Making Ethics Sense of the Jason Arday Saga

All outlets are reporting that Jason Arday, the DEI academic fraud whose career and reputation were spectacularly derailed the same week his autobiography was published by Simon & Schuster, has been found dead. Details are slowly emerging, but if his death was not a suicide, it will stand as one of the most spectacular coincidences of all time. I’m going to write this with the presumption that the 41-year-old took his own life. [The New York Times report is here.]

Ethics Notes:

1. I learned of this tragic development (from Young Bill) literally as I was preparing to write a post called “Stop Making Me Defend Jason Arday!” My trigger was a Washington Free Beacon article titled, “Fallen Cambridge Star Jason Arday’s ‘True Life’ Memoir Appears To Poach Life Events From His Favorite Soap Operas, ‘Spartacus,’ and ‘Forrest Gump’ : A Free Beacon review of Arday’s memoir, out this week from Simon & Schuster, shows that his melodramatic autobiography tracks closely with plotlines from popular TV shows and movies.”

The message of the EA post was to be that we should learn the lessons of the Arday debacle and be clear about its causes and villains: the woke obsession with DEI, especially in institutions of higher education, is the main cause, and the villains are the Left’s culture warriors and race hucksters, particularly those who have infested the faculties and administrative ranks of our colleges and universities, specifically the irresponsible, incompetent fools at Cambridge. Then, I was going to write, leave poor Arday alone. He had been humiliated on the world stage, he was bound to be blamed by the real villains, who exploited him, his life was, if not ruined, would take a very long time to be livable, and he was obviously a disturbed and unstable individual. There was far too much glee in the long article by Benjamin Ryan finding suspicious parallels between Arday’s alleged life story and the plots of movies and TV shows he had seen. I also found some of the parallels contrived: life imitates art and art imitates life: any remarkable life is likely to resemble memorable drama and fiction to some extent.

The article was piling on, beating the metaphorical dead horse, kicking a man when he’s down. There was no need for that. Dismantle Cambridge and the indefensible void in academic integrity that made this tragedy possible. Flog academia, flame it, broil it. Expose and destroy everyone involved. Arday was the tool of unscrupulous, reckless, smug and intolerable people.

Now THIS Is An [Unethical/Cheap/Clever/Creative] Law Firm ! (Pick One)

Who would have thought that Bert from “Mary Poppins” might have had a career in law firm marketing?

Trantolo & Trantolo, a small law firm in Hartford, Connecticut that also has offices in New York and Massachusetts, has been cited for more than a dozen “unauthorized sidewalk advertisements.” Put on the pavement using either power-washing or temporary chalk over stencils, the firm legal services marketing innovation violated a city ordinance that banned such messages without written consent. Hartford Mayor Arunan Arulampalam told the media that the city has discovered at least 15 sidewalk messages promoting the firm. Unauthorized law firm promotion from the firm also appeared on 24 Hartford crosswalks before the West Hartford Department of Public Works powerwashed them into oblivion. I bet it looked sort-of -like at the end of the Chalk World sequence where Bert, Mary and the kids ride on merry-go-round horses, participate in a fox hunt and sing “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” and then the rain washes Bert’s pictures away.

One message with the firm’s name attached said, “Look both ways before you cross.” Who could object to that public service message? But the firm has “an angle.” As Bing Crosby told Rosemary Clooney in “White Christmas,” everyone has an angle. Well, lawyers and law firms, anyway. Trantolo & Trantolo explained that one by explaining that Hartford “has a serious road safety problem.”

“Working with an outdoor advertising company that has executed similar temporary sidewalk campaigns in cities across the country, Trantolo & Trantolo recently placed a series of temporary stencils throughout Hartford and West Hartford highlighting important local and statewide safety statistics,” says the firm. Trantolo & Trantolo also promised that it would remove all the messages ” at the end of its campaign.”

You have to give the firm’s marketing department credit for creativity. However, the stunt violates the Kantian ethics test of considering what the world would be like if everybody did it, or even every law firm. Thank goodness this stunt didn’t occur to Morgan and Morgan.

Friday Open Forum, “Two Things” Edition

In Billy Crystal’s hit comedy “City Slickers,” famous for getting old pug-ugly actor Jack Palance something nobody ever was thought possible for a performer like him, an Oscar, Jack’s character, a grizzled old cowboy called Curly, liked to say that life comes down to “just one thing.” This early morning post comes down to just two things, but I am counting on you to add to the total.

Thing One: Fitch Ratings affirmed the United States’ “Long-Term Foreign- and Local Currency Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs) at ‘AA+’ with a Stable Outlook” yesterday, stating,

“The United States’ ‘AA+’ rating is supported by its large economy, high per-capita income, dynamic business environment and exceptional financing flexibility due to the U.S. dollar’s role as the preeminent global reserve currency. However, high fiscal deficits, a substantial interest burden, and high and rising government debt levels constrain the rating. Debt is more than double the ‘AA’ rating median. The government has not taken meaningful actions to address the large general government (GG) fiscal deficits (averaging 7% of GDP since 2022), and spending pressures will mount over the next decade due to an aging population…

This sparked the Axis newx media to start its doomsday act, suddenly showing interest in the National Debt, while the anti-Trump conservative outlets did the same. The Triple Whammy of two Democratic Presidencies and two Trump terms has exploded the National Debt beyond all reason or fixing, both parties are complicit, and the only reason the issue is being raised now is because Trump is President and Democrats think the Iran War makes government spending useful as a campaign issue before midterms. Anyone who takes political warfare over the dept seriously is so dumb they’d probably vote for Kamala again. It’s obvious that no party is ever going to do anything about the National Debt, even though it is a ticking time bomb. Fixing the problem takes sacrifice, and any party in power that doesn’t ensure short term gratification for voters with 95 IQs and the attention span of mayflies is going to lose power. But accepting short term pain, giving up some overly expensive benefits and not just balancing the budget but achieving a surplus and then using the surplus to reduce the debt guarantees political disaster, so it is never going to happen. Never. Everybody figures that the disaster will happen after they are dead, so why worry? Brilliant. Ethics Alarms used to discuss how irresponsible and incompetent this is. The topic is now officially in my “Futile Ethics Grandstanding” category along with demanding that guns be banned, an end to all wars, the “two state solution” for Palestinians, and slavery reparations.

Thing Two: During the first Trump Administration a refrain on conservative blog Instapundit referring to the Democrats was, “All they had to do was not be crazy, and they couldn’t do it. “Yesterday President Donald Trump’s handpicked board at the Kennedy Center voted to add an inscription below the Kennedy Center’s sign, saying the arts complex was “Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump.” This is designed to get around the court order rejecting the attempted at re-naming of the performance complex to include Trump’s name. There is no defending this obsession. It is crazy, petty, the kind of thing that triggers the “No Kings” fools, and accomplishes nothing but stroking Trump’s massive and frequently bonkers ego.

Now go find more things…

On The California-Texas Foiled Baby Murder Case, Part II: Ethics Verdicts

Again, I don’t know how any thoughtful, ethical person could question the outcome in this case. Apparently the “intended parents” refused to agree that they would seek appropriate medical care for the child after he was born with a serious but medically correctable heart problem. Having been unsuccessful in their efforts to have the child aborted late term, these ghouls were going to get custody of the child and perhaps have a hospital administer “palliative care”…that is, let the baby die. Pleasantly, of course,

A legal battle, at least regarding the life of the child, was averted when the child was born ahead of the September 3 due date.

As with some of the other cases discussed in Part 1, how could a typical pro-abortion advocate who uses the standard pro-abortion rhetoric about women’s “bodily autonomy” argue that the parents could force the surrogate to undergo an abortion? Yet abortion activists are apparently immune to integrity, logic, and decency. The main thing is to get the unborn child disposed of.

The surrogate’s contract contained a clause obligating her to submit to an abortion if the “intended parents” demanded it. The lawyers who drafted that contract should be sued for legal malpractice, and there are arguable ethical violations as well. I am wondering how common such contracts are, and how often they are enforced. For human beings cannot sell themselves into slavery or otherwise contract away their “unalienable rights.” That contract provision is unenforceable as against public policy, and should be made illegal by statute.

Republicans should pass the bill in the House and make Democrats show their lack decency when they vote it down.

Ethics points:

On The California-Texas Foiled Baby Murder Case, Part I: Prelude

Yesterday, an ugly abortion controversy was resolved by the birth of “Baby Gabriel.” Here the legal/ethical gray areas involving hired surrogate mothers and the legal/ethical not-quite-so-gray areas regarding legal abortion mated to create a monster.

Upon learning that the baby gestating in their surrogate’s womb was not perfect (the unborn boy had a congenital heart defect), a California couple decided to exercise a provision in the surrogacy contract and force the mother-by-proxy to undergo an abortion. Instead, the surrogate fled to Texas, where abortion is illegal. Thanks in part to the intervention of Texas AG Ken Paxton (who is running for governor), the baby in question was born. Now there is a dispute over who gets custody. The birth mother has decided she wants the child anti-abortion activists have named “Gabriel.” The couple that wanted to have him killed wants him too.

Guess which I would choose, were I the infant.

I’ll examine that mess in Part II, but ahead, from the EA archives, is the last post Ethics Alarms had regarding the generally messy ethics issue of surrogate motherhood, from 2016, Pre-Unethical Conditions: Surrogate Mother Contracts And Making Babies With Jerks…

On Second Thought, THIS Is The Most Unethical Quote Of The Week, The Month, And Maybe The Year. Attention Should Be Paid…

“I think that, you know, during lockdown, of course, rhetoric in that time is not rhetoric that we would use today.”

—-Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in her cynical and ominous reply to ABC News anchor Jonathan Karl after he asked how Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong would “get around” her past radical and unpopular positions on abolishing policing among others.

Later, she said, laughing, “I have a local city councilman that has this saying, ‘Woke 1 was crazy.'”

[A quick digression before the commentary starts. Ten years ago, I swore off using deliberately unflattering photos of public figures, especially Hillary Clinton, as unfair and akin to ad hominem attacks. I recognize that I broke from that pledge regarding Joe Biden, primarily because the mainstream media was unethically protecting him from public scrutiny of his galloping dementia, and photos like this one…

…conveyed important information. I will now officially declare that AOC will be another exception to that EA policy. She is a silly, light-weight, unethical Dunning-Kruger victim, yet the Axis keeps claiming she is charismatic and “cute.” Ignorance and dishonesty are not cute. The woman is a dangerous fool, and photos like the one above help clarify that.]

Digression over. Now, regarding that quote… the two quotes, in fact.

The main quote above, though the Axis of Unethical Conduct is working mightily to spin it, is a deceitfully worded admission that AOC and her ideological allies are now prepared to disavow their intentions and beliefs as expressed openly during the peak of The Great Stupid, highlighted by the duel afflictions of the George Floyd Freakout and the Wuhan Virus Ethics Train Wreck, because it is no longer politically expedient to reveal those intentions. So now they intend to lie.

Lemonade Stand Ethics

Yeah, I’m a sucker for kids with lemonade stands, but especially children being disappointed when they had been excited about a new experinece. Few things tug on my metaphorical heart strings like seeing eager kids on a sweltering day, sitting behind a fold-up table with a pitcher of lemonade, a hand-lettered sign, and no hint of a customer. It’s a retrospective Golden Rule thing. I’ve been there.

Two adorable little girls, maybe 12 and 9, had one such struggling business set up on a nearby corner mid-morning this week. No shade, no hats, no chair….and there weren’t even any cars driving by. When I walked past them with Spuds, I asked if their stand had any business yet. No, they said. I promised to get my wallet and come back.

When I finally drove back to the stand, maybe an hour later, the girls had packed up and were walking down the street. I pulled along side them by the cyrb them and said, “Won’t you sell me some lemonade? I was looking forward to it.” They both smiled broadly. One of the girls brought me a Dixie cup of warm lemonade. “How much?’ I asked? “Oh, I don’t know, a dollar?”

I stopped the car, got out, and handed the older girl a five dollar bill and an old straw hat Grace had given me for a birthday years ago: I brought it along to give to the girls. “You need to wear a hat; it’s hot…share this,” I said.

“And don’t give up! Business is hard. Most important is finding the right location, and think about how you should advertise. Also, decide on a price! I ran a few lemonade stands myself. Keep trying!”

As I drove off, they were setting up their table again. Some workmen from the school expansion nearby were walking over to them. Maybe I had given them a good experience to remember instead of a disappointment. There would be enough of those in the years to come.

It was worth a shot…five dollars, and an old hat.

One of the Unethical Quotes Of The Week (There Have Been So Many…): Cambridge University Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice

“In light of the focus on this troubling case [Jason Arday scandal] and the widespread commentary around it, I want to be very clear that we do not need the outcomes of an investigation to clearly and loudly affirm that our staff of colour are highly valued, for their scholarship, their achievements, and the contributions they make to the institution and the wider academic community. This particular case is an aberration and should not be used to cast aspersions on their work or the legitimacy of their roles at Cambridge.”

—-Cambridge University Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice, sounding stupid and making it clear that the investigation Cambridge announced it will be undertaking will be butt-covering exercise and that nothing it uncovers will dissuade the university from its education integrity destruction due to ideological commitment to DEI above all else.

You can read her whole letter here.

She just couldn’t do it! She just couldn’t say that the Jason Arday appointment was a profound embarrassment for Cambridge and obviously represents a breakdown in the University’s standards, values, evaluation and recruitment procedures as well as administration and oversight of faculty, and that serious reforms need to be instituted and will be instituted once an investigation uncovers all the elements of the humiliation for the school the Arday episode represents.

Yeah, we know your “staff of colour” are highly valued, because they are badges of virtue to the DEI cult the educational community has become, symbolizing Cambridge’s conformity, loyalty and commitment. That’s how a sociopathic fraud like Jason Arday got his position in the first place.

The Arday mess is not an “aberration.” It is signature significance. No competent and respectable institution of higher learning hires a faculty member like Jason Arday even once. Eric Rasmussen collected the names and published the bios of the eleven distinguished scholars, professors and administrators who thought hiring Arday would be a boon to Cambridge. They couldn’t have checked his credentials. They didn’t think carefully about his claims which were absurd on their face. They allowed him to be hired because he was “of colour,” and that was what mattered. They should all be fired, but Prentice’s letter proves that 1) that won’t happen and 2) Cambridge’s cultural and ethics rot goes far deeper than just those directly involved.

X-user “Smirkly” posted the most extensive list of the flaming, pulsating red flags in Arday’s claims and performance, and it is impressive:

Comment of the Day: “Abortion On Demand Up To Birth”

John Paul submitted a thorough and perceptive comment on the recent post about Massachusetts adopting a law permitting abortion right up until birth.

I was reminded that my Nobel Prize-winning biology professor when I was a Freshman in college, George Wald (perhaps the best teacher I have ever had, and I’ve had some great ones), said, “To me, the question of when an unborn person acquires the status of a human being appropriately protected by law, morality and ethics comes down to two choices: at birth, or at conception. Any other dividing line is arbitrary. Given those choices, I have to conclude that it must be birth.”

Here is John Paul’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Abortion On Demand Up To Birth”:

***

“How can you honestly and sincerely defend the new Massachusetts abortion law? If you can, how do you look yourself in the mirror or sleep at night?”

Going to play (a little bit) devil’s advocate here, because I was genuinely curious. I too am horrified that such a law could be passed. I wanted to know what reason could even come close to anyone think this is a good idea. How could anyone look at this, say, “that seems good,” and sleep at night without having the fires of hell consume their dreams?

Desperate, I searched the internet, and this is what I came up with.

1. The language of the law does not permit women to abort babies after 24 weeks. It allows physicians and doctors to rely on professional judgment without fear of prosecution.

2. Abortion is so broadly defined that it includes miscarriages and stillbirths.

3. A patient’s mental heath might change after the 24th week.

4. Late term discovery of fatal fetal abnormalities discovered.

5. Late term severe (but non-fatal) abnormalities discovered.

6. Mothers having to travel out of state for abortion services.

7. Keeping the decision between doctor and mother.

8. The belief that viability is not a adequate legal dividing line.

9. The belief that the government should have no say in abortion at all, and this is the only way to guarantee it.

10. Political/ideological commitment to abortion.

11. Life of the mother.

There might be more. Most of what I have seen falls into one of these categories. If anyone has any to share, feel free to add to the list. However, just because it is a reason doesn’t mean it’s even a good reason or a well-thought-out reason.

AAAAAAH!!! Scary…

By pure luck, I stumbled across the photo above of Demi Moore from earlier in the year right after watching a disturbing PBS documentary about the late Karen Carpenter, who died in her early thirties as a result of a long battle with anorexia. The frightening figure to the right is pop singer and actress Ariana Grande. Both performers chose to highlight their appearance; several publications that used the photo of Moore referred positively to her “toned arms.”

In a related development, women (and some men) as young as 18 are getting botox injections because the flat, unexpressive forehead look is unavoidable if one watches much TV. Icons such as Jane Fonda and Goldie Hawn send the message that natural aging is shameful—Jane’s appearance in her 80s is so disturbing I refuse to look at her. In the meantime, Nicole Kidman has found some elixir or spell that has kept her appearance at 59 creepily similar to how she looked at 30, with none of the tell-tale signs of touch-ups that make other actresses her age grotesque.

My late wife suffered from anorexia in college and was so traumatized by natural aging that by the time she died Grace had become a virtual recluse. The damaging behavior of youth-obsessed celebrities is hardly a recent development; still, after being reminded of how one of the most gifted female vocalists was taken from us by the body dysmorphia their narcissistic habits inspire, I felt it necessary to flag the issue—again—today.

Public figures become role models whether they like it or not, and they influence the behavior and attitudes of others, especially the insecure, the emotionally vulnerable, and those without healthy and responsible role models in their own lives. It is impossible to measure the damage they do, the Demis to the aging, the Arianas to the young.

But it is a lot.