DEI advocates always want to have their cake and eat it too. You cannot demand collective racial engineering via race-conscious hiring, diversity quotas and preferential pipelines and then turn around and say, "Y U NO TREAT US AS INDIVIDUALS" when something like Jason Arday dominates the headlines. You are the ones who elevated identity as a credential. “We need more BAME professors” was the explicit slogan. “Cambridge’s youngest Black professor” was the explicit marketing line when Jason Arday was appointed in 2023. Sorry but this is just the predictable consequence of the framework you imposed. For white people (and East Asians), it's the other way around. Under DEI regimes that systematically disadvantage them in favor of BAME representation, a white / Asian person who still reaches an elite post has typically done so IN SPITE OF their identity, not because of it. That raises the prior probability that they cleared a higher bar. When such a person later plagiarizes or fabricates, the failure attaches to them as an individual; it does not put “whiteness” or the legitimacy of white presence on trial because their ascent was never framed as a racial deliverable in the first place. DEI’s central bargain was always unstable. The price of that bargain is that group outcomes, positive or negative, become fair game for judgment. This idea that you can demand that universities treat people as racial collectives for the purpose of preferential inclusion and then COMPLAIN when a high-profile failure is treated as an indictment of the collective logic that put them there in the first place is so laughable.