As I reported recently, Ghent University in Belgium suspended Nathan Cofnas from his postdoc position after the death of Jason Arday, the Cambridge professor of sociology who apparently killed himself after Cofnas started a spate of Cambridge University and media investigations by showing that Arday had plagiarized much of his Ph.D. thesis. And that was on top of Arday’s copious fables about his life. fables that were too fantastic to be real. After initially defending Arday, Cambridge finally decided to investigate him, whereupon he was found dead. I do not hold Cofnas or the media responsible for that death.
Ghent is among the wokest universities in Europe. Yet, knowing full well that Cofnas devoted a lot of his work to the inflammatory subject of ethnicity and IQ, they hired him anyway. In her letter to Cofnas announcing his suspension, the excuses that Ghent Rector Petra de Sutter gave included Cofnas’s doing work he was not contracted to do (as if no academic diverges from their research plan!), and that Cofnas’s research “had a negative impact on the functioning of the University and the well-being of, and cooperation with, students and other members of staff.” (Maarten Boudry showed that most of de Sutter’s letter was written by AI.)
The real reason, I suspect, is that Ghent got a ton of letters objecting to Cofnas’s presence, the nature of his work, and holding him responsible for Arday’s death. Whatever the reasons, though, the suspension of Cofnay, who is not really an admirable character, is still a violation of his academic freedom.
Ghent’s “preventive suspension” of Cofnas was to precede a formal investigation, even though de Sutter was found to have urged Ghent faculty to write in opposing Cofnas’s presence at Ghent. Some impartial investigation! In the meantime, Cofnas was suspended from teaching and working at Ghent, and was banned from its campus.
I was sure that Cofnas’s suspension would be followed by a permanent firing, but not it’s not clear. Cofnas is an American citizen, and first there was an announcement that the U.S. ambassador to Belgium, Bill White, had negotiated an “amicable agreement with Ghent” that would allow Cofnas to see out the end of his one-year term without being suspended. (He was still restricted from some activities, though.)
So now @UGent emphatically denies that this “amicable agreement” with @BillWhiteUSA ever took place and insists that nothing has changed. Not surprising, since it would look a lot like strong-arming—or some might say “blackmail”—by a foreign actor. https://t.co/1J1pZ61Gz3 https://t.co/tuBe1jUi2g pic.twitter.com/jgxlt0OZuK
— Maarten Boudry (@mboudry) August 28, 2026
And although there’s a newspaper article reporting that Cofnas’s suspension had been lifted, Ghent continues to hold its “investigation.” As Maarten notes above, what is the point of investigating him if they’ve reached an amicable settlement?
Here’s an article from the Flemish newspaper De Morgen that deepens the mystery. Click to read the English translation:
Quotes from the article(indented) and tweets (the bolding at the bottom is mine):
US Ambassador Bill White thanks Ghent Rector Petra De Sutter on X for ‘lifting the suspension’ of researcher Nathan Cofnas. However, according to the university, the disciplinary proceedings are ongoing and Cofnas’ disciplinary measure remains in place.
“After having spoken with all parties, I am satisfied that Ghent University and Nathan Cofnas have reached an agreement by mutual consent to lift the suspension of Mr. Cofnas.”
With that message, US Ambassador Bill White responded yesterday evening to a post on X by UGent researcher Nathan Cofnas. “I am very grateful to Rector Petra De Sutter for allowing me to stay at UGent,” Cofnas said in the post.
The reports followed barely a day after Ghent University had announced a new disciplinary measure against Cofnas. This entails that Cofnas must work remotely for three months and is prohibited from taking on teaching duties. The disciplinary measure is part of the disciplinary investigation the university is conducting against the researcher.
On X, however, both seem to suggest that Ghent University dropped the disciplinary case against Cofnas, which has been ongoing since August 20, following intervention by White. “I am against the suspension and possible disciplinary sanctions against Cofnas (…) But this is clearly blackmail by a foreign state and it is scandalous,” writes Ghent University professor Tijl De Bie on X. Philosopher of science Maarten Boudry, on the other hand, is pleased with the ‘agreement’.
Investigation continues
However, UGent confirms to De Morgen that the investigation against Cofnas is still ongoing. According to the disciplinary regulations, the preventive suspension issued by De Sutter last week can last a maximum of seven working days. Instead, a disciplinary measure covering three months followed on Wednesday. The ongoing investigation against Cofnas could also still lead to disciplinary action.
However, there had already been a meeting between the university and the American ambassador. “During that meeting, the ambassador provided further clarification regarding his statements on X,” says a university spokesperson. “UGent informed the ambassador of the disciplinary preliminary investigation, the confidentiality of the procedure, and the measures that were taken.”
The meeting took place after White announced on X last Friday that he would review all American ties with Ghent University, including academic exchanges and research funding. “Insincere, corrupt institutions that engage in scapegoating the masses, or reward such behavior, are not desirable partners for us,” said White.
In his most recent post, White seems to backtrack on that and says he looks forward to further collaboration with De Sutter and wants to continue the relationship between the university and the US.
All in all, Cofnas is not at present suspended from Ghent, but the investigation of his work and behavior is continuing, and he could still be fired. Ergo, his academic freedom is still under threat (I needn’t emphasize that an “ongoing investigation” has a chilling effect on an academic). This is what happens when you work on a taboo subject.
I’ll add that I don’t think the American ambassador should be butting into this affair, even if Ghent did violate Cofnas’s academic freedom. Ambassador White’s statement above, which is indeed a form of blackmail, is out of line. The U.S. government has no business butting into the affairs of a university in another country, as the Cofnas affair does not affect American interests.
You would think that relevant research would be welcomed by critics concerned about claims of racial, sex, or other “sensitive” identity differences given findings should, according to their expressed beliefs, show no such differences exist. The lack of sound evidence allows negative beliefs to be perpetuated among ill-minded individuals. Or perhaps critics have no confidence in science to discern the “true” state of affairs as they see it?
In order for a scientist to access large genomics databases, such as the UK Biobank, they have to swear, Scout’s honour, pinky promise, that they will not even think about investigating any link between genetics and group differences.
Like you, I wonder what they’re afraid of. If they’re so confident about what would be found (such that anything else is “pseudoscience”), then why not fund a team of notable scientists to perform the analysis and publish it for the world to see?
Am I the only one who finds that the secret solicitation of complaints about Cofnas by de Sutter, as she charges Cofnas with disrupting campus life as a (dubious) reason for dismissal, to be completely unethical?
Someone should post an image of de Sutter sporting a railroad engineer’s cap.
You’re not alone.
I’m surprised that the US ambassador referred to “her willingness to listen”, given that rector Petra de Sutter is a man.
To me, merely pointing out that a letter was probably in part written by AI is an ad hominem argument. Even if there is a reasonable complaint or issue with that letter-writing process, the nature of the complaint or issue, and how it relates to the argumentative content of the letter, should be explained.
It just shows that the rector does not operate in good faith, and I’ve explained that in previous posts, which you apparently haven’t read (Maarten Boudry found fabricated quotes in her inaugural address. Here lack of good faith is instantiated in her secret solicitation of negative letters about Cofnas. I would appreciate it if you would not lecture me on how to make an argument. You know, you could have said something like this:
“I don’t understand how the AI assertion relates to the argument.”
Instead you lesture me, which I don’t appreciate.
“The U.S. government has no business butting into the affairs of a university in another country, as the Cofnas affair does not affect American interests.”
The United States has spent decades spreading the gospel of liberalism and our version of free-market competition to other countries. In more recent times, the longstanding U.S. push for women’s and gay rights around the world has taken on a strong progressive flavor, especially regarding gender and trans rights. Far from restricting ourselves to moral example, we have not been averse to bullying, badgering, and coercing countries, even by holding aid and other cooperation hostage.
Donald Trump has refocused the intervention more to economic matters than to social ones, but demanding that others adopt our practices and values is a bipartisan affair at least since the end of WW2. The economic matters are self-evidently, we are to believe, of national interest. The social ones are recoded as “universal human rights” and thus absolve us, we are to believe, of any charge of cultural imperialism. All are tagged as being in our national interest and incorporated into U.S. foreign policy.
I’m curious: Is the concern about butting into others’ affairs more generally? Is it, for instance, in the U.S. national interest to care whether our English cousins across the sea backslide on their tradition of free expression? Is it in our national interest to coerce conservative African nations or Eastern European countries into adopting progressive values on sexuality? Or is this objection more limited to butting into the affairs of a university? Would it matter if a foreign university had fired a U.S. citizen for being gay?
That’s a good point, Doug. I was disheartened by our embassies flying rainbow flags.
I’m not against rainbow flags at all, I’ve happily lived and invested in Chelsea, NYC, blocks from Stonewall in the gayest ‘hood on earth, but WE have some values we shouldn’t be ——imposing– on others.
Let’s stick to free market capitalism, free speech and democracy as our political exports.
best,
D.A.
NYC
And, (formerly), rule of law, due process, anti-corruption, ….
I applaud the intervention of the U.S. ambassador. He is taking a principled stand for academic freedom. Why should the U.S. contribute financial support to illiberal organizations that fail to uphold academic freedom, especially when a U.S. citizen is the victim?
“…Cofnay, who is not really an admirable character…” In what way is his character questionable? I assume you don’t mean his conclusion that there are genetic-based group differences, which has scientific merit, nor his interest in that field of study.
I too, question this. I have read one or two pieces about him where he was not profiled positively. And I suspect race realism does leave a smell. Having said that, I watched an interview of his with Coleman Hughes. It was perfectly reasonable.
Do we believe in genetic realism, that there are differences between averages for certain traits between genetic clusters? Or do we deny genetic clusters?
I found the recent Triggernometry episode – where Cofnas is interviewed and debated at length – quite interesting. I suggest that anyone who wants to know more about Cofnas and his views should check it out.
I agree. Also, his interview with Coleman Hughes. On the Triggernometry show, I was struck by the fact that Cofnas believes there should be accommodations for disadvantaged groups. Not what you would expect from someone accused of racism.
“The U.S. government has no business butting into the affairs of a university in another country, as the Cofnas affair does not affect American interests.”
I’m torn. I totally agree with that sentiment. Then I turn around and think, but I don’t want my taxes used to support institutions that abuse American researchers for exposing academic fraud and hypocritical academic behavior. So I get dizzy turning around while second guessing my own actual reaction. Sigh. Time for a nap.