Jason Arday, University of Cambridge Professor at Center of Plagiarism Scandal Resigns

BBC.com:

Prof Jason Arday said he had "concluded that the only way to bring this chapter to an end is to step away". Earlier, the university said it had launched an investigation "following new information" about Arday's "academic qualifications and honorary appointments". 

 

It comes after another academic - self-defined "race realist" Nathan Cofnas, who was sacked from his Cambridge role in 2024 - said he found numerous instances of plagiarism in Arday's work and questioned some of his stated achievements. The academic has admitted errors in his work, but has insisted he is not "a liar". In a statement posted by the Good Law Project on Wednesday, Arday said that being appointed professor had been "without question, the greatest professional privilege of my life". 

 

"The years since my appointment have also been marked by an unrelenting level of public scrutiny and personal attack," he said, adding "there comes a point when the personal cost becomes too great".

Of course, because he's black, a lot of white liberals were quick to come out in defense of Arday after allegations of him being a serial plagiarist first surfaced. In fact, the usual loons on the Left became so 'outraged' at Arday's critics that the Met/police investigated UK reporter Jack Grove for 4 months just for researching his articles. And now we come to find out that Arday wasn't just lying about his writings, but career and charity work as well. Indeed, a man who became white liberal's wet dream by checking off all the boxes when it comes to diversity, inclusinn and equity in academia, turns out to be a major fraud...how ironic.

RELATED: Jason Arday Resigns From Cambridge

New York Times Sued for Discriminating Against White Man Passed Over for Promotion

APNews.com:

A federal civil rights agency filed a discrimination lawsuit Tuesday against the New York Times, claiming that the news organization passed over a white male employee for a promotion in favor of a lesser qualified woman to meet its diversity goals. The New York Times called the lawsuit politically motivated and said it would defend itself “vigorously.” 

 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of a New York Times editor who lodged a complaint after he didn’t get the role of deputy real estate editor in 2025, alleging gender and racial discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race, national origin or religion. 

 

The EEOC claimed the news organization’s publicly stated goals of increasing the number of women and people of color in its leadership ranks influenced the decision to exclude the white male applicant for a final round of interviews, while advancing three women and a Black man.

Of course, there’s tremendous irony here considering that DEI policies have often been criticized for disproportionately benefiting white women. Either way, while white men still largely dominate corporate promotions and board seats, it’s often white men (like this guy) lower on the corporate ladder who end up feeling the greatest impact. That said, the most practical solution would obviously be a performance-based meritocracy, though whether corporations will ever fully embrace that approach remains to be seen.

RELATED: More on the EEOC Lawsuit Against the NY Times

Now Uber-Liberal Virginia Moves to Effectively Abolish Life Without Parole

LibertyUnyielding.com:

When Virginia abolished the death penalty in 2021, Virginians were assured that it wasn’t needed, because the worst murderers could be given life sentences without the possibility of parole. 

 

But soon, even the worst killers could be released. Legislation has been introduced to allow all prison inmates serving long sentences to seek release after specified periods — even serial killers, child killers, and other murderers who once would have been eligible for the death penalty. HB 853 and SB 634, known as the “second look” bills, have been amended to create three tiers for release. Some inmates could seek release after 15 years, while those who commit the most serious offenses would have to wait 20 years or 25 years, depending on their offense. 

 

Most Virginia inmates already spend less than 15 years in prison. For example, manslaughter carries a sentence of one to ten years. Drug possession can lead to sentences of up to 6 months, 1 year, or 10 years, depending on the type of drug. But some murderers, such as serial killers, are serving sentences of life without parole. This “second look” legislation could not only release them, but give them more freedom than they would get from parole. Inmates released on parole are subject to the supervision of a parole officer, and if they misbehave, they can be sent back to prison for a long time. But inmates released under HB 853 and SB 634 would be free as a bird, with no parole officer to keep tabs on them.

Yeah, the days of the "moderate Democrat" are just about over. And new Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger (a woman who ran a centrist campaign last year) epitomizes the hard-Left turn, as from Day 1 of taking office she has initiated policies--from a plethora of new taxes to rent control measures to bringing back DEI policies to taking away life without parole--that will only please the scumbags in the BlueSky Left and George Soros. Indeed, if Republicans intend to win the midterms this year, they need to 'pounce' on this radical agenda.

RELATED: Tom Homan vows to work around new Dem Virginia Gov. Spanberger's executive order ending ICE cooperation

The Running Mate Kamala Harris Didn’t Dare Choose...Because He's Gay

TheAtlantic.com:

As Kamala Harris rushed to pick a running mate last year, her “first choice” was her close friend Pete Buttigieg, but she decided that it would be “too big of a risk” for a Black woman to run with a gay man. 

 

Buttigieg “would have been an ideal partner—if I were a straight white man,” Harris writes in a passage of her soon-to-be-released book, 107 Days, that I saw. “But we were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man. Part of me wanted to say, Screw it, let’s just do it. But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk.” 

 

"And I think Pete also knew that—to our mutual sadness.” 

 

Harris instead selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and the two went on to lose to Donald Trump. Her honest recounting of that decision—much more candid than I usually see in political memoirs—highlights one of the core challenges facing Democrats, especially as they try to refocus their message ahead of the next presidential election, in 2028. After years of highlighting and celebrating the historic characteristics of their nominees

Buttigieg, Walz, whoever, it doesn't matter who Kamala picked as her running mate because she still would've lost to Trump. Why? Because she is and was always an empty suit, she campaigned with the likes of Liz Cheney, she never cared about working-class voters, she overplayed January 6th, she avoided tons of interviews on the campaign trail like a plague because she can't speak clearly without a script or in a non-friendly atmospheres, she was a DEI hire for VP to begin with who covered for Joe Biden's lack of mental acuity, she was horrible on border control, she had no Black agenda and that laugh was hated by any and everyone.

RELATED: Harris' score-settling, elbow-throwing, bridge-burning memoir