The Case

On the 14th August the former Cambridge University professor Jason Arday was found dead. This followed accusations made by Nathan Cofnas, who had been fired as a junior research fellow at Cambridge, that there was plagiarism in several of Arday’s works. He also questioned some of the claims made in his recently published autobiography. This included that he was nonverbal until the age of 12 and the amount of money he had raised for charity. Arday subsequently resigned from his position at Cambridge on the 5th of August but received further scrutiny due to it being claimed that his resignation letter had been AI generated. He was found dead in London. 

The Role of the Media

This piece is not an attempt to assess the validity of the claims of a dead man. It instead aims to highlight how the media was complicit in his death. A statement by Jason Arday’s family following his death stated that ‘The campaign of misinformation was too much for Jason ’. There certainly was misinformation about Jason Arday, particularly online, but the important word here is actually the ‘campaign’. It is the only fitting word for how the press handled the story.

What is striking about this case is quite how much media attention it received. Below is a table of the number of articles, published letters and op-eds in the Times, Guardian, Telegraph and Daily Mail alone about Jason Arday or the University of Cambridge between the 24th July and 14th August:

This does not even include other well read papers or the amount of social media attention that the story received. 

This is particularly striking when one compares it to the coverage that other Cambridge academics have received when resigning in scandal. For instance, Simon Goldhill left the university this year following sexual misconduct accusations. Meanwhile, if one wishes to focus more on how Cambridge conducts itself, Peter Hutchinson was reappointed to his position in Cambridge in 2019 dispute being banned in 2017 from contacting students. Despite these being more serious issues attracting some backlash (especially in the case of Peter Hutchinson) the number of articles focused on both of these cases was in the single digits and it did not spiral into a wider public discourse. 

We share these examples not to continue this culture of publicly shaming individuals but simply to highlight quite how extreme the media scrutiny of Jason Arday was. It is therefore understandable that his fate was called a ‘death by a thousand headlines’.

Jason Arday and the Culture Wars

The reason that Jason Arday received so much attention is simple: it is a story that plays neatly into the culture wars. In this case the focus was on the issue of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI). Jason Arday was the youngest ever black professor in the UK. This made him the centre of a sensative issue. According to the Higher Education Statistics Authority (HESA) he was one of only 200 higher education staff in Cambridge who identify as black (around 1.5% of total staff) and only one of 265 black professors in the UK (around 1%).

The issue of race in universities (and especially black representation) is something that has been tackled by the NCF in the past but what is important here is that Jason Arday’s race automatically gave him media attention. Both Cambridge and campaigners desired to view his appointment as a victory for diversity. The problem is that, in doing so, the university left him vulnerable to those who are opposed to DEI policies. Nathan Cofnas is a self-described “race realist”. He had previously stated that, in an ideal world, black people would “disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment”. It is therefore alarming that his accusations, regardless of how valid they were, were able to gain such traction. 

It caught on because culture war issues gain attention. In this case it became easy for people to spread the narrative that a fraudster was able to become the professor at one of the top universities in the world simply because of his race. The influence of this narrative is seen in the fact that the US ambassador to Belgium criticised Cofnas’ subsequent teaching ban at Ghent University. This is despite the fact that the story, when separated from culture wars, should not be of importance to the US. It is therefore important to understand the power that the media and influential individuals have in spreading potentially dangerous narratives.

Jason Arday was an individual not a narrative. He was a father of two, a partner, a son and an Uncle. He was a flawed human being, like we all are, who was vulnerable to extreme public scrutiny due to his race and autism. This man was killed by a targeted harassment campaign led by the UK’s media, one which needs to be scrutinised so that organisations can be held to account.

What Needs to Be Done

The Prime Minister, when asked about the incident, called for a “moment for reflection”. The question is what needs to be reflected on.

Firstly, Jason Arday’s death needs to be a moment for reflection about the harmful way that the press conducts itself. There also needs to be a reflection on the failings of universities to protect those who work for them, particularly those who may be vulnerable due to factors such as their race or neurodiversity.

Some important steps have already been made. The University and College Union has secured an urgent question in parliament as well as meetings with key ministers. There have also been calls for a public inquiry. It is important that these actions continue to be pushed for and that people’s anger does not disappear as we all focus on the next media cycle. The press as well as other issues previously highlighted by the NCF such as social media algorithms, need to be thoroughly examined so that an incident as tragic as this cannot happen again.