A thought-provoking feature in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Here are two short excerpts, though they cannot fully capture the breadth of the original piece, which traverses much more ground:
When a mainstream journalist looked into Arday’s case, he faced threats of litigation, visits from the police, and directives from editors to suppress the report — a mandate he followed with some reluctance. Arday’s exposure came courtesy of a Substack author who writes about race realism, because reporters wouldn’t cover the story until it had already become common knowledge. It seems to undermine the purpose of journalism to relay information that the public has already learned by other means, yet that was the stance taken by U.K. media outlets and journalists: radio silence until “others” started the conversation. And somehow, the main takeaway many seem to draw from how events unfolded is that we need even more downstream media censorship.
It is appropriate to draw broad attention to Arday’s misconduct because he himself relentlessly sought the limelight. The accuracy of his narrative matters because he pursued fame and wealth directly on the basis of his “biography,” and Cambridge openly recruited, promoted, celebrated, and defended him on the same grounds.
His posthumous allies appear to contend that public focus on Arday’s “journey” and research was acceptable only when it served his interests; he should be a subject of discussion, but only on his terms; he deserves media coverage, but only when it flatters him. That isn’t how the game operates. If you’re in the spotlight, you’re in the spotlight. Arday aimed to be the center of attention, and he got his wish.
