Cambridge University’s Professor of the Sociology of Education, Jason Arday, has become the subject of allegations of plagiarism.
Dr Nathan Cofnas has highlighted a number of passages that appear to show close textual similarities between Arday’s work and those of other sociologists in the fields of education and critical race theory, one example of which is reproduced above. Similar concerns about Professor Arday’s work have also been noted previously by other academics (for example, see Prof David Harris here).
Plagiarism is not a victimless crime. It robs original thinkers of recognition, distorts the integrity of scholarship and undermines the trust on which the entire academic community depends. There will be less well-known or junior scholars who missed out on citations, grants or even tenured jobs because they were deprived of the credit rightfully theirs.
However, it is important to focus on institutional processes and standards rather than on any one individual. The central issue is how Cambridge University addresses and manages such concerns.
Worries were first raised in 2023 both with Liverpool John Moores University and Cambridge University regarding Prof Jason Arday’s Ph D thesis and some of his later publications. Two Professors at UK Universities independently wrote to Dr Rhys Morgan, Head of Policy, Integrity and Governance at Cambridge University about possible plagiarism. They both received almost identical replies:
The University of Cambridge takes issues of research integrity very seriously and we will always consider allegations relating to research conducted under its auspices in line with our policies. In this instance the research that your concerns relate to was carried out before Professor Arday joined the University and it would normally be for the institution at which the work was done to consider any research integrity concerns with a particular paper published in their name. As such we do not consider it within our remit to investigate the papers to which you refer. If you do choose to approach the institutions at which this work was done we would be content for you to let them know that you have also written to us and to provide my name as a contact point. [Dr Rhys Morgan]
Whenever an administrator at Cambridge University says, “We take this very seriously,” it’s usually your first clue that they absolutely don’t …
Dr Morgan clings to a flimsy excuse as a cover for not investigating — namely, it’s someone else’s job. This is familiar territory. Dr Morgan has ‘previous’ in the matter of Dr Juan Manuel Gorriz, as reported by For Better Science.
The response is wrong for two reasons.
First, in his application for a Professorship at Cambridge University, Jason Arday will have provided his curriculum vitae and publication list. Therefore, his present prestigious appointment owes much to his earlier work and his PhD thesis. It is inadequate to dismiss the matter as not “within our remit”, as the material was used to acquire his Professorship.
Secondly, past mistakes are of relevance to the future. If a scholar’s research methodology is deficient, then — at minimum — further mentoring, training and advice are needed to ensure that in the future proper standards are upheld. Papers that may have failed to attribute the work of others need either correction with proper attribution or withdrawal. Addressing such issues would also be in the individual’s own professional interest and could reasonably be expected to form part of the University’s oversight and duty of care.
We take no satisfaction in what has happened. Widening participation in higher education remains an important objective. At the same time, maintaining rigorous standards of research integrity and academic culture is absolutely essential.
It is also noted that the 21 Group has received a number of complaints concerning the Policy, Governance and Integrity Section within the Research Strategy Office. This suggests a need for independent external review to assess its effectiveness.
Sadly, Cambridge University’s reaction to anything awkward is to cover it up. This is very dangerous. As Ben Bradlee, executive editor of The Washington Post, famously said “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover up, that gets you.”
20 Comments
TheResearcher · 22 July 2026 at 08:29
That is such a sad story. But clearly worse is the behaviour of the University and Dr Rhys Morgan’s in particular with him I have interacted multiple times. His response in this case reminds me the response of Dr Alexander Twist, Head of Research Integrity at Consigliere University who once said,
“In this instance the research that your concerns relate to was carried out before Professor Molloy joined the University and it would normally be for the institution at which the work was done to consider any research integrity concerns. As such we do not consider it within our remit to investigate the papers to which you refer.”
https://21percent.org/?p=2723
Sad · 22 July 2026 at 08:36
21 Group, you are completely correct.
Institutional responses to concerns can be as or more significant as the issues themselves. The response by Cambridge University leaves them open to accusations that they violated duty of care to Prof Arday
Figleaf · 22 July 2026 at 10:20
The Cambridge leadership is overwhelmingly white and Anglo. So the underlying logic here seems to be: Sure, we gave Assoc Professor to some random Islamophobic guy after 3 years (Orr) who is advising Farage on how to deport asylum seekers. But look, we gave Professor to a random Black guy too!!
So it all balances out, right???
Right?
Informer · 22 July 2026 at 11:33
Our colonial overlords in Old Schools appear remarkably adept at instrumentalising Black people whenever they need a “decoy” or fig leaf to hide behind. They did exactly the same thing at Bury St Edmunds after all. Why let their own face be known?
It is institutional racism on a whole new level.
TheResearcher · 22 July 2026 at 10:40
21 Group, I just realized that Nathan Cofnas was at St Edmund’s College:
https://ncofnas.com/p/cambridge-universitys-war-on-free
Judging from personal experience and the number of people working at St Edmund’s College who became involved in my case including the domestic bursar, the senior tutor and other fellows, there seems to exist clear and strong connections between the administration of UCam and St Edmund’s College.
Incidentally, the “Responsible Person” Professor Eilis Ferran who told us in open court regarding the whistleblowing case that she has a “track record of independence” but did not provide any evidence to support her claim, is a Fellow at St Edmund’s College.
Fact check · 22 July 2026 at 10:57
Cofnas was at Emmanuel. You are confusing him with Noah Carl, a horse from a similar stable.
TheResearcher · 22 July 2026 at 11:23
Right! My bad. Thanks for checking!
I was less concerned about who was affected, but where: St Edmund’s College.
Fun fact: Emmanuel also has problems!
TheResearcher · 22 July 2026 at 11:37
I think I know what happened, the new article says “Readers of this Newsletter may remember Vira as one of the administrators who tried to get me fired from Cambridge in 2024 for writing about race and affirmative action” and then pointed to the older article about St Edmund’s College where there was a persuasion to fire Carl. Sorry about that.
Anyway, for those who are still thinking about who will step down next, my bet is on Vira.
Xerxes · 22 July 2026 at 11:41
Electors to the Professorship of Education (2002)
The Council has appointed members of the ad hoc Board of Electors to the Professorship of Education as follows:
Baroness Sally Morgan, F, in the Chair, as the Vice‑Chancellor’s deputy
(a) on the nomination of the Council
Professor Anoop Nayak, Newcastle University
Professor Louise Archer, University College London
(b) on the nomination of the General Board
Professor Jo Dillabough
Professor Tim Harper, M
Professor Michalinos Zembylas, Open University of Cyprus on the nomination of the Faculty Board of Education
Professor Karen Coats, HO
Professor Martin Mills, University College London
Professor Paul Ramchandani, W
TheResearcher · 22 July 2026 at 11:45
Sally Morgan & Tim Harper? Nice!
???? · 22 July 2026 at 12:52
How is it possible that Harper, Peake and Maxwell are involved in almost every single scandal in the university right now, even ones way outside of their own schools
D-Day · 22 July 2026 at 14:02
One simple answer…
HR.
It’s like this. You get in the shit over some random scandal in your department or school. Maybe it was primarily your fault. Maybe you were asleep at the wheel.
It doesn’t matter. From now onwards and forevermore, HR own you.
And in every future scandal, they will make sure you are appointed to “solve” the problem…i.e. do all their dirty work for them while remaining cloistered in the shadows.
excellent · 22 July 2026 at 10:42
How can any university uphold its plagiarism policy for student assignments when it gives a free pass to faculty? It completely undermines the capacity of the institution to uphold pedagogical standards. Now every student can just say they were doing as their professors do.
No Comment · 22 July 2026 at 11:49
The previous thread requested information about Sinker.
Sinker was CEO of Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust from 2015 to 31 December 2025. The Verita report, published 29 October 2025, found 32 missed opportunities between 2012 and 2024 to identify and address concerns about Ms Kuldeep Stohr’s clinical practice, including a decade-long failure by CUH management to act on the 2016 Hill report.
That entire period falls under Sinker’s tenure as CEO.
He publicly refused to resign after the Verita report was published (see the BBC story of 30 October 2025), and within six weeks his departure to the University was announced. The University appointment therefore involves the receiving of a senior figure by an institution (Cambridge) that is inextricably linked to the sending institution (CUH) through six governance layers – CUHP, physical co-location on the Addenbrooke’s site, approximately 380 joint appointments, direct governance interpenetration (Chair Sally Morgan sits on Cambridge Council; Regius Professor of Physic Maxwell ex officio on CUH Board), NIHR BRC funding of £398m, and the shared industry axis. The University was not an arm’s-length recipient but CUH’s most closely linked institutional partner.
21percent.org · 22 July 2026 at 11:54
Verita Report linked here
https://www.cuh.nhs.uk/updates-on-external-reviews-into-orthopaedic-surgeon/verita-report/
BBC link here
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c986lvzl3lno
Post-post-modern · 22 July 2026 at 12:02
Arday has questions to answer but the people principally responsible for this farce are those who used him to promote themselves and Cambridge university. The faction of the humanities that rejects objective research standards and promotes the idea the academic work should be political rather than knowledge driven also deserves interrogation. This case will now cast unfair doubt on the appointment of black academics generally. By rejecting universal standards, relativism, is ironically, promoting racism. I do not believe this could have happened in the hard sciences.
TheResearcher · 22 July 2026 at 12:15
It all depends on who is on the panel and what instructions they had.
There are plenty of problems in the hard sciences as well because there are people with poor principles and low standards across Cambridge University.
21percent.org · 22 July 2026 at 12:30
Agreed. Huge institutional failure at Cambridge, Durham, Glasgow and Liverpool JMU.
Hard Humanist · 22 July 2026 at 12:44
“I do not believe this could have happened in the hard sciences”
There is plenty of below-universal-standards in the hard sciences too. Con-artists who manoeuvre themselves into PI positions, professors who cannot teach undergraduates, nor mark their exams because they literally don’t understand the questions…
As to fact-checking outside of their own area of scientific expertise… It’s as if only humanists were able to tell whether information is true or not!
Mediocracy · 22 July 2026 at 13:23
“The faction of the humanities that rejects objective research standards and promotes the idea the academic work should be political rather than knowledge driven also deserves interrogation”
Let’s see how the “rejection of objective research standards” is working out for Cambridge shall we?
Here are the latest Research Excellence Framework rankings for Cambridge departments are as follows.
For the University as a whole, all STEM submissions scored over 90% at 4* or 3*. A good performance.
However, the university average for 4* was dragged all the way down to 62%, thanks to a few rogue departments…
1. Politics and International Studies: 38% at 4* – the weakest result across the entire University among submissions made.
Notably, on the “Environment” sub-component, POLIS crashed down to 25% at 4*, meaning the assessors judged POLIS’s research environment for early career scholars and PhDs to be among the worst in the entire country. Yes, you are reading that right.
2. History: 46% at 4* – another abysmal score (Newcastle’s history submission, for comparison, was rated 60% at 4*).
3. Modern Languages: 53% at 4* – yet another stinker.
4. Classics: 38% at 4* – another humiliation to sit alongside POLIS
5. Theology: 49% at 4* – James Orr’s department, and an appalling result for a university hosting Peter Thiel to deliver lectures on “The Antichrist”
That’s what happens when faculty reject “objective research standards” – a culture of mediocrity and failure can only serve to destroy objective achievement and instead reproduce further mediocrity and failure.