Latest / PlasticPills Critical Theory & Philosophy / Today is' Arday // 264

Transcript

Today is' Arday // 264 · PlasticPills Critical Theory & Philosophy

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: A transition.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: Now.
• 0:08
  Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, guys, it's with a heavy heart. But I
• 0:13
  Speaker 3: gotta tell you, everyone's been asking me about this.
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: What have they what have they been asking you?
• 0:20
  Speaker 3: Like any podcaster who says everyone has been asking me
• 0:22
  Speaker 3: about this? I mean I saw an unaddressed question about this,
• 0:27
  Speaker 3: so I thought we should talk about it.
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 0:30
  Speaker 3: I'm hesitant to call it drama, but uh, you know,
• 0:34
  Speaker 3: before Friday it was considered academic drama. Yeah, yes, Now
• 0:39
  Speaker 3: it's considered an academic tragedy.
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: Perhaps, I mean instance of social murder, as ANGLES would
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: call it.
• 0:48
  Speaker 3: Possibly, how do you figure his employer gave him a nice,
• 0:53
  Speaker 3: uh cushy setup.
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but I mean social murder is is uh well,
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: maybe I'm stretching the on scept a little bit, but
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: it's not real murder. I guess it is real murder,
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: but not not.
• 1:05
  Speaker 3: First blame the British tabloids, but then they yeah.
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: Murder via public shaming.
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, exactly, persecution, witch huntery.
• 1:15
  Speaker 3: Seppuku, a witch committing seppuku. Now there's a there's a
• 1:20
  Speaker 3: mental image, although the definition of a witch hunt the
• 1:22
  Speaker 3: witches didn't actually do the witching.
• 1:25
  Speaker 4: Yeah, so we're talking, of course about about Cambridge former
• 1:29
  Speaker 4: Cambridge darling Jason oar Day. I have only been I
• 1:34
  Speaker 4: have only been tangentially aware of this. I do still
• 1:38
  Speaker 4: go on Twitter for the platform formerly known as Twitter,
• 1:43
  Speaker 4: and I do follow quite a bit of right.
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: Wing accounts just to to hate follow.
• 1:49
  Speaker 4: They started, they started jumping on this guy as having
• 1:53
  Speaker 4: a bunch of plagiarism accusations and his dissertation and a
• 1:56
  Speaker 4: bunch of his work. I was initially skeptical, and I
• 1:59
  Speaker 4: even saw some people coming to his defense who I respected.
• 2:02
  Speaker 4: But then more and more, i would say, mainstreamy people
• 2:06
  Speaker 4: started being like, no, this that this guy actually has
• 2:08
  Speaker 4: a really problematic record. He it's actually not even it's
• 2:12
  Speaker 4: not even like plagiarism accusations we can just go into
• 2:15
  Speaker 4: and it's blatant. It's like over the top plagiarism. And
• 2:19
  Speaker 4: then it comes out that apparently he made up a
• 2:23
  Speaker 4: bunch of stories about his past, like he might be
• 2:25
  Speaker 4: a compulsive liar. Like he said that he was a
• 2:28
  Speaker 4: mute until he was eighteen he said, no fact.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: Check, No, okay, eleven right, he said he.
• 2:36
  Speaker 3: Said he was mute till he was or no, he
• 2:38
  Speaker 3: was unable to speak till he was eleven, but he
• 2:41
  Speaker 3: he hoped he would have considered success being able to
• 2:45
  Speaker 3: write his name at eighteen.
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: Yeah, right, So however he interpret that and I should
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: be clear.
• 2:51
  Speaker 4: I mean, I think the reason this this uh is
• 2:56
  Speaker 4: relevant is because it fits into the kind of woke
• 2:58
  Speaker 4: DEI wars because a Isnardie is black of course for.
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: Those of you that don't know. And Uh.
• 3:04
  Speaker 4: Then of course a lot of more left leaning liberal
• 3:08
  Speaker 4: types were accusing those who were accusing our day of
• 3:12
  Speaker 4: plagiarism with racism, that this is just an attack on
• 3:15
  Speaker 4: him because he's black, uh, and it's unfair. But then
• 3:19
  Speaker 4: as more as I said, more and more information came out,
• 3:21
  Speaker 4: and it really did seem like this is a really
• 3:25
  Speaker 4: egregious case of plagiarism.
• 3:27
  Speaker 2: And he you know, Cambridge really boosted this guy.
• 3:31
  Speaker 3: Oh wait, wait, wait, you're skipping stuff. Let's okay, let's
• 3:34
  Speaker 3: leave some plot for the rest of us.
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: Okay, okay, let me why don't you you you you go?
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: Then Pills you go.
• 3:39
  Speaker 3: I will, I'll go. But I do need to justify
• 3:44
  Speaker 3: methodologically for our audience, because I know what they are
• 3:47
  Speaker 3: going to say. We're ceding to the right wing framing
• 3:50
  Speaker 3: on this issue. If we even discuss whether or not
• 3:53
  Speaker 3: he plagiarized.
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: Right, Well, yeah, I mean this is.
• 3:58
  Speaker 3: Look Eric's gonna say that as well, probably, but look, yeah,
• 4:02
  Speaker 3: I don't know. I reject the framing of the framing.
• 4:05
  Speaker 3: If we ask holdism took place, it's a pertinent question.
• 4:08
  Speaker 3: So you can scold me if you wish. But I
• 4:11
  Speaker 3: still think like the central issue at hand is an
• 4:15
  Speaker 3: issue regardless of what happened after the concerns broadly speaking,
• 4:19
  Speaker 3: academic drama. Like last time, the last plagiarism scandal was
• 4:25
  Speaker 3: when Bill Ackman, Bill Ackman, who owns five percent of
• 4:30
  Speaker 3: the tel Aviv stock exchange. By the way, I wanted
• 4:32
  Speaker 3: to ask our guest who has planned to come on?
• 4:35
  Speaker 3: We won't spoil it. We won't say who it was,
• 4:37
  Speaker 3: so we will have him on later. But he's someone
• 4:40
  Speaker 3: who would know what owning five percent of the tel
• 4:42
  Speaker 3: Aviv stock exchange means. Anyway. Bill Ackman, married to an
• 4:47
  Speaker 3: idf Epstein funded artist, also owns five percent of the
• 4:51
  Speaker 3: tel Aviv stock exchange, pushed out an academic I believe
• 4:56
  Speaker 3: at Yale? Was it the president?
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: Oh?
• 4:58
  Speaker 3: Yes, fighting gay?
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: Correct?
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: Was was you know that person was accused of plagiarizing
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: some of their something.
• 5:07
  Speaker 3: Accused of plagiarizing, but it was not being not cracking
• 5:10
  Speaker 3: down hard enough on pro Palestine protesters.
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: Yeah right, that that's the university pressure, yeah out not
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: anti Palestine enough.
• 5:21
  Speaker 3: The great spin on that was that Bill Ackman's idf
• 5:25
  Speaker 3: Epstein funded wife also plagiarized from from Wikipedia after he
• 5:32
  Speaker 3: got after he got, Claudiin Gay pushed out for uh
• 5:36
  Speaker 3: for plagiarizing, and Claudie Gay landed on a nine hundred
• 5:39
  Speaker 3: thousand dollars pillow, you know, like we're not we're not
• 5:42
  Speaker 3: crying too many tears.
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: Oh yeah.
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: Vastly different power structures in play. There, very different status, right.
• 5:51
  Speaker 3: It's to say plagiarism is it necessarily always about plagiarism?
• 5:57
  Speaker 3: So I wanted to get this out of the way
• 5:58
  Speaker 3: in the first case because that's what I mean, that's
• 6:01
  Speaker 3: the correct framing, is that plagiarism in this case, it's
• 6:04
  Speaker 3: not necessarily about plagiarism. But I still think it's relevant
• 6:10
  Speaker 3: to bring up whether or not plagiarism occurred in this Yeah.
• 6:14
  Speaker 4: I also think, like I was asking myself, you know,
• 6:17
  Speaker 4: imagine a case, because this is happening right now in
• 6:19
  Speaker 4: the United States, there are a bunch of what and
• 6:23
  Speaker 4: actually there's there's this forum in my discipline political science
• 6:26
  Speaker 4: called ps jobs where people like, look at what are
• 6:28
  Speaker 4: the jobs listing who are looking for academic jobs, and
• 6:32
  Speaker 4: there was there's a couple, there's one at University of Florida,
• 6:35
  Speaker 4: and people just label them kind of jokingly, but this
• 6:40
  Speaker 4: is a conservative affirmative action job.
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: Because there are these jobs right now in this in
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: the US that are opening.
• 6:48
  Speaker 4: Up that are like great Books jobs, and they're funded
• 6:50
  Speaker 4: by these right wing donors, and they are looking for
• 6:53
  Speaker 4: academics to take up these positions that in a way
• 6:55
  Speaker 4: you could call like conservative DEI like, you know, we're
• 6:59
  Speaker 4: we're creating this new humanistic you know, uh center at
• 7:04
  Speaker 4: the University of Florida, and we're going to hire all
• 7:06
  Speaker 4: these like Streussy and Great Books people, and it's kind
• 7:08
  Speaker 4: of like catered to more conservative oriented people.
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: And I guess I was asking myself, imagine in that case.
• 7:14
  Speaker 4: If someone got hired in one of those you know,
• 7:17
  Speaker 4: more conservative affirmative action.
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: Think tank places.
• 7:22
  Speaker 4: Oh yeah, when they were highly lauded and then it
• 7:25
  Speaker 4: turns out that a bunch of their stuff was fraudulent
• 7:28
  Speaker 4: and like all their work was plagiarized.
• 7:31
  Speaker 2: I mean the left yea online.
• 7:34
  Speaker 4: Last would be enjoying it would be like, oh the
• 7:37
  Speaker 4: and then if if all of a sudden, this person
• 7:39
  Speaker 4: you know, was was attacked maligned online like like relentlessly
• 7:44
  Speaker 4: and then ended up doing something horrible, you know what
• 7:48
  Speaker 4: would it would all of a sudden, uh you know
• 7:51
  Speaker 4: the left be like, oh no, this is only like
• 7:53
  Speaker 4: a social murder.
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: Well, I think it would be looked at as like
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: a right wing self own, because yeah, this is.
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: This is a liberal social justice self out.
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: I mean, liberals and leftists are at best silent and
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: at worst like a little bit critical I guess of
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: affirmative action and DEI. But the right hates it and
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: the fact that it happened at a university is like, oh,
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: look at the liberal establishment using like these flawed affirmative
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: action policies because they don't think racism exists. The right doesn't.
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: And then they're like and then look what it's done.
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: They're like, haha, it's like gloating over how affirmative it's
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: like just being framed as an affirmative action slash DEI failure.
• 8:37
  Speaker 4: But in my hypothetical, we we would be laughing at
• 8:40
  Speaker 4: look at this conservative affirmative action. They're so excited, and
• 8:43
  Speaker 4: we'd be laughing at it, and.
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: We'd be saying they're hypocrites because out of one side
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: of their mouth they're putting down affirmative action and on
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: the other side they're doing it themselves. They'd be like,
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: that's how we would see it, whereas like the left
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: genuinely believes in structural racism and deemic inequalities, and that
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: affirmative action, though flawed as it is, is one way of
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: addressing those issues. Whatever criticisms you have of it as
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: a specific mechanism to address these issues, fine, but the
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: underlying reason you'd want to put something like that in
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: place is because of those systemic issues, right, race, race, gender,
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: all sorts of things.
• 9:28
  Speaker 4: And I and I think, I think I think we're
• 9:29
  Speaker 4: getting we're getting we're getting a little far, we're getting
• 9:32
  Speaker 4: a little fun.
• 9:33
  Speaker 3: No, let me say we're just getting a little from
• 9:37
  Speaker 3: We're justifying that we should be allowed to cover this
• 9:40
  Speaker 3: when I'm not even interested in that because we can
• 9:42
  Speaker 3: cover it, like we're experts on on PLA.
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: Academic it's our podcast, it's it's our area. I guess
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: academic drama and and I've been squeezed out of a
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: university before because of bullshit, but not not in this level.
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: But still it's like it's in our wheelhouse.
• 10:04
  Speaker 3: Well, we're not going to self censor because we're playing
• 10:07
  Speaker 3: into their hands, which sounds like bullshit anyway, that sounds like,
• 10:10
  Speaker 3: don't platform, Tucker Carlson. I just want to talk about
• 10:14
  Speaker 3: academic standards is something I happen to know about, and
• 10:16
  Speaker 3: it's my podcast. And if you if you don't want
• 10:19
  Speaker 3: to hear about having academic standards, there's a lot of
• 10:22
  Speaker 3: podcasts that don't care about them, I promise.
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: Well, what was the last uncomfortable issue at university is zero?
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: The trans the trans professor who got outed online for
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: what was it was?
• 10:37
  Speaker 2: It was? It was a grading.
• 10:38
  Speaker 4: It was it was it was one that that undergrad
• 10:40
  Speaker 4: was graded, was was given a zero.
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: The undergraduate wrote this like insane conservative parroting essay about
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: how some some cultural decline religious thing, and then it
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: got like a zero, and we were arguing, well, maybe
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: it didn't it was one. Some of us thought it
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: was shit enough to be a zero, and some of us,
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: some of us, I mean, just you just just me.
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: And then it was uncomfortable because again, of like the
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: social backlash that that individual received, and all of whether
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: or not what they did was wrong, whether or not
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: they lied or were grading in bad faith or punishing
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: someone and whatever, or like they the reaction was completely undeserved.
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: And in this case, it may have pushed someone to
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: kill themselves, which is I don't know, you might even
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: have to bleep that out, but still like it may
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: have pushed someone to that.
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: Oh, I think it did, and then we then I mean.
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: It changes the whole thing because like whatever, No, you
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: don't deserve that.
• 11:42
  Speaker 3: See, there's there's where we disagree, because I think, of
• 11:45
  Speaker 3: course didn't deserve it, but I can I also think, okay,
• 11:49
  Speaker 3: you can abstract from a situation and talk about the
• 11:52
  Speaker 3: academic principle of an issue without it reflecting on things
• 11:57
  Speaker 3: that happened in that situation, and that's what I was
• 11:59
  Speaker 3: more interested in doing. Yeah, I agree with that, namely
• 12:02
  Speaker 3: because our guests dropped out. Otherwise we would have something
• 12:05
  Speaker 3: else to talk about. But I don't, you know, you
• 12:07
  Speaker 3: can say it's a tragedy, and we can also say
• 12:10
  Speaker 3: this guy should never have been in this position.
• 12:13
  Speaker 4: Yeah, well that's exactly what I was going to say
• 12:15
  Speaker 4: in terms of but when it comes to the conversation
• 12:19
  Speaker 4: about affirmative action or DEI, I agree with you, Eric
• 12:24
  Speaker 4: that there's many circumstances where those and there's good reasons
• 12:27
  Speaker 4: that those programs have existed. I might be more skeptical
• 12:33
  Speaker 4: of how broadly they're applied than you. I don't know,
• 12:35
  Speaker 4: we've never I don't think had a detailed conversation about that,
• 12:38
  Speaker 4: but I would imagine because I think I'm I'm generally
• 12:42
  Speaker 4: skeptical but recognize it might be necessary in certain circumstances.
• 12:45
  Speaker 4: But in this circumstance, I think it's a clear case
• 12:48
  Speaker 4: where it went way too far. Where like that kind
• 12:51
  Speaker 4: of DEI of like, like raise marginalized identities up and
• 12:56
  Speaker 4: give them positions.
• 12:58
  Speaker 2: Clearly went too far.
• 13:00
  Speaker 4: And I feel that Cambridge University and all the liberal woke.
• 13:06
  Speaker 2: Friendly or it's you know, I don't even want to
• 13:08
  Speaker 2: say woke.
• 13:09
  Speaker 4: I just want to say people who boosted that and
• 13:11
  Speaker 4: they're like, oh, this is so great, look at this
• 13:13
  Speaker 4: this person with this incredible background.
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: We have to raise them up.
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: It's kind of like the white fragility style woke.
• 13:19
  Speaker 2: I kind of feel like there it's their fault a
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: little bit like that this.
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: Happy I have no doubt that Cambridge was behaving cynically,
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: and I think the application of DEI is very very
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: cynical by the institutions and the corporations that actually implement it.
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: And it goes back to that sort of like Silicone
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: Valley racial bias training white fragility type of like person
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: who goes around to corporate retreats and things and does
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: those like pseudo ted talks about how you're like inter
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: racist and have to train that out. I mean, that
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: stuff I think is a whole like woke one.
• 13:56
  Speaker 3: They're calling it now.
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: And the case Ambridge University is probably behaving cynically throughout
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: this and now, and they're leading the conversation. You know,
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: I see the BBC article now saying Cambridge Chancellor criticizes
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: racist feeding frenzy around Jason our Day and so they're
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: trying to signal their moral righteousness in all of this
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: when they probably behaved very cynically and like a like
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: an institution throughout all of this.
• 14:27
  Speaker 3: Well, yeah, trying to be clear here, there was a
• 14:30
  Speaker 3: racist feeding frenzy, But this is the kind of this
• 14:33
  Speaker 3: is the kind of story that does damage to affirmative
• 14:37
  Speaker 3: action initiatives, some of which may be justified, some of
• 14:40
  Speaker 3: which may not be. But this kind of makes a
• 14:43
  Speaker 3: mockery of the whole thing. And now I'm borrowing Victor's
• 14:45
  Speaker 3: point of the liberals have to be perfect otherwise we
• 14:49
  Speaker 3: have to see it all ground to the conservatives. So
• 14:51
  Speaker 3: I understand, I understand that that's what's happening here, but
• 14:55
  Speaker 3: it makes it look if you look into the details
• 14:57
  Speaker 3: of the case like this was brought to the attention
• 15:00
  Speaker 3: of Cambridge by some racists and some not racists, that this,
• 15:06
  Speaker 3: like this guy's TV is problematic, and they just they said, okay,
• 15:11
  Speaker 3: we're looking into it, and then they kind of covered
• 15:13
  Speaker 3: it up. So I don't know, like it's a complicated issue.
• 15:16
  Speaker 3: Do you see to the right wing framing you know,
• 15:18
  Speaker 3: who gets jobs? This is an issue And I don't
• 15:20
  Speaker 3: want to borrow from Victor's playbook here, but compromising standards
• 15:25
  Speaker 3: for the sake of something else is setting yourself up
• 15:29
  Speaker 3: to get owned like this. And if you if you
• 15:31
  Speaker 3: just supheld academic standards, there's plenty of black academics that
• 15:35
  Speaker 3: could do perfectly fine at Cambridge, just not this.
• 15:39
  Speaker 4: Yes, yes, yes, you don't need someone who's got some
• 15:43
  Speaker 4: crazy high falutine story about being mute until they're eleven
• 15:46
  Speaker 4: and like living on the street.
• 15:48
  Speaker 2: Like all this stuff.
• 15:49
  Speaker 4: It's like, like it's just hilarious how his story too,
• 15:53
  Speaker 4: was like almost pitch perfectly designed to flatter like white liberals, like,
• 15:58
  Speaker 4: oh my god, I'm gonna rest I'm gonna raise this
• 16:01
  Speaker 4: black man up. Like it's catered to this like absurd
• 16:07
  Speaker 4: white liberal savior narrative.
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: It's so embarrassing.
• 16:10
  Speaker 3: It's hr Department Social Justice except maxed out like more
• 16:15
  Speaker 3: than you could. He's running charities with a broken charity
• 16:18
  Speaker 3: marathons with a broken leg and almost breaking the world
• 16:21
  Speaker 3: record for ultra marathon running.
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: It's like an HGTV success story, perfect pitch perfect, kind
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: of like overcoming obstacle.
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: Or do you mean like Hallmark channel Hallmark Channel perfect?
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: Sure, yeah, but like but then the wild part is
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: like who set the ball, Like who set events in
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: motion that led to this? And it was a race
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: realist named Nathan Kaufness who basically like kicked the boulder
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: down the hill for all these events by outing our
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: day four potentially having placiarized we should.
• 16:56
  Speaker 4: Spend a couple seconds on Nathan Coffiness because he's kind
• 16:59
  Speaker 4: of fascinating in the sense.
• 17:00
  Speaker 3: That, well, we didn't even go over our day yet what.
• 17:03
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's true, it's true. Well, just really quickly.
• 17:05
  Speaker 4: He's just a race realist philosopher. But he does have credentials.
• 17:07
  Speaker 4: I think he has a PhD. And he writes about
• 17:09
  Speaker 4: like not that it's just interesting because he's not. It's
• 17:12
  Speaker 4: not just merely some like media attention like Ghoule, who
• 17:19
  Speaker 4: has a YouTube channel.
• 17:20
  Speaker 2: It's like someone who's actually an academic.
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: He worked at Cambridge as well. He was previously fired
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: from Cambridge for his views on race and intelligence. Hence
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: the race realist description.
• 17:32
  Speaker 4: Okay, but on our day, let's let's let's pivot, let's
• 17:35
  Speaker 4: pivot our day.
• 17:36
  Speaker 3: This is all manufactured by a race realist. And then
• 17:41
  Speaker 3: he's been on Megan Kelly, he's been on a bunch
• 17:43
  Speaker 3: of stuff. But the ground story is is also true,
• 17:47
  Speaker 3: like what he said was largely.
• 17:49
  Speaker 2: Said, right, was largely true. Like his accusations.
• 17:51
  Speaker 3: You mean uh, yes, and I and I checked. I
• 17:55
  Speaker 3: checked deeply. I checked the sources that the sources we
• 17:58
  Speaker 3: were looking at, so we can get into that. But yeah,
• 18:02
  Speaker 3: initially I thought I read there's like a bunch of
• 18:06
  Speaker 3: articles in the British paper. So I read these and
• 18:09
  Speaker 3: it just like out of context, says well, one person
• 18:12
  Speaker 3: wrote this, and then Arday wrote this, and it's like
• 18:16
  Speaker 3: it could be plagiarism, it could be taken out of context.
• 18:19
  Speaker 3: And I was thinking, well, this is the British tabloids.
• 18:23
  Speaker 3: I don't trust this at all. But it turned out
• 18:26
  Speaker 3: to be like true, Yeah, almost all of all of
• 18:30
  Speaker 3: his academic work, or four out of five research articles
• 18:36
  Speaker 3: that he's published, were largely and thoroughly plagiarized and kind
• 18:42
  Speaker 3: of insultingly badly. You know, if you're gonna plagiarize, you
• 18:45
  Speaker 3: can take someone's words and rearrange them into a sentence
• 18:49
  Speaker 3: where no one would know where you got the original
• 18:51
  Speaker 3: source from. But he's like he's plagiarizing misplaced commas and apostrophes.
• 18:57
  Speaker 3: So it just leaves like no question, it's cut and.
• 19:01
  Speaker 4: Dry, absolutely, And I know, and even his books I read,
• 19:05
  Speaker 4: I don't know if they were plagiarized, but I just
• 19:08
  Speaker 4: I remember I read an article by an academic I think,
• 19:13
  Speaker 4: and a few people have commented in his discipline sociology
• 19:18
  Speaker 4: that the quality of the scholarship of the books was
• 19:21
  Speaker 4: like kind of shockingly bad and just like like, so,
• 19:25
  Speaker 4: I mean that's another that's more subjective obviously, but it's
• 19:29
  Speaker 4: just interesting. So you have a bunch of plagiarized articles
• 19:32
  Speaker 4: books that many people in the field say is like
• 19:34
  Speaker 4: shockingly bad. But then his is raised to this position
• 19:38
  Speaker 4: of incredible elite stature at Cambridge University.
• 19:42
  Speaker 3: And we have to go through the sources carefully because
• 19:44
  Speaker 3: everyone has an interest in here. Half of the people
• 19:47
  Speaker 3: involved in this story are like anti woke, anti DEI. See,
• 19:51
  Speaker 3: this is what happens, right, So you do have to
• 19:53
  Speaker 3: sort that, you have to sort out who's saying what,
• 19:57
  Speaker 3: But ultimately the facts is the facts. Like if you
• 20:01
  Speaker 3: see the same five bracketed citations in the same order
• 20:06
  Speaker 3: in two texts, one of them copied the other, there's
• 20:08
  Speaker 3: no there's no possible chance of five cited sources, five
• 20:14
  Speaker 3: different sited sources being the same in the same order
• 20:18
  Speaker 3: in two papers.
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's impossible to say that plagiarism was overlooked because
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: of DEI in this case, because like you're working closely
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: with a supervisor who's reading your work chapter for chapter
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: as you're submitting as you're developing your thesis and writing
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: your dissertation, and the fact that that happened is suspicious
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: to say the least. But there's no question that that
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: the I mean, the racial component of all of this
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: is just too glaring. It cuts it, okay, And that
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: may be meant. There may be mental health involved, there
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: may be some kind of autism all like whatever, but
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: that doesn't I don't think that explains the sensation of
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: it all.
• 21:05
  Speaker 2: No, I agree.
• 21:06
  Speaker 4: I mean, the racial motivation is a huge part of it,
• 21:08
  Speaker 4: but I also think it kind of cuts both ways
• 21:10
  Speaker 4: in this sense. Like if I was a black academic
• 21:14
  Speaker 4: who worked really hard, I would be so mad at
• 21:17
  Speaker 4: Jason R.
• 21:18
  Speaker 2: Day myself because like, dude, you're doing the shit that's
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: putting like my entire Like that is that.
• 21:25
  Speaker 4: Is giving immunition for people to feel suspicious like that, Now,
• 21:31
  Speaker 4: that's all racially motivated in like really you know, odious
• 21:34
  Speaker 4: horrible ways. But also like this is I think one
• 21:37
  Speaker 4: of the most convincing to me critiques of affirmative action
• 21:41
  Speaker 4: as an approach is it just emotivates this suspicion. Oh,
• 21:48
  Speaker 4: like you just you're just here because of this, Like
• 21:49
  Speaker 4: I would hate that like if I was a black academic,
• 21:51
  Speaker 4: I would always have at the back of my mind,
• 21:52
  Speaker 4: do people think that I'm here because of that?
• 21:55
  Speaker 2: Like that would piss me off so much.
• 21:58
  Speaker 3: It sounds just like Tyler Austin Harper for Yeah.
• 22:02
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean, but I think it's a legitimate.
• 22:03
  Speaker 4: I mean, I I don't really see why how anyone
• 22:06
  Speaker 4: would would think that that's not a valid point.
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: Like it's just I think you.
• 22:11
  Speaker 3: Even beyond the race issue. It's like an academic issue,
• 22:14
  Speaker 3: because I think what this does speaks to if we
• 22:16
  Speaker 3: separate this context from the principle, it's academia's bullshit. Academia's
• 22:21
  Speaker 3: where you go and you get to play Plato because
• 22:23
  Speaker 3: you have anxiety. This kind of like seems like that,
• 22:27
  Speaker 3: like the sociology has a discipline should be offended because
• 22:31
  Speaker 3: everyone who didn't get to go teach at Harvard with
• 22:34
  Speaker 3: their sociology Degreebridge. Oh sorry, sorry sorry, yeah, Harvard.
• 22:38
  Speaker 4: Wrong continent Ron Cambridge because Harvard's in Cambridge, Massachusetts. But anyway,
• 22:43
  Speaker 4: and this is that University of Cambridge.
• 22:45
  Speaker 3: What did I say.
• 22:47
  Speaker 4: You said, you said you said to teach at Harvard Cambridge.
• 22:52
  Speaker 3: Oh okay, yeah, yeah, so uh he didn't just plagiarize
• 22:57
  Speaker 3: his papers very badly. His article basically copy paste. He
• 23:03
  Speaker 3: took direct quotes that were in the original source, just
• 23:06
  Speaker 3: like erase the deect quotes and change the words around.
• 23:08
  Speaker 3: When it was like a paper quoting another paper. So
• 23:11
  Speaker 3: it's just like blatant in that case. But also the CV,
• 23:15
  Speaker 3: the CV of a bunch of jobs that he claimed
• 23:19
  Speaker 3: to have. He claimed to work at at least three
• 23:22
  Speaker 3: different institutions where he had never worked. He claimed to
• 23:26
  Speaker 3: work at institutions that he had once worked at but
• 23:29
  Speaker 3: no longer worked at, but was still listed as working.
• 23:32
  Speaker 3: So very like, I mean, everyone's gonna pad their CV
• 23:37
  Speaker 3: a little bit, but to full on fabricate the CV.
• 23:42
  Speaker 3: He's like a running running for charity. I mean great, good,
• 23:46
  Speaker 3: good running for charity, breaking or nearly breaking world records
• 23:50
  Speaker 3: for running for charity. Maybe it's embellished a bit, so
• 23:53
  Speaker 3: it's it's like a serial self mythologizing. Yeah, and you
• 23:58
  Speaker 3: can kind of say, you know, he's fitting the bill,
• 24:02
  Speaker 3: Like we said earlier, this is fitting the bill of
• 24:05
  Speaker 3: somebody who deserves to get into Cambridge on every front,
• 24:09
  Speaker 3: charity runner, academic works at all these institutions, disability, Yeah.
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: He's neurodiversent, he has a whole.
• 24:18
  Speaker 3: He couldn't speak until eleven. But at the end of it,
• 24:21
  Speaker 3: you're like, who there might be some truth to this,
• 24:24
  Speaker 3: there might be just no truth to this. There's there's
• 24:27
  Speaker 3: no way of telling at the end because of how
• 24:30
  Speaker 3: much stuff is like just fully made up. And to me,
• 24:34
  Speaker 3: it actually comes back to, like why didn't you if
• 24:37
  Speaker 3: you're gonna plage rise, plage rise good, if you're gonna
• 24:40
  Speaker 3: lie about running, why would you lie and say you
• 24:44
  Speaker 3: almost broke a world record with a broken leg? Like
• 24:47
  Speaker 3: keep the lies reasonable? So there's like something, I mean,
• 24:50
  Speaker 3: something's up. So the pot is set to boil, and
• 24:54
  Speaker 3: anyone could have turned off the stove before now, but
• 24:57
  Speaker 3: instead they Cambridge specifically was doubling down and saying this
• 25:02
  Speaker 3: is just racism and it's.
• 25:04
  Speaker 4: Sad and and I actually don't doubt that he probably
• 25:06
  Speaker 4: had a quite difficult upbringing, because I do think that
• 25:08
  Speaker 4: people who end up being like compulsive liars in this
• 25:13
  Speaker 4: way must have had a quite difficult upbringing. Like you know,
• 25:16
  Speaker 4: I don't, I don't. I think that maybe that part
• 25:18
  Speaker 4: of it could be true, but I don't know. I
• 25:20
  Speaker 4: don't know if pills looked into, uh, looked into like
• 25:24
  Speaker 4: what parts of his childhood were troure.
• 25:27
  Speaker 2: But nevertheless, I mean it's concerning.
• 25:28
  Speaker 4: I think anybody who kind of makes stuff up that way,
• 25:32
  Speaker 4: you know, I worry.
• 25:33
  Speaker 2: I would worry about them.
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: Like to me, it's still ultimately like a major institutional
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: failure and a huge reflection of systemic racist And it's
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: this convergence of different It's this convergence of different phenomena
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: that like killed a person and I wouldn't blame him
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: for anything. Is the problem? I mean, ultimately it's a problem.
• 26:04
  Speaker 3: Like wait, what nothing?
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: I think it's a systemic I think it's a systemic issue. Yeah,
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: I wouldn't like.
• 26:10
  Speaker 3: So wait, wait, if you're this guy's colleague, you know
• 26:13
  Speaker 3: he sucks. You have to work next to him and
• 26:16
  Speaker 3: he does not how to do it, and all your
• 26:18
  Speaker 3: colleagues that he sucks, and he's coasting along while everyone
• 26:22
  Speaker 3: heaps praise on him, while you know he lied together.
• 26:25
  Speaker 3: Get there, you're just gonna be like, oh, good on you, mate.
• 26:28
  Speaker 3: Systems fucked up, isn't it.
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: But but not knowing if the lying where, where and
• 26:35
  Speaker 1: to what extent the lying comes from, and if if
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: the vetting process and the hiring process, and something something's
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: going on in there that let the let things get
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: so far that this could possibly happen. And then there
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: was a giant witch hunt and someone was made to
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: feel so terrible that this happened. And I mean, yeah,
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: I don't I don't think. I don't think. Yeah, it's
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: it's it's a huge tragedy. I think it is. And
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: whatever the cynical part that the institutions played in this,
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: and whatever the role of DEI like, it shouldn't have happened.
• 27:16
  Speaker 3: Hang on now, hang on, you're fine. Last week, you're
• 27:19
  Speaker 3: fine to rag on Alex Karp for lying embellishing his
• 27:25
  Speaker 3: fake academic credibility. And Alex Karp is allowed to be
• 27:30
  Speaker 3: personally responsible for lying about his academic credibility. But this
• 27:33
  Speaker 3: guy is not responsible. Now, it's the system's fault that
• 27:36
  Speaker 3: he made up jobs. He never had to get a job.
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but inequality is at play here, and like there's
• 27:45
  Speaker 1: different there's power dynamics that make a certain kind of
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: like the Britain the one of the pioneers of colonialism
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: and major participators in slavery and has a huge past
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: reconcile with as does America and their institutions. But you know,
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: like what what Harvard is built on the land and
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: the people and the unacknowledged debts they have right and
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: their current roles and things like defending Israel and the
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: persecuting Palestinian protests and things like that. I mean, those
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: things are relevant in this case too. It's not an individual.
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: It's not about an individual and what they did.
• 28:29
  Speaker 3: Who decides that, you like, So if you if you're
• 28:32
  Speaker 3: black and euro divergent, we're going to move the goalposts. Actually, no,
• 28:36
  Speaker 3: we're not even gonna have goal posts here. You go,
• 28:39
  Speaker 3: you're the youngest black professor ever there. That's the game now,
• 28:44
  Speaker 3: I mean he was.
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: That's still his achievement, no matter how it turned out,
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: that's still that's still definitely the achievement that you don't
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: think it's a.
• 28:53
  Speaker 3: Little to get it.
• 28:55
  Speaker 4: Yeah, he fooled, he fooled the institution into into into
• 28:58
  Speaker 4: getting to that position.
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: Yeah, he outsmarted one of the top ivy league schools
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: in the world. I mean, okay, fine, it's still his.
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: It doesn't change. It doesn't change that he cleared that. No,
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: there's no racing that.
• 29:15
  Speaker 3: Yeah, there is, Are you kidding it's totally bitter race.
• 29:18
  Speaker 3: It's like saying you really, you really were the fastest
• 29:22
  Speaker 3: if you doped in the eighties, Like, you're not fast.
• 29:26
  Speaker 2: It's a difficult Well, fraud is a is a kind
• 29:30
  Speaker 2: of work.
• 29:30
  Speaker 4: I mean, fraud is I mean sometimes fraudsters are quite impressive.
• 29:33
  Speaker 3: In Yeah, doping is a lot of work too. That's
• 29:36
  Speaker 3: why we can we can separate them. We can have
• 29:38
  Speaker 3: one league for all the dopers and one league for
• 29:40
  Speaker 3: everybody who does not cheat. I can't even believe we're
• 29:44
  Speaker 3: arguing this, like he cheated. He plagiarized the commas and
• 29:48
  Speaker 3: the apostrophes and didn't bother to fix them. He didn't
• 29:51
  Speaker 3: put the proper work into plagiarizing.
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: It's one of these difficult things that like has been
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: made way more difficult because you do have to into
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: account systemic racism issues. Right, It's just like how difficult
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: it is to talk about. Yeah, someone who gets outed
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: for something in a social media landscape, hounded and persecuted
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: to the point where they have to they do some
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: something really really extreme. It's there's always there's difficulty on
• 30:23
  Speaker 1: the person involved, there's difficulty in their family and friends,
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: and then there's difficulty talking about it. I really want
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: to acknowledge all of that. And then it looks like
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: like this Nathan Coughness guy, who's the asshole who started
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: all this, Like that's the person who deserves to be
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: fucking persecuted for all of this.
• 30:52
  Speaker 3: No, he's being celebrated, he's being invited onto all the
• 30:55
  Speaker 3: right way shows. So that's the the brutal twist.
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: That's fucking like, what is that ship that is fucking
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: national socialism coming back in some weird, distorted new way.
• 31:07
  Speaker 3: Except that what he said was correct. That's the problem here.
• 31:09
  Speaker 3: He wouldn't have he wouldn't have had any any anything
• 31:12
  Speaker 3: to say if none of if all this stuff wasn't true,
• 31:15
  Speaker 3: and if Cambridge hadn't covered up the other times that
• 31:18
  Speaker 3: people brought this to Cambridge's attention. Cambridge, this is like
• 31:22
  Speaker 3: the third straw where this broke containment. The first two
• 31:26
  Speaker 3: times people were sending letters privately to Cambridge, to the
• 31:30
  Speaker 3: head of the sociology department saying like, there's some shit
• 31:34
  Speaker 3: going on here.
• 31:35
  Speaker 4: Yeah, it's but it's interesting because I feel I feel
• 31:37
  Speaker 4: like there's there's there's a there's a a way in
• 31:41
  Speaker 4: which you know, can something if it's true.
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: You know, true things can be racially motivated. I think
• 31:49
  Speaker 2: that's true.
• 31:51
  Speaker 4: You know, I think people can have racial motivations. But
• 31:54
  Speaker 4: then the true thing itself, it's still true, uh, you know,
• 31:58
  Speaker 4: and in that institutional context it's it's it's wrong. But
• 32:02
  Speaker 4: then there and then I guess there's the way that
• 32:04
  Speaker 4: that truth is used.
• 32:06
  Speaker 2: Right, So I guess for probably.
• 32:08
  Speaker 4: I'm guessing for Pills, and I like, for us, this
• 32:10
  Speaker 4: is just oh yeah, like he should have resigned, he
• 32:12
  Speaker 4: should have never been allowed to be there, you know,
• 32:15
  Speaker 4: that's that's horrible. And then are also conclusion is probably
• 32:19
  Speaker 4: you know, there's tons of other black academics who would
• 32:21
  Speaker 4: have been much more deserving, who we would have liked
• 32:23
  Speaker 4: to see. Now there are people, maybe like Nathan Coffiness.
• 32:28
  Speaker 4: I can't speak for him, I haven't looked into his
• 32:29
  Speaker 4: full view on this, who then will use this to say, oh, yeah,
• 32:34
  Speaker 4: see black people, you shouldn't trust them in academica. See,
• 32:37
  Speaker 4: like black people don't belong in academia. Right, So there's
• 32:39
  Speaker 4: two conclusions that you can draw from it from the truth, right,
• 32:44
  Speaker 4: And I think I'm much more interested in just being like, yeah,
• 32:47
  Speaker 4: this is bad. And then I think maybe an additional
• 32:50
  Speaker 4: conclusion that I would draw from this is that, like
• 32:53
  Speaker 4: affirmative Act, that we have to be really, really careful
• 32:56
  Speaker 4: when we do things in the name of affirmative action
• 32:58
  Speaker 4: or DEI.
• 32:59
  Speaker 2: I think it requires heightened scrutiny.
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: Yeah, like it is a serious thing and it should
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: be well, yeah, it's like it shouldn't be used irresponsibly.
• 33:09
  Speaker 1: It's going to cause more pain and suffering that it's
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: meant to alleviate in the first place. Like I said,
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: the underlying motivation for it and the causes it's trying
• 33:17
  Speaker 1: to address are good. But if it's used irresponsibly, then
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: it's just going to contribute to the problems, not help
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: resolve them. And there are people who want that all
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: to fail in order to show that oh, like you
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: know or whatever, confirm their insane race realist world views.
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: And they have people who just want it all to fail,
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: and we have to be careful about them too and
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: not play into their narratives. And like I always just
• 33:44
  Speaker 1: I just worry about how much arguing about the quote
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: unquote truth of it all is. Like you know, when
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: we were doing that earlier episode and it was all
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: about like, well, we spent too much time, in my view,
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: discussing what grade they really deserved and what right the
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: person did they really deserve to get a zero? Like
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: what was the good? What was the true mark of
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: this paper, separate from all the bullshit that went on
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: around it? And I don't know. That's I worry that
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: that's happening a little bit that that doesn't there's the
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: danger of that happening here too, a little bit too much.
• 34:19
  Speaker 3: It is happening. I am doing that. Let me justify
• 34:22
  Speaker 3: why I'm doing that. These particular rules, these abstract rules,
• 34:28
  Speaker 3: These are the conventions of the game. These are the
• 34:31
  Speaker 3: rules of the sport, like sprinting. Stay in the lines.
• 34:35
  Speaker 3: We have been trained. We've all been trained. You're supposed
• 34:37
  Speaker 3: to be trained in order to go to Cambridge. In
• 34:40
  Speaker 3: all the rules of the game, it's the only thing
• 34:43
  Speaker 3: that we can agree on here. They are conventions, and
• 34:46
  Speaker 3: the conventions apply to everybody. If you think, oh, we
• 34:50
  Speaker 3: also need to overcome systematic racism in our conventions. We
• 34:54
  Speaker 3: need to have different standards for different people to fix
• 34:58
  Speaker 3: the system, then those standards have to be laid out.
• 35:02
  Speaker 3: You don't just get to say after the fact, we
• 35:04
  Speaker 3: gave him a pass because he's black and euro divergent. No,
• 35:07
  Speaker 3: if you're going to give him a pass because he's
• 35:09
  Speaker 3: black and eurodivergent, don't pretend like this is merit based.
• 35:13
  Speaker 3: And they did pretend it was merit based. They didn't
• 35:16
  Speaker 3: stick by the rules of the game. This is the
• 35:19
  Speaker 3: reason anyone who's pissed off is pissed off, and they
• 35:22
  Speaker 3: have a right to be because they said, we're playing
• 35:25
  Speaker 3: all the same game and they were not. And with
• 35:29
  Speaker 3: this case, just like the Samantha Colnecki case, yes something
• 35:34
  Speaker 3: bad happened, that's political, AMMO and whatever else afterwards as
• 35:38
  Speaker 3: a secondary effect, but the primary effect is if you
• 35:42
  Speaker 3: stuck by what are supposed to be the arbitrary and indifferent,
• 35:46
  Speaker 3: ambivalent laws rules of academic standards. The second part would
• 35:51
  Speaker 3: never have happened if this guy was held to the
• 35:56
  Speaker 3: standards of Cambridge. This never would have happened. If idiot
• 35:59
  Speaker 3: Samantha Greater had stuck to the convention that holds for
• 36:03
  Speaker 3: every other student, none of this would have happened. The
• 36:05
  Speaker 3: arbitrary rules applied indifferently, applied blindly. This is offense, so
• 36:11
  Speaker 3: that everybody knows what game they're playing. If you want
• 36:14
  Speaker 3: to change the rules of the game for certain people.
• 36:17
  Speaker 3: Do it beforehand. Don't pretend like the game is the
• 36:20
  Speaker 3: same for everybody when it's not.
• 36:22
  Speaker 4: Yeah, and I think that you're not even saying the
• 36:25
  Speaker 4: like that the rules are clear. The rules don't even
• 36:29
  Speaker 4: need to be clear, they just need to be kind
• 36:31
  Speaker 4: of followed. I mean, especially in the ur Day case.
• 36:35
  Speaker 4: I think it's it's I was actually thinking about how
• 36:39
  Speaker 4: I'm probably a bit more sympathetic or or I see
• 36:43
  Speaker 4: a more sympathetic to Eric's perspective on Samantha whatever her
• 36:47
  Speaker 4: last name is on that case than I am on well,
• 36:51
  Speaker 4: not that not that Eric has demonstrated much of a
• 36:54
  Speaker 4: like strong defense, but I guess, like you know.
• 36:57
  Speaker 3: I just I do want to Sales. I mean, it's
• 36:59
  Speaker 3: not like is wrong. We should pay attention to the
• 37:02
  Speaker 3: political circumstances, sure, and the climate and the propaganda and whatever.
• 37:07
  Speaker 3: But again, every time it seems like certain people will
• 37:11
  Speaker 3: get to move the goal posts, people get upset that
• 37:14
  Speaker 3: the goalposts are moved. Yeah, some of those people that
• 37:16
  Speaker 3: are upset are racist. But still you go, oh, what
• 37:20
  Speaker 3: you're gonna cry because you didn't get everything your way? No, like, no,
• 37:24
  Speaker 3: they're crying because you did move the goal posts, and
• 37:26
  Speaker 3: you're pretending that you didn't move the goal posts. And
• 37:29
  Speaker 3: if we're all gonna be in this simulation and pretend
• 37:33
  Speaker 3: they were playing a real game here, we're gonna pretend
• 37:35
  Speaker 3: this is a real sport, then you got to stop
• 37:38
  Speaker 3: moving the fucking goal posts and then pretending you're not
• 37:41
  Speaker 3: doing it.
• 37:42
  Speaker 4: Yeah, and you don't and you don't need and again,
• 37:43
  Speaker 4: you don't need to apply the rules as if they're
• 37:45
  Speaker 4: hard and fast. Clear, it's like just some evaluation, just
• 37:49
  Speaker 4: some scrutiny based on those rules. They might be read
• 37:52
  Speaker 4: differently by different people in slightly different ways, but it's
• 37:56
  Speaker 4: still enough to certainly catch these regius errors in that
• 38:01
  Speaker 4: in like the net of that review. So I feel
• 38:04
  Speaker 4: I feel like it's it's it's fairly you know, it's fairly.
• 38:08
  Speaker 2: Obvious that if if they had been applied.
• 38:11
  Speaker 4: But you know, I also think fear maybe like more fundamentally,
• 38:18
  Speaker 4: and this is a kind of reasoning that happens on
• 38:22
  Speaker 4: some corners of the left or whatever whatever you want
• 38:26
  Speaker 4: to call it, liberal left, that Eric is articulating, and
• 38:30
  Speaker 4: that some of our patrons, one in particular, who I
• 38:33
  Speaker 4: have in mind, they seem to see like they seem
• 38:39
  Speaker 4: to like really put a lot of weight into this
• 38:45
  Speaker 4: question of how it's going to be used, so that
• 38:48
  Speaker 4: you know, there's a kind of willingness to I don't
• 38:50
  Speaker 4: really care about the truth if the truth can be
• 38:52
  Speaker 4: used in this in this other way, in this context,
• 38:57
  Speaker 4: and that I don't know how to fully articulate it
• 38:58
  Speaker 4: right now, but I think that is something that I
• 39:00
  Speaker 4: strongly like disagree with or instinctively disagree with, Like I
• 39:06
  Speaker 4: don't want to start picking and choosing what truths I give,
• 39:12
  Speaker 4: you know, attention to, because of how it might be
• 39:15
  Speaker 4: used first by some nefarious actors. I just I think
• 39:19
  Speaker 4: that that's a dangerous road to go down. I think
• 39:22
  Speaker 4: it's I think it's in a way. I mean, this
• 39:24
  Speaker 4: is going to sound dramatic, but I do feel like
• 39:26
  Speaker 4: this is kind of the road to authoritarianism. Like I
• 39:30
  Speaker 4: feel like authoritarianist regimes are very attentive to concealing truths
• 39:37
  Speaker 4: because of how it could impact their political causes. And
• 39:42
  Speaker 4: I know I'm not accusing Eric or anyone of being
• 39:44
  Speaker 4: an authoritarian, but I just think that kind of reasoning
• 39:47
  Speaker 4: that attention to, well, this might be true, but it's
• 39:50
  Speaker 4: going to be used by our enemies it's going to
• 39:51
  Speaker 4: be used, so therefore we should suppress it. That's exactly
• 39:54
  Speaker 4: the thing that authoritarian regimes do. They're worried about it.
• 39:58
  Speaker 4: And then and then obviously that balloons, that snowballs into
• 40:01
  Speaker 4: something crazy. I mean, of course I get reemphasizing. I
• 40:05
  Speaker 4: don't think Eric in any way would support such a regime.
• 40:08
  Speaker 4: I'm just noticing that. I just think that that logic
• 40:11
  Speaker 4: kind of leads in that direction. That's one of the
• 40:13
  Speaker 4: reasons I really don't like it.
• 40:16
  Speaker 3: It sounded very Peterson twenty sixteen there. But yeah, it's
• 40:20
  Speaker 3: like the game is made up, and if you want
• 40:24
  Speaker 3: to play the game, you agree to the made up rules.
• 40:27
  Speaker 3: That's what football is, that's what academia is.
• 40:30
  Speaker 2: There's probably something non arbitrary about plagiarism, though, yeah.
• 40:33
  Speaker 3: I mean, if you have autism, then you still have
• 40:36
  Speaker 3: a supervisor that shows you how to do citations, right.
• 40:38
  Speaker 3: I don't know why an autist would not be good
• 40:40
  Speaker 3: at citations, but that's being trotted out here as well. Well.
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: I think I struggle with it on an intellectual level
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: about the idea that being like truth like that when
• 40:54
  Speaker 1: you say it leads to authoritarianism, and that sort of
• 40:59
  Speaker 1: thing like sure, similar I forget the idea, you know,
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: reading books like Animal Farm and Shit and like like
• 41:08
  Speaker 1: warnings about how ideological manipulation can go so far that
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: you end up with situations like like whatever Stalin and
• 41:19
  Speaker 1: Maoism and the denial like calling Albert Einstein like a
• 41:24
  Speaker 1: relativity theory, like western bourgeois science like that that sort
• 41:30
  Speaker 1: of stuff. But then I think we'd all be hard
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: pressed to deny that, like social constructivism plays a massive
• 41:36
  Speaker 1: part in like the reality that we all live in
• 41:38
  Speaker 1: quote unquote reality is socially constructed, and the fact that
• 41:43
  Speaker 1: we're from humanities and social science disciplines, which means that
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: most of our frameworks are influenced by that, like political
• 41:51
  Speaker 1: reality is created by people's beliefs and their actions, and
• 41:56
  Speaker 1: that a kind of natural science idea of objective reality
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: doesn't work in those sorts of cases, and that and
• 42:06
  Speaker 1: like this guy was a sociologist of education, Okay, so
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: he's coming from similar disciplines that we're all coming out
• 42:14
  Speaker 1: of as well, like your political science or the humanities,
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: where we are used to ideas of social constructivism, whatever
• 42:23
  Speaker 1: level of it, hard or soft, and ideology critique and
• 42:28
  Speaker 1: all these things that sort of say, Okay, well, yeah,
• 42:30
  Speaker 1: there's truth and there's reality. Like, I don't know, I
• 42:34
  Speaker 1: like the race realist guy, that's that's not the kind
• 42:38
  Speaker 1: of realism that anyone should be into. But then I,
• 42:42
  Speaker 1: like everyone knows I'm into Charles Sanders Purse. He's a
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: scholastic realist. And then I struggle with like separating that
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: those kinds of realism sometimes and even like scientific realism.
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: But then it a'll go so far that all forms
• 42:59
  Speaker 1: of realism can also get into that argument that it's fascist,
• 43:05
  Speaker 1: and whoever has control of like the reality discourse is
• 43:10
  Speaker 1: inevitably in a position of extraordinary social power. So you
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: could say you could make sort of a similar argument that,
• 43:17
  Speaker 1: like the truth claim, truth claims are authoritarian as well,
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: claims of absolute objective reality can be authoritarian, But then
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: social constructivism can be too, And then where then where
• 43:32
  Speaker 1: does that leave you? I don't know.
• 43:34
  Speaker 3: I don't think we're on truth claims here at all.
• 43:36
  Speaker 3: That's why I kind of tried to pivot away from you.
• 43:38
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, exactly. It's it's a truth. It's a truth
• 43:41
  Speaker 2: claim about whether conventions were followed or.
• 43:43
  Speaker 1: Not right, procede, procedural procedural truth.
• 43:49
  Speaker 3: If there's some formal justification, then then this should I argue,
• 43:55
  Speaker 3: then this should be on paper too, if we're gonna
• 43:57
  Speaker 3: have publicly funded institutions, being like, okay, well in this case,
• 44:01
  Speaker 3: if you have autism, then you're allowed to plagiarize for
• 44:04
  Speaker 3: this in this justification, like if ad it at it
• 44:07
  Speaker 3: to the to the rules, just don't say, oh, we're
• 44:10
  Speaker 3: gonna sweep all this under the rug we have been
• 44:13
  Speaker 3: informed about it. Oh, we're going to allow him to
• 44:15
  Speaker 3: re edit his paper after it's been published, after it's
• 44:21
  Speaker 3: been found plagiarized. He published an article in a journal,
• 44:25
  Speaker 3: the biggest sociology journal called Social Sciences. It was plagiarized,
• 44:30
  Speaker 3: and another academic who's not connected by any other strand
• 44:35
  Speaker 3: to any of this, he recognized it's plagiarized, sent a
• 44:38
  Speaker 3: letter to Cambridge telling them is plagiarized and are they
• 44:43
  Speaker 3: agreed to take it down from the journal and website
• 44:46
  Speaker 3: to republish or to know to fix it? Was basically
• 44:50
  Speaker 3: what they're implying, like, oh, I made a mistake, let
• 44:53
  Speaker 3: me let me quickly fix that. Like what the fuck
• 44:55
  Speaker 3: is that? Because he's a celebrity. But the new article
• 45:00
  Speaker 3: goes up with completely changed text, removing quotes that had
• 45:04
  Speaker 3: been attributed to interviews that he supposedly did, but he didn't.
• 45:09
  Speaker 3: He didn't do the interviews. He copied them from another paper.
• 45:13
  Speaker 3: Then The Times higher Ed asked him for comic because
• 45:15
  Speaker 3: people were still like talking about this, and he responds
• 45:18
  Speaker 3: via a law firm, the Church of Scientology's law firm,
• 45:22
  Speaker 3: saying we need there trying to silence or you're trying
• 45:26
  Speaker 3: to silence us, and Cambridge covers this up. Cambridge knows
• 45:29
  Speaker 3: about all this, and they cover this up.
• 45:32
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and being cynical, I imagine, well, yeah, that that would
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: just be something they don't want to touch. And then
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: any trailer, Yeah, you mentioned like a trail of documentation,
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: because these are all institutions that are involved following some
• 45:47
  Speaker 1: kind of trail of documents back to the PhD days
• 45:51
  Speaker 1: that would allow you to reconstruct all of it. But then,
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: being cynical, I would imagine Cambridge would probably proactively get
• 46:01
  Speaker 1: rid of any documents that point towards any kind of
• 46:04
  Speaker 1: culpability on their part.
• 46:06
  Speaker 3: Well, this is what they said. A spokesman for the
• 46:09
  Speaker 3: University of Cambridge said, quote, Professor R. Day has been
• 46:12
  Speaker 3: the victim of a vile campaign to undermine his credibility,
• 46:15
  Speaker 3: which must stop. Allegations of plagiarism regarding his thesis and
• 46:18
  Speaker 3: journal publications have been thoroughly investigated by the relevant institution
• 46:23
  Speaker 3: and the journals in question. Professor R. Day has been
• 46:26
  Speaker 3: cleared by those investigations of any wrongdoing. Which I mean,
• 46:31
  Speaker 3: if you if you make a statement like that and
• 46:33
  Speaker 3: then a race realist decides to actually go through the work,
• 46:39
  Speaker 3: then you look like Cambridge looks like what right winger
• 46:42
  Speaker 3: say Cambridge actually does.
• 46:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah, look like they're covering their own ass just by
• 46:46
  Speaker 1: saying that and not really showing, not really backing up
• 46:51
  Speaker 1: the statements with.
• 46:52
  Speaker 2: Well, not actually doing the work to check. Also evidently.
• 46:57
  Speaker 1: Like it's another it's another more institutional nihilism and irresponsibility.
• 47:05
  Speaker 4: Which again makes which again like get like just seeds
• 47:09
  Speaker 4: ground and gives credibility to right wingers who think universities
• 47:12
  Speaker 4: are bullshiting, waste.
• 47:13
  Speaker 2: Of time and just left.
• 47:14
  Speaker 1: It makes me so angry because the universities have turned
• 47:18
  Speaker 1: into bastions of neoliberalism.
• 47:22
  Speaker 4: I know, I know, yeah, we're talking about the cultural level,
• 47:25
  Speaker 4: but yeah, of course I totally agree.
• 47:27
  Speaker 3: I mean, so this is why. This is why Victor
• 47:29
  Speaker 3: originally suggested the article prior to Friday, was we should
• 47:33
  Speaker 3: cover how bad Cambridge looks here before the sepuku took place.
• 47:38
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it does.
• 47:39
  Speaker 1: I know. Like when you when you google it and
• 47:41
  Speaker 1: see the BBC article, like and Cambridge is making these
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: kind of like virtue statements, You're like, oh, Cambridge must
• 47:49
  Speaker 1: have some horrific level of involvement here because the fact
• 47:57
  Speaker 1: that they're coming out stridently saying well, we've investigated it
• 48:00
  Speaker 1: and we've ruled out plagiarism and this was racially motivated
• 48:05
  Speaker 1: and a witch hunt and all that stuff, like you
• 48:09
  Speaker 1: could tell the university he is like worried about how
• 48:11
  Speaker 1: this is going to look and that they probably have
• 48:14
  Speaker 1: some they probably have some culpability here that they're trying
• 48:19
  Speaker 1: to get ahead of.
• 48:22
  Speaker 3: So now let us enter the most repugnant character of
• 48:27
  Speaker 3: the story. Nathan Kauf Nass. He wrote the original or
• 48:33
  Speaker 3: not the He wrote the substack that was compiling all
• 48:37
  Speaker 3: of this evidence. He is, wait for it, a philosopher
• 48:42
  Speaker 3: of biology and his he he's aligned with some people
• 48:49
  Speaker 3: like Rufo, except he doesn't think Rufo goes hard enough
• 48:53
  Speaker 3: because Rufo apparently wants some soft race realism. This guy
• 48:59
  Speaker 3: saying we need hard race realism. Okay, and if you
• 49:03
  Speaker 3: I don't know if you know what this guy looks like,
• 49:05
  Speaker 3: but I like it when Okay, I thought he was
• 49:07
  Speaker 3: a white supremacist, right because he looks white. He's like
• 49:13
  Speaker 3: a little manlit conventionally unattractive. I thought, okay, this is
• 49:18
  Speaker 3: just like a a garden variety in cell. White supremacist
• 49:22
  Speaker 3: guy turns out, uh no, actually Jewish supremacist.
• 49:30
  Speaker 2: He was.
• 49:32
  Speaker 3: He was fired for saying Jewish overrepresentation in higher education
• 49:38
  Speaker 3: is not for any cultural reason, It's because it's because
• 49:42
  Speaker 3: Jews are genetically superior. Phylogenetic. I think phylogenet genesis. Is
• 49:49
  Speaker 3: that the right word, phylogenesis? And if if there were
• 49:53
  Speaker 3: no d DEI, there would be no blacks in higher
• 49:57
  Speaker 3: education at all? Zero, I think, did he say zero?
• 50:01
  Speaker 3: Or I would approach zero?
• 50:03
  Speaker 2: That would that would be a wild claim to make.
• 50:06
  Speaker 3: But I love it when the I love The supremacists
• 50:09
  Speaker 3: are just like the most disgusting little.
• 50:14
  Speaker 2: I think I saw.
• 50:15
  Speaker 4: I think I saw him in a YouTube video or
• 50:18
  Speaker 4: maybe read something about him a few years ago, and
• 50:23
  Speaker 4: it seems that, yeah, he he really goes deep into
• 50:28
  Speaker 4: a bunch of literature like biological and like genetic literature
• 50:33
  Speaker 4: and draws these kinds of conclusions, and he'll just be.
• 50:35
  Speaker 2: Like, well, that's what the evidence says.
• 50:36
  Speaker 4: If you look at the evidence, like black people just
• 50:39
  Speaker 4: aren't strong on these measures, and I and we can,
• 50:42
  Speaker 4: you know, And he has a whole argument, I think,
• 50:44
  Speaker 4: for how you can definitively or how you can at
• 50:48
  Speaker 4: least derive that conclusion from the evidence. But he's also
• 50:52
  Speaker 4: I believe heavily criticized by geneticists as.
• 50:57
  Speaker 1: Well, which which social Darwinism and like IQ objectivism is
• 51:05
  Speaker 1: a long established form of scientific racism that goes back
• 51:12
  Speaker 1: to the early days of colonialism that was meant to
• 51:14
  Speaker 1: justify it all in the first place. And it limps
• 51:17
  Speaker 1: on in the form of diminutive little professor Frank here,
• 51:22
  Speaker 1: who is a I mean, he writes Biology and Philosophy
• 51:27
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty four. He's an active researcher, publishing and publishing
• 51:33
  Speaker 1: I don't know who published that, but also in Philosophical
• 51:36
  Speaker 1: Quarterly and other things.
• 51:38
  Speaker 3: God, he spends a lot of his time criticizing other
• 51:42
  Speaker 3: conservatives for not being race realist enough. So this was
• 51:47
  Speaker 3: a chance, and you know, understandable he got fired from Cambridge,
• 51:50
  Speaker 3: so this is called the DEI fraud and cover up
• 51:54
  Speaker 3: at Cambridge, but goes it's almost exclusively targeted and exhaustive
• 52:00
  Speaker 3: late targeted at Jason our day.
• 52:04
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, exactly, and I think.
• 52:07
  Speaker 1: Getting his revenge on everybody.
• 52:10
  Speaker 4: People were like understandably skeptical of his claims, so they
• 52:14
  Speaker 4: were initially pretty dismissive of coughness. But then like we discussed,
• 52:18
  Speaker 4: a bunch of people then went in and looked at
• 52:20
  Speaker 4: some of the claims and we're like, oh shit, like
• 52:22
  Speaker 4: looks like unfortunately, this racist little twerp was actually right
• 52:25
  Speaker 4: about this, unfortunately.
• 52:28
  Speaker 1: Right for the wrongest possible reasons.
• 52:30
  Speaker 4: Well, no, no, no, he was right for the who like okay, yeah,
• 52:34
  Speaker 4: like yeah he was, he was.
• 52:35
  Speaker 2: He was right for he.
• 52:37
  Speaker 3: Cares about academic plagiarism. Let's just say he was.
• 52:40
  Speaker 2: Right for the wrong motivation. I agree for very nefarious motivations.
• 52:44
  Speaker 3: Because this isn't this is a very This article took
• 52:47
  Speaker 3: a long time. We'll say he read He read two
• 52:50
  Speaker 3: Sociology of Education dissertations, seemingly from front to back in
• 52:56
  Speaker 3: order to put this put this together.
• 52:59
  Speaker 1: The fair revenge taking didn't guess didn't know what he
• 53:03
  Speaker 1: would find or got wind of it somehow motivated by
• 53:08
  Speaker 1: what some kind of resentment. Well he got fired from
• 53:12
  Speaker 1: racially motivated and institutionally he got fired. Yeah, so revenge taking,
• 53:21
  Speaker 1: which is that's the that's that's a galling part of
• 53:23
  Speaker 1: all of this is it is kind of enabling that
• 53:27
  Speaker 1: this guy, which is terrible, says here one of the
• 53:33
  Speaker 1: most prominent academic defenders of hereditarianism, I don't know what
• 53:39
  Speaker 1: that is. Which it means that genetic differences are contributed
• 53:45
  Speaker 1: to traits in the population like IQ. So it's like, yeah, argue,
• 53:52
  Speaker 1: IQ is genetic, and it's and it's heritable, it's hereditary basically.
• 53:57
  Speaker 1: And then that dovetails with like a kind of racial
• 54:02
  Speaker 1: social Darwinism that then just argues that, you know, based
• 54:07
  Speaker 1: on how well white people have done, white people must
• 54:09
  Speaker 1: be the smartest though it's Jews for him. Yeah, sure,
• 54:14
  Speaker 1: whoever happens to be, whoever happens to have been the
• 54:17
  Speaker 1: biggest exploiters in human history are also.
• 54:20
  Speaker 3: I don't think so aren't jew Aren't aren't Jews in
• 54:23
  Speaker 3: East Asians the top?
• 54:25
  Speaker 2: Yeah they are.
• 54:25
  Speaker 4: They are on on on that on those race realists well,
• 54:29
  Speaker 4: so there's race Like there's race realists like Coughness, who
• 54:34
  Speaker 4: you know, interpret the data in their own way. But
• 54:37
  Speaker 4: they will but they but they but they end up
• 54:40
  Speaker 4: because they interpret the data the way that they do,
• 54:42
  Speaker 4: they end up kind of diverging from traditional race realists
• 54:46
  Speaker 4: who still somehow want to say that there's that the
• 54:48
  Speaker 4: Jews are vermin but then also devious and like smart
• 54:53
  Speaker 4: and dangerous kind of at the same time.
• 54:57
  Speaker 3: Well, you know, throughout all this time, the Jews have
• 55:00
  Speaker 3: been come at for, you know, pretty much every reason.
• 55:04
  Speaker 3: But I don't think ever anyone came at them for
• 55:07
  Speaker 3: being for being stupid.
• 55:09
  Speaker 2: No, I guess I guess that's true. I guess that's true.
• 55:13
  Speaker 2: You'd be hard pressed either way.
• 55:15
  Speaker 1: It kind of stereotype grand narrative about Judaism for way.
• 55:20
  Speaker 3: You guys, I don't know about this stuff. Maybe I've
• 55:22
  Speaker 3: got to brush up on my race realism. But isn't like,
• 55:25
  Speaker 3: if you make a measurement that's i Q. Wouldn't even
• 55:30
  Speaker 3: race realists say that it's a bi it's like a
• 55:32
  Speaker 3: biased to measure, and then we measured it and then
• 55:35
  Speaker 3: we found demographic distributions of it. Is that the part
• 55:38
  Speaker 3: that's controversial, wouldn't it? Is it just that they want
• 55:42
  Speaker 3: to say this is only like monocusal up to genetic
• 55:47
  Speaker 3: difference and like nothing to do with you know, cultural
• 55:51
  Speaker 3: values or or anything like that.
• 55:53
  Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly, And you can't and you can't notice them
• 55:55
  Speaker 4: and and and it is true that you know, I think,
• 55:59
  Speaker 4: I think, and and Asians score quite high. But there's
• 56:03
  Speaker 4: this again, like like it's the race realist whom who.
• 56:05
  Speaker 1: Makes all this against the background IQ is a deeply
• 56:11
  Speaker 1: problematic measurement. Yes, in the first place, all that against
• 56:14
  Speaker 1: that background.
• 56:16
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I know, I I entirely agree with that.
• 56:18
  Speaker 3: Yeah, but he is he has published peer reviewed Is
• 56:20
  Speaker 3: that what you said?
• 56:21
  Speaker 2: Oh?
• 56:21
  Speaker 4: Yeah, he has, he has, But of course it's blind
• 56:23
  Speaker 4: peer review, right, so they don't know that they're publishing
• 56:26
  Speaker 4: this guy who's a race realist, right, so he'll make
• 56:28
  Speaker 4: he'll make uh, he'll probably. He probably also participates in
• 56:32
  Speaker 4: like more mainstream discussions in philosophy of biology, right, Like
• 56:36
  Speaker 4: he's not only publishing like crazy race realist stuff. He
• 56:40
  Speaker 4: probably is also just debate, debating and whatever the live
• 56:44
  Speaker 4: debates are in that field of philosophy.
• 56:47
  Speaker 1: But that's what you know, that's what I don't like
• 56:49
  Speaker 1: about I'm not saying this about Dawkins personally, but that
• 56:53
  Speaker 1: whole kind of neo Darwinist mainstream biology school definitely leaves
• 56:59
  Speaker 1: open and room for this like hereditarianist kind of race
• 57:05
  Speaker 1: realist biologism. I think it does, And I think then
• 57:11
  Speaker 1: the neo Darwinism is being heavily revised right now by
• 57:15
  Speaker 1: epigenetic studies that say, okay, no, not everything is about
• 57:19
  Speaker 1: genetics and inheritance and a limited revival of Lamarque. But
• 57:24
  Speaker 1: I mean it still has a long way to go.
• 57:26
  Speaker 1: It's like it's like the scientific equivalent of neoclassical economics theory,
• 57:32
  Speaker 1: Like we all kind of know that it's passe a,
• 57:35
  Speaker 1: but at the same time, it's like weirdly mainstream and
• 57:39
  Speaker 1: still taught in schools and still tends to fill up
• 57:42
  Speaker 1: like the common sense imagination about how the economy works.
• 57:46
  Speaker 1: It's the same story with neo Darwinism. Is it still
• 57:49
  Speaker 1: like if you look at it seriously and you know
• 57:51
  Speaker 1: a little bit about the alternatives and the and the
• 57:55
  Speaker 1: larger discourse around it, you know, like it's fucking flawed.
• 57:57
  Speaker 1: But then you look at all the institutions, they're still
• 58:00
  Speaker 1: run by neo Darwinists, and that still fills up like
• 58:03
  Speaker 1: the kind of yeah, common sense view of biology.
• 58:09
  Speaker 3: Well, we're already on neo Darwinism. I still I didn't
• 58:12
  Speaker 3: even know we were outside of Darwinism yet, shows how
• 58:14
  Speaker 3: much I know. But yeah, we can say despite being
• 58:18
  Speaker 3: an odious, odious twerp, a repugnant little hobbit. Yeah, unfortunately,
• 58:26
  Speaker 3: his research methods seem to be on point. I'm seeing
• 58:30
  Speaker 3: here for sure in twenty twenty one, seventeen peer reviewed publications,
• 58:35
  Speaker 3: and he doesn't seem to struggle from with the research methods.
• 58:40
  Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I wanted to bring up also, Yeah, well,
• 58:45
  Speaker 4: however war was talking about it, the fact that he
• 58:47
  Speaker 4: ended up committing sepuku. I was, you know, before that happened,
• 58:54
  Speaker 4: I was thinking about him briefly. I was just like watching,
• 58:58
  Speaker 4: like reading Twitter, and I was like, huh, it's like
• 59:02
  Speaker 4: this could be really bad. You know, he maybe I
• 59:04
  Speaker 4: wonder if there's a chance he would hurt himself, because
• 59:07
  Speaker 4: you know, he's obviously going through a lot of hate.
• 59:10
  Speaker 4: And I bring this up only because the thought I
• 59:11
  Speaker 4: had right after was, well, he does have that book
• 59:16
  Speaker 4: deal that Simon and Schuster apparently was is not gonna
• 59:21
  Speaker 4: with withhold.
• 59:22
  Speaker 2: It's not they're not going to cancel it.
• 59:24
  Speaker 4: And I was like, this is and I was like,
• 59:25
  Speaker 4: this is probably going to do really good things for
• 59:27
  Speaker 4: his book, Like this is gonna be this is gonna suck,
• 59:29
  Speaker 4: this is going to be humiliating, but he's probably gonna
• 59:32
  Speaker 4: end up a multimillionaire because his book is going to
• 59:33
  Speaker 4: sell like crazy. And so that that was literally a
• 59:36
  Speaker 4: thought I had, and I was like, that.
• 59:37
  Speaker 2: Probably means that he's going to be okay.
• 59:41
  Speaker 4: So it's then things took a turn, obviously, but it
• 59:45
  Speaker 4: was I don't know, it was interesting to me because
• 59:47
  Speaker 4: we didn't talk about that. But but they are like
• 59:49
  Speaker 4: Simon and Schuster is getting some hate right now because
• 59:51
  Speaker 4: they're going ahead even after he's he died. They're like, oh, yeah,
• 59:55
  Speaker 4: we're gonna work. Like the book's coming out.
• 59:58
  Speaker 3: They can give it to his kids.
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah exactly does he have kids?
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 3: Yeah?
• 1:00:04
  Speaker 2: Oh sucks.
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 3: Yeah, that's horrible. This is the third part of this story. Now,
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 3: this is the part that I hope, I hoped our
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 3: guest would be able to illuminate for us. But this
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 3: is the British press, so by all accounts, we've heard
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 3: it a couple times with the Princess I and Megan
• 1:00:27
  Speaker 3: Markle and whatever other stories and I don't really understand it,
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 3: but by all accounts, the British press are feral demons
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 3: from the pits of hell. Sounds like they went on
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 3: a tear against this guy contacting him. There were I
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 3: don't know if this is just British, but there was
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 3: like three hundred articles. I guess that's got to be
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 3: global probably, but there are three hundred articles written in
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 3: about five days on on Jason r Day prior to
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 3: the the the terminal event, and they like they definitely
• 1:01:09
  Speaker 3: bear some responsibility, as has been said many times before,
• 1:01:14
  Speaker 3: for how brutal the British press is.
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 1: I do see. You know, Snaya Krishna Krishnan, who's a
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 1: associate professor in human geography at the University of Oxford,
• 1:01:28
  Speaker 1: so better better judged than me, landed on a similar
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 1: term in her opinion article that I sort of thought
• 1:01:36
  Speaker 1: of well, I said, social murder and angles. The title
• 1:01:40
  Speaker 1: of this opinion piece of published with Al Jazeera is
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 1: Jason Arday's death is institutional murder. And I'm thinking, okay,
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 1: that's probably that's probably an accurate lens. The British media,
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 1: she says, the British media, the meme economy, online and
• 1:01:57
  Speaker 1: various commentators dissected every aspect of the professional and personal
• 1:02:02
  Speaker 1: life of this forty one year old black man from
• 1:02:05
  Speaker 1: his manner of speaking to his scholarship. They gleefully claimed
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 1: to expose his supposed lies and plagiarism, pillarying him mercilessly.
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 1: Members of the media establishment defended what they claimed was
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 1: their exposure of the quote unquote truth. So that's that's
• 1:02:22
  Speaker 1: a sample of what she's written in Al Jazeera. So
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 1: it sounds to me like it was a bit of
• 1:02:27
  Speaker 1: a media frenzy, I don't know, a racist and then
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 1: the the and then Cambridge in the BBC Cambridge whatever
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 1: representative said it's a it's a race, it's a racist
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 1: feeding frenzy. So I think whatever else it was, it
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 1: was a right wing event and quite the made quite
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 1: the splash, and the British media, both online and establishment.
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 3: I'm assuming, yeah, you really got a feel for that guy,
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 3: having every single statement ever made up for scrutiny. You
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 3: don't know when it's going to end. He wasn't a
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 3: particularly honest person, but even for an honest person that
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 3: would it would be extremely painful and anxiety inducing having
• 1:03:17
  Speaker 3: vultures picked through every single record you've left on this earth,
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 3: and not public.
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 1: Scrutiny, not just the Spectator and the Telegraph, yeah, for sure,
• 1:03:28
  Speaker 1: but also the left.
• 1:03:31
  Speaker 2: The New York Times.
• 1:03:32
  Speaker 1: She gives the example of she gives the example of
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 1: Aaron Bostani from Novara Media calling him a con man.
• 1:03:41
  Speaker 1: So both the left and the right kind of piled
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 1: onto this. So it was it was a I mean
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 1: as as left as as media mainstream media gets it was.
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 1: It was a left and right wing media event, and
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 1: they all piled on.
• 1:03:57
  Speaker 2: The right.
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 1: This Oxford professor, Associate Professor of Human Geography rights, did
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 1: our day plagiarize his thesis or any of his work.
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 1: One investigation found he did not, and another was underway.
• 1:04:11
  Speaker 1: The basis for the determinations and certainty on social media
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 1: is a clip economy that has circulated isolated paragraphs of
• 1:04:19
  Speaker 1: his work in comparison with the work of other scholars.
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 1: So a little bit of claiming that like it was
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 1: out of context, and it's yeah, it's hard because there's
• 1:04:35
  Speaker 1: been a day today it was it was published today,
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 1: and yeah, I mean, the the social media clip economy
• 1:04:43
  Speaker 1: is kind of like a decon sexualization machine.
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 3: It is that, and all due respect to whoever you're quoting,
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 3: but I looked at the both original sources and I'm
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 3: currently reading this U nineteen nineties. It's called Encouraging Reflective
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 3: Practice and Education and Analysis of Issues in Programs. I
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 3: read the section of this that the person he plagiarized
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 3: from gotch. She compared this to another competing book in
• 1:05:16
  Speaker 3: the field. Actually, she even cited something that was, you know,
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 3: of dubious, dubious credibility because the text was citing someone
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 3: else and she ellipsised the person's name, so it made
• 1:05:31
  Speaker 3: it sound like it was the book's opinion, which is
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 3: also it's not as bad as plagiarism, but you're not
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 3: kind of supposed to do that anyway. I saw his
• 1:05:39
  Speaker 3: summary of her summary comparing this book to another book,
• 1:05:44
  Speaker 3: and it was, I mean, there's no mistaking it.
• 1:05:47
  Speaker 1: There's it's it's it's.
• 1:05:51
  Speaker 3: Changing a couple words around and not even not even
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 3: trying that hard to change the sources around. The sources
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 3: are in the same order, citations are in the same order.
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 4: It's understanding too that that that that it was quite
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 4: egregious and obvious.
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 3: Dude, he plagiarized the title. The title has a yeah,
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 3: the title has a possessive apostrophe, the original one that
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 3: he copied. It says this an analysis of the concept
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 3: reflective practice and an investigation into the development of student
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 3: teachers apostrophe reflective practice within the context of action research. Right,
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 3: So that's the original one, a correct, plural possessive apostrophe.
• 1:06:36
  Speaker 3: Jason just copies this and writes an exploration of pure
• 1:06:40
  Speaker 3: mentoring among student teachers apostrophe to inform reflective practice within
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 3: the context of action research. So that is a plural,
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 3: a plural, non possessive with an apostrophe in the title
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 3: of his dissertation. How many times do you look at
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 3: your title of your dissertation before publishing it? Like one
• 1:07:05
  Speaker 3: thousand up to a thousand. Maybe there's an incorrect apostrophe
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 3: in the fucking title that he copied from someone else.
• 1:07:14
  Speaker 1: Well, I mean it is still it is still a
• 1:07:20
  Speaker 1: developing situation, and there's nothing. I guess you can't really
• 1:07:24
  Speaker 1: say anything for sure, at least not yet.
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 4: I mean, is it weird that I kind of feel
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 4: that the terminal event wouldn't have happened if it really
• 1:07:35
  Speaker 4: was the case that, uh, all of these claims were unfounded.
• 1:07:40
  Speaker 1: It might it might be it might have been a
• 1:07:44
  Speaker 1: lot less likely to go down the way it did.
• 1:07:47
  Speaker 4: Yeah, because because I feel like, because then Browns, he
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 4: would have grounds to show, like just like you could
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 4: just he could just wait around and be like, well,
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 4: once people actually look into it, they're going to see
• 1:07:56
  Speaker 4: that the claims against near bullshit.
• 1:07:59
  Speaker 3: I don't know, you like it a lot of if
• 1:08:02
  Speaker 3: you're put into a situation that's truth. I don't. I don't.
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 3: I don't think suicide is an admission of guilt in.
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 2: This No, you're right, you're right, you're right.
• 1:08:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah. In the end, it doesn't doesn't really matter if,
• 1:08:15
  Speaker 1: like does will the kernel of truth to it all
• 1:08:18
  Speaker 1: justify the lengths and the absurdity of the rest of it,
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 1: and all the the racial and and cynical and and
• 1:08:30
  Speaker 1: media frenzy rapping of all of it. Is like, the
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 1: kernel of truth really so important?
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 3: And I don't I don't want to psycho psychoanalyze, I
• 1:08:39
  Speaker 3: say as a preface to psychoanalyzing. But this plagiarism is
• 1:08:45
  Speaker 3: not the work of someone who is afraid of getting caught.
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 3: Because otherwise the plagiarism would have been done better. It's
• 1:08:57
  Speaker 3: like very bald, bald obvious to anyone if you if
• 1:09:01
  Speaker 3: you take these two pieces of paper and put them
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 3: next to each other, it's very obvious. So then you're
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 3: left with a couple options. Either he didn't know that
• 1:09:11
  Speaker 3: this was plagiarizing, or he did know but didn't bother
• 1:09:17
  Speaker 3: covering it up. He thought it wasn't worth concealing because
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 3: maybe he thought no one would ever read it, no
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 3: one ever find it, or no one's no one's smart
• 1:09:27
  Speaker 3: enough to discover his his ruise here, or he didn't
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 3: believe what he was doing was wrong, Like it's it's
• 1:09:35
  Speaker 3: kind of hard to narrow down the options here. But
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 3: this is not This was not a mastermind way of
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 3: getting out of work. And but and when you're when
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 3: you are doing plagiarism, I don't speak from experience, of course,
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 3: but if you're gonna do plagiarism, well it's basically the
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 3: same amount of work as actually just doing the work.
• 1:09:55
  Speaker 3: So all that said, I'm not really sure what's going
• 1:09:59
  Speaker 3: on on here, because he didn't it wasn't it does.
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 3: It's not a very good job. It's not done to
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 3: trick anybody, it's not concealed, and so I think that
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 3: would be that would be the next question i'd ask
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 3: is why why was he not afraid of being caught?
• 1:10:16
  Speaker 3: For what reason?
• 1:10:17
  Speaker 2: Right? Right? Yeah, that is that is interesting. That is interesting.
• 1:10:21
  Speaker 4: I mean if you didn't know that, that's that's like
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 4: even more evidence that he shouldn't have been there. But
• 1:10:27
  Speaker 4: then if he did know, it's like a kind of
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 4: interesting weird. Yeah, I mean then you could you could
• 1:10:32
  Speaker 4: go in all kinds of directions and think that, yeah,
• 1:10:35
  Speaker 4: that he that he wanted to be caught or something.
• 1:10:38
  Speaker 2: Weird like that, or I don't know.
• 1:10:41
  Speaker 3: It's a risk that's worth getting away with, or the
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 3: consequences won't apply to him, or it's not that big
• 1:10:47
  Speaker 3: a deal, like it could have been so many justifications
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 3: if he didn't know. But it's yeah, it's impossible to
• 1:10:52
  Speaker 3: tell without Yeah, more of a dive. Still, no one
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 3: deserves No one deserves it.
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, even so current currently right now, as it's developing,
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 1: I mean, whatever the racist, fascist, or anti DEI or
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 1: just general anti left motivations that are causing people to
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 1: amplify and wave around the story far outweigh any of
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 1: those other things. I think even if it was a
• 1:11:24
  Speaker 1: knowing case of plagiarism, like nobody deserves that shit.
• 1:11:30
  Speaker 3: Lllms are probably capable of this now. But when we're
• 1:11:33
  Speaker 3: using like mark like turning in dot com or something,
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 3: you can only really tell if there are like exact
• 1:11:41
  Speaker 3: phrases that are that are lifted without without quotation marks.
• 1:11:46
  Speaker 3: But now I think at this point you can actually
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 3: feed people's dissertations into an LM and say, are there
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 3: other papers that follow the same structure as this where
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 3: there's like point one point two point three are the
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 3: same because that's been up until this point undetectable.
• 1:12:03
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but you would, you would.
• 1:12:04
  Speaker 3: You would assume that people who are better at plagiarizing
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 3: than than mister o Day was then there there there's
• 1:12:12
  Speaker 3: stand to be a few more people getting caught, and
• 1:12:15
  Speaker 3: who knows what positions they're in.
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 1: Professor Krishnan points out that on the day of his death,
• 1:12:25
  Speaker 1: Kaufness said, this wasn't even about plagiarism. This is about
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 1: quote unquote his exalted position. And then Kaufness goes on
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 1: to fantasize about one day becoming head of a Department
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 1: of race science and eugenics at Harvard. So for him,
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 1: it was about jealousy. Supposedly self self proclaimed it was
• 1:12:52
  Speaker 1: about jealousy and that someone had a position that I
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 1: don't know was ahead of him, and I presume, being
• 1:13:00
  Speaker 1: a race realist, he thought he, as a white person,
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 1: deserves it more. So coughness is about Yeah, it was
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 1: basically kind of revenge. Yes, a bit of a nuts person.
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 3: I want to say if I got like, I mean,
• 1:13:17
  Speaker 3: they weren't competing for the same position, but I got
• 1:13:20
  Speaker 3: to say I got it in me that if someone
• 1:13:22
  Speaker 3: got a position over me, I would go go look
• 1:13:24
  Speaker 3: through their research and see see that they deserved it
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 3: more than me.
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
• 1:13:31
  Speaker 3: Like academia is a competition, right, that's what the standards
• 1:13:34
  Speaker 3: are there for. It's like you're it's supposed to be
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 3: it's not, but it's supposed to be meritocratic. And uh,
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 3: I think that's why. I mean, in addition to the
• 1:13:45
  Speaker 3: race thing, but that's part of why this has been
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 3: so reported on, is because this is supposed to be
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 3: one of the best schools in the world. Yeah, and
• 1:13:54
  Speaker 3: he's skated by on his stories rather than his merits.
• 1:13:59
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:13:59
  Speaker 1: Still a case of like hate the game, But I
• 1:14:02
  Speaker 1: think it's also fair to hate the player too, especially
• 1:14:06
  Speaker 1: if Kaufness is the player as well. So I mean
• 1:14:10
  Speaker 1: hate the player definitely, but also hate the game and
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 1: look at how the game motivates this kind of behavior
• 1:14:17
  Speaker 1: on a broader level too. But also some players deserve
• 1:14:22
  Speaker 1: the hate as well, because they exploit the most, the
• 1:14:24
  Speaker 1: most vulnerable, and the various kinds of histories of that
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 1: game in order to forward themselves or even or if
• 1:14:32
  Speaker 1: it does even gain anything out of this, well, attention
• 1:14:34
  Speaker 1: from the right wing media that he seems to love,
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 1: and some kind of self satisfaction, which is horrific to
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 1: think about.
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 3: I can say with some certainty we have not seen
• 1:14:45
  Speaker 3: the last of Nathan Kaffness. He's already been. He's already
• 1:14:51
  Speaker 3: been on Megan Kelly.
• 1:14:52
  Speaker 1: It's he just it's like a worse version of Jordan Peterson.
• 1:14:56
  Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson's out there doing kind of like personality tests
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 1: at his area of psychology. Definitely overlaps with like IQ
• 1:15:05
  Speaker 1: stuff too, and he's definitely like a horrific right wing figure.
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 1: Thank god, he's like he's not at the front of
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 1: every headline today like he used to be. But yeah,
• 1:15:18
  Speaker 1: this guy's this guy's something in there too.
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 4: Yeah, listeners, you know, we weren't really planning on doing
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 4: an entire episode about this, and I know Eric probably
• 1:15:26
  Speaker 4: didn't want to do a.
• 1:15:27
  Speaker 2: Whole episode about this.
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 4: We had a guest who were going to have to
• 1:15:29
  Speaker 4: reschedule with so.
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 2: Just so you know, yeah, we we didn't mean too.
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 2: We didn't mean to. It was an accident.
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 3: Come on, own it if you're going to own it,
• 1:15:41
  Speaker 3: own it all right.
• 1:15:43
  Speaker 2: I mean I wanted I wanted to talk about it.
• 1:15:45
  Speaker 2: It was a plan. B.
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 3: We gave our method justification. Now, yeah, if they're going
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 3: to criticize us, don't say, oh, you're buying it to
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 3: the right group framing. Criticize the method that you can
• 1:15:56
  Speaker 3: abstract the principle that's at stake here. And I think, yeah,
• 1:16:00
  Speaker 3: I didn't get to say it before, But in general,
• 1:16:04
  Speaker 3: this is a decline in academic standards in that certain disciplines.
• 1:16:09
  Speaker 3: And I don't want to like point at sociology, but
• 1:16:13
  Speaker 3: sociology is among the disciplines that doesn't really know what
• 1:16:16
  Speaker 3: they're for in this day and age. And if you
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 3: don't know what you're for, then what's the point of
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 3: upholding standards? And academic standards are sliding across the board.
• 1:16:30
  Speaker 3: I happen to believe in them for the reasons that
• 1:16:32
  Speaker 3: I already gave that if you're gonna do it, you
• 1:16:36
  Speaker 3: need rules for the game.
• 1:16:38
  Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.
• 1:16:40
  Speaker 3: And I'm not saying the game is ontically speaking good,
• 1:16:44
  Speaker 3: and I'm not saying the game needs to be upheld
• 1:16:47
  Speaker 3: because it has been upheld to this point. And I'm
• 1:16:49
  Speaker 3: not saying the game is not arbitrary. I'm quite simply
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 3: taking the bold stance that games need rules. And this
• 1:16:57
  Speaker 3: has been hypocritical on every side.
• 1:17:02
  Speaker 1: I do think that there should be pushed back against
• 1:17:05
  Speaker 1: the framing of it. And I mean, the left tends
• 1:17:09
  Speaker 1: to be really shit at this, but I think I
• 1:17:14
  Speaker 1: think Krishnan, Professor Krishnan is onto something because and the
• 1:17:20
  Speaker 1: fact that I thought of social murder, and she has
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 1: brought up this Actually it's more specific than I even
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 1: knew institutional murder. She says, it is worth drawing on
• 1:17:32
  Speaker 1: the framework that Dalit scholars have advanced and narrate such
• 1:17:37
  Speaker 1: deaths that of institutional murder. The phrase first gained salience
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 1: after Rohith Vermula, a Dalit PhD student, took his own
• 1:17:46
  Speaker 1: life in twenty sixteen after prolonged persecution by the University
• 1:17:50
  Speaker 1: of Hyderabad. The idea of institutional murder allows for a
• 1:17:57
  Speaker 1: systemic analysis of deaths that result from entrench violence, narrowing
• 1:18:01
  Speaker 1: the conditions of livability. Anyway, that might be a worthy
• 1:18:08
  Speaker 1: framing for a leftist counter narrative that would account for
• 1:18:15
  Speaker 1: all of this.
• 1:18:16
  Speaker 3: Sorry, how does that apply? Like that's the opposite of
• 1:18:19
  Speaker 3: what happened here?
• 1:18:23
  Speaker 1: Well, the institutional murder. I'm not sure who coined the term,
• 1:18:30
  Speaker 1: but it gained salience after no.
• 1:18:33
  Speaker 3: I heard your example. I mean, Cambridge didn't abuse him,
• 1:18:36
  Speaker 3: Cambridge gave him a full professorship and a job for life.
• 1:18:40
  Speaker 1: Here it is. Here's the explanation is to reject an
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 1: individualizing narrative or indeeds, or indeed calls against the political
• 1:18:49
  Speaker 1: reading of such deaths. Our days, harassment and deaths are
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 1: not indiosyncrasies. They are very much a case of institutional
• 1:18:56
  Speaker 1: murder by a system infused with anti black racism. Yeah,
• 1:19:00
  Speaker 1: so it's against individualizing the narrative, making it a result
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 1: of individual choices, somebody's failures, some I don't know, maybe
• 1:19:13
  Speaker 1: even the way I framed a little bit of like
• 1:19:15
  Speaker 1: somebody making choices within a kind of coincidence of different
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 1: circumstances that turned out poorly. It's actually like more even
• 1:19:24
  Speaker 1: more systemic and anti individualizing than that, which is just
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 1: a framing that still takes into account the facts, I think,
• 1:19:37
  Speaker 1: but I think resists. I mean, we can know that
• 1:19:41
  Speaker 1: the framing that the right wing wants to put on it,
• 1:19:45
  Speaker 1: and this is a framing that everyone can think is
• 1:19:47
  Speaker 1: still accurate, but and also takes into account the facts
• 1:19:52
  Speaker 1: and doesn't play into a right wing narrative. I don't know,
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 1: just a suggestion, it seemed to me, and Professor Krishnan's
• 1:19:58
  Speaker 1: suggesting it as a framework, and I think it's worth
• 1:20:02
  Speaker 1: looking into.
• 1:20:04
  Speaker 3: Bro I'm sorry, I do not buy that at all.
• 1:20:07
  Speaker 3: He's not the aggrieved. He's not aggrieved by Cambridge here
• 1:20:10
  Speaker 3: by any stretch. The party that aggrieved him is the press.
• 1:20:15
  Speaker 3: But the institution treated him way better than he'd earned.
• 1:20:18
  Speaker 3: It's not some shadowy perpetrator less crime in fuquaut universe.
• 1:20:24
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I kind of agree.
• 1:20:26
  Speaker 3: He had the cushiest setup you could imagine for life,
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 3: and far more prestige than he had earned.
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 1: Well, I think if you think an institution can be
• 1:20:36
  Speaker 1: a perpetrator, which legally, illegally they seem they can be persons.
• 1:20:42
  Speaker 3: So yeah, but that's what I mean, Like, are you
• 1:20:44
  Speaker 3: saying to the press, the press is the only liable
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 3: party here at Cambridge gave him everything he wanted and
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 3: defended him.
• 1:20:55
  Speaker 1: Well, I think that's where the the the institution, perhaps
• 1:21:03
  Speaker 1: not just Cambridge, but the Cambridge and the media landscape
• 1:21:08
  Speaker 1: and the sort of institutional context itself is like an
• 1:21:14
  Speaker 1: actor in this whole situation. There's a source of agency
• 1:21:18
  Speaker 1: just like it. Just like human beings, other things can
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 1: have agency as well, and institutions are then become powerful
• 1:21:31
  Speaker 1: actors and so we can frame them as So that
• 1:21:35
  Speaker 1: would be That would be the sort of thing I mean,
• 1:21:38
  Speaker 1: it goes probably probably is modeled on social murder that
• 1:21:43
  Speaker 1: Friedrich Engels wrote about all those years ago that inspired Marx,
• 1:21:48
  Speaker 1: is that, yeah, society can murder people too.
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 3: If what Cambridge did in this situation is called institutional murder,
• 1:21:59
  Speaker 3: I just got to say, I hope I get institutional
• 1:22:01
  Speaker 3: murdered next.
• 1:22:03
  Speaker 1: I think it's a I think it's a I think
• 1:22:05
  Speaker 1: it's a framework for a counter narrative. That's all I
• 1:22:07
  Speaker 1: would say about it. A framework for a counter narrative
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 1: that doesn't play in because we mentioned that some people
• 1:22:14
  Speaker 1: think even talking about this sort of thing is playing
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 1: into like right wing hysteria.
• 1:22:19
  Speaker 3: All Right, we're at time. I think we'll just agree
• 1:22:21
  Speaker 3: to disagree on this.
• 1:22:24
  Speaker 1: Yeah, Like, ultimately, it's a sociological concept, and Angles's social
• 1:22:29
  Speaker 1: murder refers to like the bourgeoisie capitalist ruling class. Okay,
• 1:22:33
  Speaker 1: and maybe institutional murder may take in more of the
• 1:22:38
  Speaker 1: colonial and systemic racial more of that than than Engles' concept.
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 3: All Right, you guys, uh, well done. That will be that.
• 1:22:51
  Speaker 2: That'll be that.
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 3: All right, Yeah, share your thoughts, yeah, all right, thanks
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 3: really though praise for impact