white discrimination. You know, it's easy to criticize the United States, but we're the only Western country that still respects the freedom of speech by and large. And it's extraordinary just how far everybody else has fallen. Now to be clear, these unhaged tirades are not simply being directed at vague targets like the media or white supremacy. Some of the most vicious attacks have been leveled personally at Nathan Kaufness, the former Cambridge academic who's exposed R. Day's fraud. You can see a few of the threats he's received on the screen. There's been a lot of it. He's getting hundreds of explicit death threats solely for reporting accurate information that led to the downfall of a scam artist. So by the way, there's a great rundown of Nathan Kaufness' academic achievements that was published in Quilette the other day. Now he was kind of a rock star at Cambridge and he was on the fast track to much bigger things. And then he made the argument that quote, "Jeans play a non-trivial role in average race differences in traits such as intelligence." Now this is a belief that according to anonymous surveys more than 80% of experts in the field agree with. It's also obviously true. But even at a university, a place supposedly dedicated to exploring and debating controversial ideas, this was an intolerable thing to say. So they showed him the door. And then as if to prove his point, Cambridge turned around and promoted incompetent, unqualified, unintelligent black fraudsters like Jason R. Day. I need to emphasize that last point because it doesn't get stated nearly enough. If you were interested in disproving the idea that genetics and race and intelligence could possibly be linked, then the worst thing you can do is silence any debate on the subject while simultaneously practicing DEI. I mean, it's as if Cambridge has secretly run by white supremacists. I mean, on the one hand, you have Nathan Kaufness in early career academic who's making an argument based on decades of peer-reviewed research. He's echoing the position of James Watson, who co-discovered the DNA double helix structure. He's taking an enormous personal risk to say something he believes is true. On the other side, instead of debating with Nathan Kaufness in any way, you have these absolute clowns who silence him while promoting degenerate losers like Jason R. Day. All while claiming he's the single best black scholar you could have possibly found. That's not how you win the argument. It's not how you maintain any kind of legitimacy. Instead, it's how you concede Nathan Kaufness's point. You're making his argument for him. And by the way, just since we're on the subject, it is a simple fact that there are average IQ differences between races. That is a fact. It doesn't matter how you feel about it. It's true. No credible person denies that. Lots of people who aren't credible do, but no credible person does. And the idea that genetics have absolutely nothing to do with those differences is just absurd on its face. Of course, there's no reason to deny the genetic component except if you're worried about the societal implications of that, but societal implications, whatever they may be or not, may not be, have nothing to do with the question of whether or not it's factually true. And it is factually true. Keep in mind, according to Harvard's own internal 2013 analysis, which was disclosed in litigation, black enrollment at Harvard would drop to less than 1%. If the admissions office stopped practicing anti-white discrimination, otherwise known as a firm of action, and if they judged candidates based on academic merit alone, with the discrimination, black enrollment was around 14%. So Kaufness is obviously correct that universities to this day are giving an enormous benefit to black applicants, although they can't articulate why exactly they're doing that. This is very much a live issue. This kind of discrimination has continued even after Supreme Court ruled that Harvard's affirmative action is unconstitutional. So we should be able to debate issues like this without fear of being silenced or terminated. Instead, leftist academics are shutting down any kind of dialogue, even as they're openly selecting students and faculty solely on the basis of race. And in the process, they're destroying what is left of the education system. This is an extraordinary op-ed that was just published in the San Francisco standard. It's written by a calculus teacher at Berkeley, one of the top universities in the nation, allegedly. Quote, "I teach mathematics at UC Berkeley. Three days a week, I stand in front of lecture halls with 500 to 1400 students. But a second week of the semester, I already know who's in trouble. Some students are five to eight years behind in mathematics. Office hours that should be spent discussing integrals instead become lessons on fractions and basic algebra. You would expect students to learn in middle school." Now, the professor notes that from 2018 to 2020, more than 70% of students at Berkeley tested as ready or nearly ready for calculus prior to enrolling in calculus class. After Berkeley changed its admissions policies so that standardized tests were no longer relevant, that number dropped all the way down to 44%. So in other words, in the quest to achieve equity, major universities, students and faculty have become dramatically less capable and intelligent all over the world. We all knew this was happening, of course, but it's notable that a San Francisco newspaper and a Berkeley professor of all people are coming out and admitting it. It's a big change from just a few years ago. DEI has become an embarrassment to every institution that practices it. So despite what Cambridge and Henry Rogers and other Black activists are trying to say about Jason Arde, the truth is most people are not falling for it. DEI was always bound to lead to increasingly bizarre and humiliating outcomes because by its very nature, it only selects for candidates who are both unqualified and shameless. And after all, you have to be totally shameless to accept accolades that you clearly don't deserve. And as DEI's reputation circles the drain and even greater degree of shamelessness is required to participate in the sham. So we'll continue to get more and more stories like Jason Arde's, except somehow they'll be even more absurd and unbelievable. The insanity will have to ratchet up even further. This is what the death throws of DEI looks like. Just a few years ago when we produced MIRASIS, This moment seemed many years off, maybe even decades. But with the comically preposterous rise and fall of Jason R. Day, and the subsequent freakout by deranged black activists, it's fair to say that the fall of DEI is already upon us. Or as Jason R. Day might have said, if he were still with us, observing the public humiliation of a once great university because of his own rampant dishonesty, now I am become death, the destroyer of DEI. And people would say, wait, Jason, are you quoting Oppenheimer? Hindu scripture? And he'd respond that no, he was being totally original, completely thought of that line himself this morning when he was brushing his teeth. And somewhere in a faculty lounge deep in the bowels of Cambridge University, a white liberal woman would break down the tears at the sheer originality of Jason R. Day, the premiere of Cambridge academic, the exemplar of everything academia stands for. He can from us far too soon. Now before we go, we just finished a real history episode on the Watergate scandal. There's a lot of information in it. Like when the FBI went into the Watergate complex to check for bugs after the break-in, they didn't find any. One of the burglarers apparently had access to the DNC offices. Another had a key to the desk inside. All of them were connected to the CIA. All of that, and a lot more is in this episode, which you have to see. It comes out, for all daily, our subscribers on Wednesday, here's the trailer. "But in all of my years of public life, I have never profited from public service. I welcome this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not they're present or so corrupt. Well, I'm not a crook." For more than five decades from Iran, Contra, Zamanika Lewinsky, to Russian Gate, every political scandal has been measured against one, the Watergate affair. But what if Richard Nixon was telling the truth? What if Watergate isn't what it seems? What if hundreds of thousands of pages of sworn testimony, memoirs, and newly released government documents tell a different story than the one you learned in school? In 1972, Nixon won the biggest electoral landslide in modern American history with grand plans to remake the federal government. Two years later, he was out of office. He were taught that Nixon's men broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters to spy on his political opponents. He were taught that when he found out, Nixon covered it up, and that the cover-up was worse than the crime. He were taught that two heroic Washington Post reporters, guided by a righteous FBI whistleblower, brought the most powerful man in the world to justice. But you will never tell what we really have. "I shall resign to the presidency, effective at noon tomorrow." Civil history of the Watergate scandal is available now at the early bar, plus. You got to watch the episode. You don't want to miss it. You know, learn a lot. Lifetime and all access members get early access and can watch right now, though, so go do that. And in the meantime, have a great day. We'll talk to you tomorrow. Godspeed. Your country is beneath contempt. We who love and serve Allah fought back against the Americans and the Zionists, from the scourge of secularism and the lands of unbelief. He's the polar opposite of those brain-dead protestors. I get an occurrent claim. It should place sounders. He would be allowed on campus. Mr. Saunders is a close personal friend of Joshua Friedman. This is a decision I cannot find. There are three ways Islam will conquer the West. Through immigration, through the wombs of our women, and by using our nation's freedoms against us. Are you paying attention? Honourable to Allah. Listen carefully. The great Satan America will fall. Your infidels, the bodies of women are not pure and men's souls are unclean. What makes them so dangerous, their goals are not in this life, but the next. We cannot run or hide from what is coming. We have to fight. I will be rewarded 10,000 times in the next life. When you die, you are nothing but a way to find out. That's the American way. Thank you.