I am intrigued by the story of Jason Arday, who recently resigned his professorship at Cambridge. Most of the press accounts focus on his serious fabulism. He boasted about feats of physical strength—like running six hundred miles in six days—that are nearly-physically impossible. Worse, these are stories that can easily be refuted. Apparently, no one in the ultra-marathon circles knew who he was. It is almost comical that a major publisher gave him a seven-figure book advance.
The lies Arday told about his personal story are problematic, but the far more pressing issue is his academic record. For years, he faced significant charges of plagiarism and dishonesty in his dissertation and his thin scholarship record. Those who raised these charges were predictably dismissed as racists. Cambridge performed an investigation that now appears to have been a sham. Only now, when the entire story has fallen apart, people are comfortable speaking the truth.
Arday resigned, but he is not alone. He can’t be. If he was able to get away with flagrant violations of academic integrity for years, others have as well. And to the extent that fears of being called racist shielded Arday from rigorous scrutiny, other academics are in a similar position. Indeed, how many Ardays have been hired and promoted, in the face of doubts, as part of DEI initiatives? Arday was hired in 2023 at peak-wokeness.
The UK Telegraph has a deep dive titled, “The Cambridge diversity scramble that led to Arday fiasco.” Read the entire thing, but here is an excerpt:
Put simply, did Cambridge University lower its own standards to hire a man of questionable merit simply because of his skin colour? And having done so, did one of the cornerstones of Britain’s world-renowned education system prioritise its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) credentials over its hard-earned reputation? . . .
The Telegraph has spoken to someone with first-hand knowledge of the interview process that Mr Arday passed through, who believes the university only “went through the motions” with other candidates because he was already the preferred choice.
We have also spoken to students who complained about inadequate supervision by Mr Arday, only to be told they were being racist.
John Preston, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Essex, said: “The appointment of Prof Arday certainly raised eyebrows at the time with people who work in this area because his publication record appeared rather thin. It raises questions about whether he was appointed for other parts of his CV.
“There were a lot more qualified people who would have been more suitable… they probably wanted to address their own failures in DEI in the past.”
When the job of professor of sociology of education was advertised, Cambridge told candidates that: “The following groups are currently under-represented in our community: women, those with a Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic background and those with disabilities.”
Mr Arday, who had spoken many times about his childhood autism and learning difficulties, ticked two of those three boxes. . . .
But the Arday affair will not quickly be forgotten, and the questions of whether Cambridge cherishes DEI more than its own reputation will persist.
Even the New York Times can state the obvious:
In 2023, The Times of London paraphrased comments from the head of Mr. Arday’s academic department, writing that his hiring “was proof of the university’s commitment to tackling existing inequalities.” “To any students or prospective colleagues who are wondering if Cambridge is a place where they can belong, the answer is, emphatically, yes,” she told the paper.
If Mr. Arday isn’t just a scholar, but a symbol of his university’s commitment to social justice, perhaps that made it more difficult for Cambridge to examine its own role in his ascent—and to delay, by several damaging years, the full investigation Mr. Arday’s case so obviously warranted.
Cambridge is an institution that dates back to 1209—before Magna Carta! Yet somehow, the DEI madness of the post-George Floyd era allowed them to look past all of the red flags. And if Cambridge succumbed to this mania, then far-less prestigious institutions likely made even worse errors.
The academy cannot perform its function of pursuing truth and knowledge if certain groups are afforded preferential treatment at every stage of their careers, and then are shielded from criticism for fear of undermining the entire DEI process. Arday was caught. There are likely others who should be caught.
