Compare the two cases and a pattern emerges. Cofnas cleared every formal bar that Cambridge erected—a competitive fellowship, a strong publication record, an eventual ruling that he’d broken no law and no policy—but he was punished anyway, and his position quietly expired while the university dithered. Arday did not clear the bars his professoriate peers had to clear, he was defended anyway, and he was propped up by administrators who failed to do due diligence. One scholar was punished for an opinion; the other was protected despite misconduct that objective methods could verify. Two different treatments, one shared instinct: expedience trumps evidence.
|
|||||
Samizdata quote of the day – expedience trumps evidenceAugust 17th, 2026 |
 14 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – expedience trumps evidenceLeave a Reply |
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
An excellent essay, which i read via Instapundit earlier today.
Professor Norman Fenton (himself an ex leftist) in his book “Captured Academia” examines the formal document that every academic, regardless-of-the-subject-they-are-engaged-in (mathematics, philosophy, physics – it-does-not-matter) employed at Cambridge has, now, to agree to.
They agree to push the DEI “Critical Theory” Marxist (Frankfurt School interpretation of Marxism) doctrine of Diversity and Inclusion – which is a lot more than not discriminating against people on the basis of skin tone, it is a full world-view. And they agree to inform (to INFORM – to report) anyone who has the “wrong” attitudes (beliefs) – i.e. report anyone who does not fully share this world-view.
In short, regardless of whether he discriminated against anyone, Dr Confas was treated CORRECTLY according to the doctrine of DEI Marxism. Does he fully support this interpretation of Marxism, does he fully share this world-view? No he does not – therefore he has no business being at Cambridge as an academic or a student.
Other universities are much the same.
It just misses the point to say “but I did not do anything bad to any non white person” – the question is – do you fully embrace the Critical Theory Marxist (Frankfurt School Marxist) DEI doctrine?
Clearly he does not – so he has no business being at Cambridge, and other universities are becoming much the same.
Even Buckingham (supposedly the only conservative university in the United Kingdom) has started forcing people out on the same basis.
And what is taught and practiced at universities does NOT stay in the universities (in Britain, the United States, or elsewhere) – contrary to what is sometimes said, students do not magically “grow up” mentally when they leave.
Whether the students become government officials, or Corporate business people – the beliefs and attitudes that were hammered into them (starting at school – long before they got to university) often remain in them.
Leftists always demand “tolerance” when seeking entry into an institution or club (a charity, a university – whatever), and if they gain entry they then always remove non leftists – using DEI or other Marxist (Critical Theory Marxist) tactical approaches.
One can not live with leftists – because they will not allow it. Their “diversity” means uniformity (totally accepting their world-view – in all aspects) and their “inclusion” means the exclusion (total exclusion – eventually from life itself) of all non leftists. Including black people who are not leftists, including women who are not leftists, and including homosexuals who are not leftists.
There can be no neutrality – they will not allow it. You are either one of them (fully one of them) – or they will seek to destroy you.
Hat tip to John O’Sullivan and the late Robert Conquest – who both pointed out that any organization (even a local gardening club – whatever) that allows leftists into it – will find that they seek to take control and persecute non leftists.
To them everything (everything) is political – is for the cause of crushing the “exploiters and oppressors” (there Classical Marxism and Frankfurt School “Critical Theory” DEI Marxism – agree), mathematics, gardening, stamp collecting, does-not-matter. If you do not share (fully share) their world view, and do not dedicate yourself to it (including informing on, reporting, people who do not share the DEI Marxist world-view) you will be persecuted.
As Herbert Marcuse pointed out, many years ago now, tolerating “reactionary” opinions or attitudes is “Repressive Tolerance” – the left rejects this “Repressive Tolerance”. “True” tolerance, to the left, means supporting people who share their “Critical Theory” Marxist world-view of DEI (sometimes called EDI in Britain) – and destroying anyone who does not share this world view.
Again none of this is a secret – for example James Lindsay has been pointing out leftist statements (from many leading leftists) for quite some years not – quite public writings and statements.
Let them in, to anything, and they will try and destroy you.
People who sign these statements of doctrine (whether at universities – or in local government, or in a corporation) often do not fully grasp what they are agreeing to – they seem to think they have just agreed not to be “nasty to black people” or whatever – that is not what they have agreed to, they have agreed to promote Critical Theory Marxism – that is what DEI (including in Big Business, Hollywood and so on) is about – agreeing to help crush the Reactionary Exploiters and Oppressors in the world, exterminate “whiteness” (which is not really about skin tone) and so on. Destroy the “power structures” (i.e. destroy civilization).
If they then do NOT do that – they should not be shocked when the left destroys them.
Fabulous essay, and impressive that the author and editor have left it unaltered since the subject’s death.
Of the flip-flopping support/censure received by Dr Cofnas at the hands of the Emmanuel College leadership, the author writes:
I’d argue that present-day students do not value antiracism more than they value free speech.
1. They are pressurised into publicly valuing the one in opposition to the other
2. It’s not students per se – but those students who presume to speak on behalf of all students who value antiracism above all else. Guess who gets listened to? Same box as union bosses, “community leaders” and the village panchayat. The squeaky wheel gets all the oil.
Two different treatments, one shared instinct: expedience trumps evidence.
You missed one, Perry – “Only white people are capable of being racist.”
Y. Knott – remember a “white person” can have black skin tone – “whiteness” is defined as being pro “capitalist” (pro civilization), it is not a matter of skin tone. So a person with dark skin can be “racist” – if they are pro “capitalist”.
It was an intelligent tactical move to re-brand Marxism as “anti racism” (and “anti sexism”, “anti homophobia”, “anti transphoibia” and so on) – but it was just a tactical move, the top leftists do not really believe in this stuff.
Witness their de facto alliance with Islam – Muhammed made many unpleasant remarks about black people and traded in black slaves, the left do not care about this, and under Islam women and homosexuals are oppressed – and the left do not care about this either. Their proclaimed opposition to racism, and their supposed devotion to the rights of women and homosexuals – is fake.
Never make the mistake of thinking the top leftists (not the herd – the ones at the top) are sincere – as Saul Alinsky used to say “the issue is never the issue” – the real issue, what the left (including the late Mr Alinsky) really care about is POWER. Gaining absolute power for themselves.
Classical Marxism stressed the lie of economic Class Conflict – the lie that the long term interests of “Capitol” and “Labour” were in conflict – one can find this (for example) even in the accounts of the lives of American Presidents – some reference works (the Marxist controlled sources) will say (for example) that President Taft sided with “capitol” against “labour”.
Do the people who write such things really believe in the (absurd – false) Labour Theory of Value? Most likely they do NOT – but they find it a useful in their pursuit of POWER.
It is the same with the Frankfurt School Marxists (the top ones – not the herd of followers) with their pretended concern about black people (which does not stop them allying with the followers of a slave trader who said that black people looked like Satan and called them “raisin heads”), and their pretended concern for women and homosexuals.
Sometimes it gets funny – as with “Gays for Gaza” (“Turkeys for Thanksgiving”) – but unless one pretends to believe in all this stuff, then one will not prosper in the universities.
Or in any institution that is influenced by the education system – which is just about all of them. Including Corporate Big Business.
Capital – not capitol, I have been looking at too many State Capitol buildings lately.
“One scholar was punished for an opinion”
Not really an opinion. Racial differences in IQ have not only been tested to destruction but it is also the most parsimonious explanation for observed differences in life outcomes of people of different races (also on the national level). Quite frankly I don’t think any further evidence would change the minds of liberal academia on this point. It’s not like they are even engaging with the existing evidence.
Jon Eds – the Gentleman argued a case that is contrary to DEI (“Critical Theory”) Marxism, that is enough to end him – even if his view had been nothing to do with race-and-intelligence.
And to those who say that Cambridge has always been like this, pointing at leftists such as Keynes, J.M. Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein (and on and on) – there is a now an important difference.
The statement of commitment to DEI Marxism covers ALL departments – you can have a passion for natural science, and even be a genius – say another Maxwell or Rutherford, and if you do not make clear (all the time) your commitment to DEI Marxism, NEVER speaking against it (even in a private conversation), and always reporting (informing on) “Reactionaries” – you-are-OUT.
Anyone who doubts this should read Professor Norman Fenton’s examination of the words that all (all – regardless of subject) academics at Cambridge are now required to sign – and more than sign, they have to write bits of agitprop (agitation propaganda) themselves – to show their “commitment” to the world-view.
Any dissent (at any time) against DEI Marxism, or even failing to report (inform on) a Reactionary – and you are in very serious trouble.
And other universities (and so on) are going the same way.
An interesting question is going to be what happens as Muslim local officials take increasing steps opposed to homosexual and transgender lifestyles.
William H. Stoddard.
The left will not care – indeed they will pretend that it is not happening. Including in the United States – where some towns, where there are lots of Muslims, have already banned “Pride Flags” and so on.
The leaders (leaders – not the innocent dupes) of the left do not give a damn about the “rights of women” or homosexuals or “transgenders” – it is just a pretense in the campaign to undermine “capitalist” society (i.e. undermine civilization) and further their objective attaining POWER – absolute and unlimited POWER.
The leaders of the left also believe that it will be easy to destroy (or corrupt) Islam when it is no longer “useful” in the task of undermining the West.
They are mistaken – Islam will not be destroyed or corrupted, it is not just a tool for the left to use, indeed it may well crush the left (rather than the other way round) when it decides the left are no longer useful.
The Communists and Fellow Travelers thought they could “use” Islam to overthrow “capitalist” civilization in Iran in the run up to the 1979 disaster.
They were mistaken – as it was Islam that used (and then killed) the leftists, rather than the other way round.
To take a line from Oscar Wilde (himself a socialist) – “one would have to have a heart of stone – not to LAUGH”.
Paul,
On one hand, I don’t dispute that you’re right about the leaders. But on the other, one or the other of those two groups might turn away, perhaps voting for the other party, or more likely staying home. And that makes it harder to produce the appearance of a majority. Consider what has happened with the private sector working class, what has begun with blacks, or what might happen with Jews as the left abandons each of them.
At least it may offer some entertainment as the Left tries to ride two horses at once.
William – look what happened in the last election in the Netherlands, the people knew what the forces of Islam do and still voted for the leftist parties – who will do nothing to oppose the increase in the followers of Islam, and will do nothing to defend their supposed devotion to the rights of women, homosexuals, and so on.
The Swedish elections next month are likely to be the same.
As for Jews – Jews are of little importance as a voting block outside New York City, and in NYC many of them voted for Mr Mamdani – who wishes to wipe them off the face of the Earth.
Must be “Progressive” – even if it means one’s own death and the deaths of one’s family.
Intelligence and wisdom are not the same thing – a Jewish person may have a very high IQ and still be very unwise, even unwise to the extreme of self destruction and the destruction of their family.
But I agree that the contradictory nature of the whole thing can be amusing – as with “Queers for Palestine” (Turkeys for Thanksgiving).
We might as well laugh as civilization collapses – what else can we do, as the situation seems to be without hope.
In a few days Mayor (for he is the democratically elected Mayor of New York City) Mamdani will be pretending to be upset over the 25th anniversary of the murder of thousands of people on 9/11 2021 – whilst he (and his associates – both the socialists and the followers of Islam, he claims to be BOTH even though Islam and Socialism are not compatible) privately giggle over the event.
Remember President Bush, a couple of days after 9/11 – rushing off to the Islamic Center in Washington D.C. to say how wonderful Islam is.
How far the West has fallen compared to the time of Gladstone and John Bright.