How bad was it? I didn't notice anything of the sort, and I'm curious if maybe your algorithm feeds you a fire hydrant of crap most people never see.

I ask because there were instances of plagiarism between 2016 and 2020 (I only remember it was Trump's first term) that I saw significant media coverage of, including them being called before Congress in the USA.

For this guy, I only saw one headline, when the alleged plagiarism was revealed, and that was it. I didn't even recognize this guy's name when I saw this new headline on here a few minutes ago. (I did recognize him once I saw his pic at the OP link.)

This might be just the reverse of a common thing online: "Why won't the media cover this story??" when in fact they are covering this story, it's just that you are passively looking only at what your friends are reposting on social media.

EDIT: also not for nothing, but if your argument is "prejudice exists because racists think he shouldn't have been at Cambridge," then him plagiarizing and lying about things cuts against your entire argument bc, assuming the allegations are true, he never belonged at Cambridge, and his race is irrelevant.

(I agree significant prejudice against Black people exist in the developed world, but I'm disinclined to agree about it here considering the women in the US—another historically disadvantaged group—who faced these same allegations a few years ago didn't crash out and kill themselves. Which is what it sounds like this individual did. And in those women's cases, it's with the full weight of Trump's MAGA calling for their heads and probably worse.)

RIP