I’ve spent days searching for a suitably erudite description of the events surrounding the resignation of Cambridge University’s youngest black professor, Jason Arday. Alas, the standout phrase in the word-cloud of my mind is: what a shitshow.
To understand Arday’s story, the media frenzy surrounding it, Cambridge University’s poor handling of the allegations and the deep-seated fears this episode has engendered in academics of colour, I believe the starting point must be that multiple truths can – and do – exist simultaneously.
Jason Arday’s story – as he tells it – was nothing short of extraordinary. He grew up on a council estate in Clapham, south London. His parents are of Ghanaian heritage. His mother was a mental health nurse and his father a chef. Jason was diagnosed with autism, global developmental delay and dyslexia. He claims he was non-verbal until the age of 11, and could not read or write until he was 18. Yet, by 37, he was appointed a professor of sociology at a world-class academic institution. Arday’s rise appeared to be a tale of triumph over tragedy. It was a glimmer of hope in an age of hopelessness. Many of us lapped it up. We willed him to succeed. We wanted him to win. And, most of all, to never let us down.
Now, serious questions have arisen over his backstory. There are allegations that he heavily embellished his CV. His claim that he was non-verbal at primary school has been undermined by a former classmate who says Jason Arday was so talkative as a child that his nickname was “chatty-patty”. Then there were his undocumented descriptions of racial harassment and stalking. Significantly more serious than all that were the accusations of plagiarism – that he stole other people’s research without sufficient attribution, change or development. Arday has admitted to “mistakes” in his PhD but denies the claim of plagiarism. Based on the sheer ferocity of the news coverage, I’ve been left with the impression that in academic circles intellectual theft is the moral equivalent of perpetrating a war crime.
On a personal level, Arday’s unravelling has deeply divided opinion among many of my friends and acquaintances – some of whom know the former professor. Most of them are people of colour. All of them have shown serious concern for his mental and emotional wellbeing. However, broadly speaking, they hold one of two polarised positions: first there are those who believe Jason Arday is a Walter Mitty-type fantasist who acted cynically and recklessly to advance his own career. This, they say, has thrown suspicion over all black and brown academics – who are already grossly under-represented and vastly over-scrutinised within academia. To blame his autism or media smear campaigns, they say, removes from Arday the very agency that has made him a success.
If the charge is that Arday garnished his CV with superhuman feats and plagiarised work, then the question is: what did his employers get out of it?
Second, there are those who argue that the disproportionate, spiralling media coverage is evidence of inherent racism within the British establishment. They believe that if Arday had been white, his alleged academic crimes would have been little reported on and, eventually, quietly dealt with by his employers in the appropriate manner.
Instead, he has become the victim of eugenicists such as Nathan Cofnas, who first raised suspicions about his achievements, and whose criticism has been amplified by rightwing newspapers that sneer at the idea a black man could earn, through his own hard work and endeavours, an exalted place amongst the dreaming spires.
I believe both takes – in varying proportions – provide a credible explanation of what we’ve witnessed. Jason Arday is undoubtedly a complex character who has demonstrated poor personal judgment and, perhaps, a selfish streak. If it turns out he has plagiarised work, then he should apologise and be held accountable for it. As the black writer Nadine White argued, if the accusations prove true, he will have risked not only his own reputation but that of the leading black figures whom he asked to back him.
Photo: ITV (screengrab)
Equally, however, the tone and scale of reporting has too often felt hysterical in tone and vicious in nature. Given the number of headlines and front pages devoted to Arday, you’d be hard pushed to find out that there’s an ongoing war in Iran, that the UK has a new prime minister, or that we’re roasting in the fireball heat of global warming. That lack of proportionality has alarmed many – including me. Jason Arday may be a flawed individual, but he isn’t a war criminal.
There’s also evidence that double standards are at play: in 2023, the Financial Times reported that a complaint of plagiarism against a Cambridge professor had been upheld, but that he would keep his job, as the theft was “the product of negligent acts but was not deliberate”. Strangely enough, we aren’t quite as familiar with William O’Reilly’s name as we are with Jason Arday’s.
Efforts by universities, or anywhere else to diversify a workforce are not antithetical to excellence. To suggest this is simply another unfounded grievance peddled by the hard right
The Telegraph and Daily Mail have used the episode as a stick with which to bludgeon every diversity, equity and inclusion programme under the baking sun. Both have labelled the lecturer a “poster boy for diversity”. The undercurrent in their reports is the entirely false idea that white intellectuals are being discriminated against as a result of non-existent positive discrimination schemes. They have, needless to say, failed to give equal prominence to the fact that the latest reporting shows the proportion of professors who are black is a pitiful 1%. In numerical terms, that’s 250 people; 70 female and 180 male.
The hyper-focus on the individual has inevitably distracted from where the power in this story lies: the leadership team at Cambridge. Reports suggest the university was quick to use Jason Arday as cover for its own poor record in the recruitment of black academics. Its reaction has been to announce a review of its appointment process – in the hope the furore blows over. According to the Guardian, senior dons have rejected this approach; they want a full-blown independent inquiry – and rightly so.
If the charge is that Arday garnished his CV with superhuman feats and plagiarised work to cover up shoddy scholarship, then the question is: what did his employers get out of it? There was clearly something. What motivated them to look the other way, dismiss the concerns of staff, and not caution him against reporting a journalist looking into the story to the police? It seems the book-smart people of Cambridge forgot all about common sense.
This mess will provide fodder for the culture wars long into the future unless the university critiques its own actions with rigour – however uncomfortable that might be. Cambridge owes it to its students, its staff and most of all to every other black academic in the country who is paying the price for this debacle by way of unjustified scepticism of their hard work and professional integrity. Efforts by universities, or anywhere else, to diversify a workforce are not antithetical to excellence. To suggest this is just another unfounded grievance peddled by the hard right. Jason Arday was one professor, at one university. He does not represent anyone but himself. The same goes for his former employers. To think of this situation in any other way is, as the dons so vividly describe it, “grotesque racism”.
Sangita Myska is an award-winning journalist and presenter best known for her political and social commentary. She writes a fortnightly column for the Nerve.