Jason Arday found dead today.

What I can say is that when I was at Cambridge 1969 to 1973 there were many men there who had no right to be. Young men who were there because their fathers had been there, or they were friends with someone or other, or because Dad had made a significant donation. (Girls had had to try so hard, no old boys system). And was there a fuss? Did it hit the headlines in anger and families get poked around in? What do you think?

And I was a DEI girl. *They had just started to look at the class backgrounds of entrants and realised there were those out there who had no access for a number of reasons. I had no Latin. I went to a school where few went to University at all. The tutors in my college were from different cultures.

So I came in on a ‘back door programme’ as did a small number of others. And it was the right thing for them to do, and it happened more and more.

And… without any doubt at all, there were some male professors who did almost nothing in other colleges. Quick check in once a week. ‘Read this, and come back with an essay next week’ no discussion. ‘No you don’t need to bother with lectures it’s all in the books. Et al.

I had a lovely tutor I was blest. But in my final year I was allocated a youngish male as my dissertation supervisor. He knew his area of study OK, but then propositioned me to go to a hotel. He had 5 children. I doubt he would have done this had I come from a powerful family in our society at the time.

Fearful of being believed, I told no one. But mostly it was an a life enhancing experience and I feel fortunate. I needed support, I was a fish out of water: I met others like me eventually, I was politically active.

So if I am presented with those who decry DEI I say, we do not know what untapped abilities lay out there if we look at individuals.

Now of course it was a tragic error to appoint Arday because of his personal profile in different ways, and not have patience for the current cohorts of young people or at graduate and post grad level who have come in under DEI until they are ready and climbed the ladder at a proper pace.

But in principle, it is not only needful but morally and socially essential, to have DEI in my opinion, to get the very best our young people can be, of all backgrounds, to go on and serve society as time moves on.

And at times needful to appoint teachers who match our multicultural society. As long, of course, that they are fit for post in every way that matters.

Maremia

Thanks 25Avalon, for finding and posting Sarah Vine's article.
Thanks LemonJam for accessing it for us.
Sarah Vine said 'once a case like this gets to mainstream media it invariably attracts the attention of those who are genuinely racist.'

And gets blown up out of all proportion.

What happened to the assertion that the best person for the role should be appointed, regardless of colour or ethnicity?
That clearly wasn’t applied in this case where a lying, fantasist found himself way out of his depth, probably astounded that his ridiculous claims weren’t properly checked out.

I wonder how the other candidates feel, those who because they didn’t tick the diversity box, would therefore have been passed over in favour of this individual who was clearly unsuitable?

👏👏👏

Thanks 25Avalon, for finding and posting Sarah Vine's article.
Thanks LemonJam for accessing it for us.
Sarah Vine said 'once a case like this gets to mainstream media it invariably attracts the attention of those who are genuinely racist.'

fancythat

I think my biggest concern is, in this day and age, that a probable fantasist appears to have received next to no help in his life. If this turns out to be the case.
How can that have happened, or been allowed to happen?

Because, good old fashioned kindness, care, a listening ear has been replaced by something nastier.

I remember many years ago a nurse saying to me, " Are you sure this is for you?" What a relief to be spoken to like that. honest, open ,caring.
Were people saying to him, " look mate, you don't seem well"

I don't know. It's just so sad.

Because people wanted to believe.

If that has happened, that has contributed to his death.

Most of us know very little about this man except what the media have chosen to put out.
It seems to me there is a certain gleeful energy generated when those who have been successful are publicly brought down - especially if that person is “different”, ie black and autistic in this case.
This is a fellow human being like us with flaws, which we all have, and loved ones who care about him. So sad.

No Oreo, not brushed under the carpet but dealt with properly as were the cases of
William O'Reilly,
Ross Holmes,
David Lackman,
Nicola Morrison.
all proven to be plaigiarists or to have manipulated data, or published work they had to withdraw
Never heard of them? And so it should be. Dealt with discretely, within the profession.

Because people wanted to believe.

You can face people with absolute proof if something they have said or written, in their face, and they will deny it.

Or what another has done and they will defend them to the grave.

Cambridge and other involved universities had so many reasons for not investigating.

I think my biggest concern is, in this day and age, that a probable fantasist appears to have received next to no help in his life. If this turns out to be the case.
How can that have happened, or been allowed to happen?

25Avalon

Interesting article by Sarah Vine in The DM. Gives a more balanced perspective but I don’t expect some of the more strident posters on here to see that and they will stick to their guns blasting the rest of us who are more moderate.

I decided to read Sarah Vine's DM article on your recommendation. Vine reports in summary:

"That said, once a case like this makes it into the mainstream it inevitably attracts the attention of people who are genuinely racist, and that is wholly unacceptable – an ugly side of Britain no one can deny.

And that perhaps goes to the heart of why Arday’s story ultimately got so out of hand: social media. What began as legitimate journalistic inquiry into certain serious allegations grew into an internet pile-on, with all that entails

For all our faults, newspapers are tightly constrained by our libel laws and a strong independent regulator as to what can and cannot be written. But the same is not true of the internet, which continues to resist all attempts at control. And once it becomes clear that a story has online traction, there are countless influencers and content creators keen to capitalise for clicks. That’s what happened with Flack, and also with Arday.

In different times, Arday’s case would have probably been a minor academic scandal, swiftly and quietly resolved internally. It would have raised eyebrows in certain circles and gone largely unnoticed in most others. There might have been a stern leading article in the Cambridge Gazette, but not much else. He might have simply been demoted, shuffled off into a minor role

Instead, the poor man was flayed alive by a million voices, and punished in ways that far exceeded any crime he may or may not have committed. Had he had the right support, he might still be with us. But sadly there was none when he truly needed it.

May he rest in peace. And may we all learn to reserve our anger for those who truly deserve it. God knows there’s no shortage.

At least Vine admits Arday was ‘flayed alive by a million voices that far exceeded any crime he may or may not have committed- after his death. Vine admits that once a case like this gets to mainstream newspapers it inevitably attracts the attention of those that are genuinely racist.

Vine works for the DM which has a vast free on line platform. The DM could measure its on line clicks about Arday a chosen lead story minute by minute, day by day and no doubt did monitor. Clicks generate income or advertising revenue after all. Vine admits this case was a ‘minor academic scandal * more usually reported on in Cambridge local media- but we are now in different times*. What different times prompted the Daily Mail to knowingly print front page headlines plagiarism professor beside Arday’s photo. Maybe to grab attention knowing it might initiate on line vitriol in these 'different times'?

Vine believes that what got out of hand after the mainstream newspaper began enquiry was all the fault of social on line media and we must reserve our anger for those who truly deserve it

LemonJam

mum2three

I hope lessons will be learned. From what I can discern he was chosen because of this diversity thing. Perhaps this will teach people to think twice in future about exactly what the consequences might be.

I absolutely agree 👍and do hope lessons will be learned.

It does appear (investigation outcome to come in due course hopefully) that Cambridge University somewhat delighted in recruiting Arday as a young Black professor and encouraged media attention and promoted his appointment in a 'poster boy' type way. Whether or not they provided Arday with media training is also a key issue to safeguard him. In the NHS for example- anyone that may have exposure/dealings with national or local media in their role must receive media training. It is evident, that someone who is autistic with Arday's known health conditions, as the youngest Cambridge black professor ever is vulnerable and absolutely needed media training.

If Arday was chosen on a DEI basis rather than checked and verified skills and knowledge basis that would have made Arday even more vulnerable and exposed.

That should absolutely not set back recruitment of black academics in prestigious roles however. The learning would be to improve and strengthen recruitment and selection processes and ensure robust induction, professional development and safeguarding processes are in place also as black professors, we now know, face intense media scrutiny.

Such organisation systems and processes should be in place for all students and academics in university of course, regardless of skin colour. Cambridge Universities are enormously £rich and can afford it- at the end of the day also to protect its own brand.

I agree with all of that.

Lathyrus3

“None of this would have happened…”

That sounds as if you are saying that concerns of plagiarism, student concerns, concerns of fellow academics would all not have been investigated.

I think that is what worries me. The failure, deliberate or careless, of the University to implement rigour and to operate on a basis of favour, pursuing a non-academic agenda for the sake of popularity.

That is a sad decline if that is so.

Good comment.
I think there are people who wish this whole thing had been brushed under the carpet ( including Cambridge University) and see only race as the reason JA was targeted when in fact it was his own claims/ deceptions and his very doubtful appointment that led to it.
Cofnas may have some unpleasant and controversial ideas but in this particular case he wasn’t wrong was he?
Any kind of wrongdoing cannot not be pursued in case a person harms themselves.The University said he was given lots of help (once JA resigned) but of course this whole debacle could have been avoided if they hadn’t fallen over themselves to give a professorship on the basis of positive discrimination.
Thankfully they will now stop doing this.

To suggest that this man deserved the excessive media attention because he told some lies about his life and had plagiarised parts of his doctoral thesis is, frankly, ridiculous.

The problem became, so many people and institutions maybe unwittingly, not least the Police who he apparently called, became involved.

I don't think Cambridge is generally guilty of misusing DEI policies to recruit black professors but I suspect they were in this case. Currently 0.4% of Cambridge professors are black (possibly lower now that Arday is dead).

To suggest that this man deserved the excessive media attention because he told some lies about his life and had plagiarised parts of his doctoral thesis is, frankly, ridiculous. That to say he effectively brought this on himself is IMO cruel.

All of the reports that I have read in proper newspapers are taking the line that the interest was because of his colour and that he was an professor at Cambridge who had become somewhat "celebrated" because of his back story, not because he had committed some heinous crime.

Simplification of the whole thing, by anyone, does no one any favours.

“None of this would have happened…”

That sounds as if you are saying that concerns of plagiarism, student concerns, concerns of fellow academics would all not have been investigated.

I think that is what worries me. The failure, deliberate or careless, of the University to implement rigour and to operate on a basis of favour, pursuing a non-academic agenda for the sake of popularity.

That is a sad decline if that is so.

Maremia

None of this would have happened, if the claims of the openly racist Cafnis had not been picked up so enthusiastically by the media.

You dont think the man would have been found out?

And he may not have been able to cope with that?

I think Whutewavemark that to dismiss issues that have affected many, many people personally and have reflected upon many institutions, including those of law, as “incidental” is either massively simplistic or intent upon shutting down examination of those issues.

It is certainly not a way to achieve the truth of why this has happened or justice for those involved.

It cannot be a purely “internal matter” too many people outside the institution of Cambridge have been affected.

Would you feel it was right for an investigation into the press actions to be dealt with purely internally. I wouldn’t.

Why exposure of the failings of one institution and a coverup of the failings of another Partisan indeed and as I said, if benefit to nobody - except those with motivation to conceal

None of this would have happened, if the claims of the openly racist Cafnis had not been picked up so enthusiastically by the media.

As I said above Primrose53, in this case the fault of the media was sensationalisation, the misdemeanours of academics should be dealt with by police and their employers, they are not public figures.

Casdon

I don’t, they have brought it on themselves if they sensationalise stories, exaggerate facts, misrepresent, or lie, for copy. I respect media which reports responsibly, whichever side of the political fence it sits on.

The person lying was JA not the media!

None of this would have happened if he had not been inventing such outrageous stories about his qualifications, medical issues, charity events, marathons etc etc. he took it too far and it looks as though his conscience finally got the better of him. As they got more and more awesome obviously people started questioning things and that is perfectly normal.

Talking of 'the press'. I came across this this morning (courtesy of Bluesky)

It records how many articles were written about Arday over the period since the first mainstream article 0n 24th July until his death on 14th August. 22 days.

I find the fact that it took a mere 22 days to bring a man down and destroy his life quite astounding in itself but the figures on published articles are surprising.

On 5 August 2026 Jason Arday resigned from Cambridge, writing that he had reached “the limits of what any person should reasonably be expected to endure”. On 14 August he was found dead at his home in Battersea. Nobody knows yet how he died, and this page does not claim to. It counts what he was under: every article the national press published about him, outlet by outlet, day by day, from the first Telegraph report to the evening of his death.

A total of 249 articles was found, of which 188 were published after he had said that he had 'reached the limits of what any person could reasonably be expected to endure'. So, 51 articles to bring about his downfall and almost 4 times as many afterwards.

This looks to me to be like not only putting the knife in but also continually twisting it to achieve maximum pain. I question whether this was really necessary and was it really in the public interest?

Others are welcome to disagree with me but I it feels like sadism to me.

newscord.org/editorials/jason-arday-pile-on

at the end of the day also to protect its own brand.

I am increasingly wondering if they had become somewhat blind to all sorts of things.
Or ignored them.