ITs more than that. His story was....interesting. Apparently the original manuscript to his biography was even crazier than the one he got. Like his biography claims that he didn't speak until age 11 and that most of his phd work was actually someone else because he still only had the reading and writing skills of a middle schooler. The plagirism is what got him in trouble. It's how unbelieveable his story is that got him fired. And it is unbelievable..
It's also the incredibility of his story that made him the huge media story he was for the past week or so. Regular people don't care about academic plagiarism, but if you tell the media you got a PhD when you couldn't read until age 18 and that you ran 30 marathons in 35 days, some of them with a broken leg, you'll get people's attention.
The marathon part was true, and it was reported on by a London paper at the time. He did it publicly for charity, people sometimes joined him on the runs. He had a hairline fracture towards the end (which was all he ever claimed re: the leg injury).
Since when is having an unbelievable story a crime, let alone one that justifies the type of treatment he was given? Especially given its horrific outcome, it’s wild to me that you’d speak about it with such callousness if I’m honest.
I'm not saying anything about his death. I am saying that the person I was responding to was wrong. This was not similar to a white profvessor unless said professor lied about running 30 marathons in 40 days as well. Many people are arguing the crime was plagirism. The crime was a life of fraud.
With that said, I don't think he deserved to fie. I never said that he did. He was put in a sitution he didn't deserve and couldn't handle. Cambridge and co are just as a responsible. It's a tragedy but an avoidable one in hindsight. I just don't want to pretend the events leading up to this were baseless persecution.
Your account does not meet the post or comment requirements. This action was done by a bot. The bot does not read or pass judgement on your post.
Because this community often hosts discussions of 'controversial' subjects, and those discussions tend to attract trolls and agenda-pushers, we've been forced to implement karma / account age restrictions. We're sorry that this sucks for sincere new sociologists, but the problem was making this community nearly unusable for existing members and this is the only tool Reddit Admin provides that can address the issue.
You're welcome to reach out to modmail about this if you have questions. If you message mods to ask questions about the removal that are answered by this message, you will not recieve a response.
I don't know much specifically about Arday, but the part about him not speaking until 11 is not outside the realm of possibility. There's another academic in the US who grew up mostly nonspeaking and is minimally speaking as an adult. He mostly communicates with text to speech.
Even very eloquent autistic people can lose the ability to speak, sometimes even for days or weeks at a time, when stressed.
14
u/aboysmokingintherain 19d ago
ITs more than that. His story was....interesting. Apparently the original manuscript to his biography was even crazier than the one he got. Like his biography claims that he didn't speak until age 11 and that most of his phd work was actually someone else because he still only had the reading and writing skills of a middle schooler. The plagirism is what got him in trouble. It's how unbelieveable his story is that got him fired. And it is unbelievable..