There are now articles in the Daily Mail, The Times, the Telegraph and the Independent.
The most damaging new facts are as follows. The Times Higher Education journalist Jack Grove was working on a story about Prof Jason Arday when lawyers and the Metropolitan police became involved.
One day last September, a five-page letter landed on the desk of Chris Havergal, the editor of Times Higher Education. It was sent by Carter-Ruck, a famously combative law firm whose roster of clients has included various Russian oligarchs, crypto fraudsters and scandal-affected celebrities, along with the ultra-litigious Church of Scientology. This time, they were representing a different sort of complainant: Jason Arday, a man the letter described as a ‘distinguished and highly respected scholar of race, inequality and education’ at Cambridge University. [The Daily Mail]
In a sign of the toxicity of the row, a journalist investigating the sceptics’ claims was reported to the police by Arday for alleged harassment. The Metropolitan Police investigated but closed the case. [The Times]
A crucial set of questions remains: who advised Prof Jason Arday to take this course of action? Why did he contact Carter-Ruck, and who suggested involving the Metropolitan Police?
This was a complex, high-risk legal intervention prepared at very short notice to prevent publication by Times Higher Education. Carter-Ruck’s fees for such work are likely to have been in the region of £12,000–£20,000. Did the University pay or contribute to these legal costs, as it did in the case of Prof Richard McMahon’s defamation defense, as revealed in the Cambridge Whistleblowing Tribunal?
Was the decision to contact the Metropolitan Police encouraged or facilitated by the University? The institution has publicly stated that Professor Arday was the victim of a “vile campaign to undermine his credibility” and has repeatedly framed the matter as racially motivated.
The University’s Director of Communications, James Helm, previously worked for the Metropolitan Police.
There must be complete clarity on these issues from both Prof Arday and Cambridge University. It is regrettable that such questions need to be asked at all. However, recent history at Cambridge has too often involved the suppression or mishandling of misconduct claims, making transparency essential.
These questions carry additional weight given that Prof Arday is autistic and may have sought advice in navigating a highly complex and sensitive situation. That context makes it particularly important that any guidance, processes, and institutional involvement by the University are clearly understood.
Finally, the Telegraph’s reporting brings attention back to an individual who has remained largely invisible in this discussion — but should not be.
The Telegraph has learnt that a draft resolution, known as a Grace, is circulating among senior members of Cambridge’s academic staff, stressing the importance of academic integrity and requesting an investigation into alleged shortcomings in the Research Policy, Integrity and Governance division (RPIG).
The RPIG has attracted criticism from professors at other universities for ignoring warnings about Prof Arday’s work as long as three years ago, and insisting his PhD is a matter for Liverpool John Moores University, which awarded him his doctorate.
If the Grace is submitted to the Regent House – effectively Cambridge’s parliament – and is passed by it, it would be “virtually a no confidence motion in the vice-chancellor”, in the words of one academic source.[The Telegraph]
The role of the Vice-Chancellor is to provide clear and principled academic leadership.
We need an unequivocal statement from Professor Prentice addressing three points. First, it should reaffirm that the University stands firmly by its core values of academic integrity and the highest scholarly standards. Second, it must confirm that any investigation will proceed with full respect for due process, including fairness to Professor Arday. Third, it should clarify the University’s role — if any — in the apparent use of legal and policing channels in relation to a journalist.
Finally, it is striking that there has been no coverage of this matter from the BBC or The Guardian
“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes. [Silver Blaze by Arthur Conan-Doyle]
Their silence on the Jason Arday story is telling. It’s a negative fact, but it’s the most significant of all.
Their lack of response strongly suggests they have accepted that the allegations are largely true. There’s no plausible defence.
The scandal here is that it is not the only time the university has used the police to crack down on whistleblowers by filing vexatious reports. We are looking at a story of institutional corruption on a systemic scale.
Question: Why don’t more victims come forward about research misconduct by celebrity professors at Cambridge?
Answer: ‘The Times Higher Education journalist Jack Grove was working on a story about Prof Jason Arday when lawyers and the Metropolitan police became involved.’
As for vile campaigns, there seems to be at least one. It’s not the Arday case.
“As for vile campaigns, there seems to be at least one. It’s not the Arday case”
Several former POLIS staff have cases against the university that — once public — will absolutely hammer the final nail in the coffin.
Then CRUK will read the final rites
To the best of my knowledge, there are at least 3 additional cases of police being called in to “deal” with Cambridge members of staff after they raised good faith concerns, at least one of which relates to disrupting potential press coverage. To my knowledge in these cases as well no charges were ultimately upheld. But before those become known there could be more imminent problems should Arday’s police report also be found to have been vexatious.
Comms 101: You kill a story with a sympathetic interview accepting mistakes
You do not kill a story with an interview by an unsympathetic or critical journalist from the Times
You do not kill a story by making a whole new set of very damaging admissions and further allegations against others
Questions:
1. Who was on the Cambridge “committee” that allegedly “cleared” Arday of plagiarism?
2. Who advised to use Carter-Ruck to threaten the press? Who signed off? Who paid? Are they still being paid now with client on account?
3. Have the full contents of the 5-page letter been published yet? If not why not?
4. Did the police make an arrest? How many arrests have there been at the university’s instigation?
5. Has a complaint been filed to the Met for making a vexatious police report?
6. Have any members of his hiring committee yet made a statement?
7. Does the university stand by the category of “unreasonably persistent behaviour” as a basis to expel students and staff?
8. Have Varsity been asked why they refuse to cover this and related cases?
I can answer the last two questions:
7. Does the university stand by the category of “unreasonably persistent behaviour” as a basis to expel students and staff?
8. Have Varsity been asked why they refuse to cover this and related cases?
I confirm that the University expels students for “unreasonably persistent behaviour” when they report cases of misconduct, including plagiarism, by senior Professors. And I confirm that I already asked twice the editors of Varsity why they did not cover the Arday case, and if they are getting pressed by the University, but they did not reply. The answer is bluntly obvious. Their silence is more telling than BBC’s and Guardian’s because this topic is of major relevance for students and alumni of Cambridge University and had to be covered by them.
Our focus should not be understanding the Arday case only because it is just another case in a degrading culture of cover up. There needs to be an external investigation on how reports of misconduct, research-related and other, are addressed at Cambridge. Focusing on Arday will allow University to rest on the race card. When multiple cases are analysed in parallel, however, the picture is unambiguous.
Our understanding is the answers are
1 If there is a committee, no-one has admitted to being on it.
2 Unknown.
3 No.
4 Our understanding is yes, there was an attempt to arrest.
5 Unknown.
6 No. The committee is: Baroness Sally Morgan, F ;Professor Anoop Nayak, Newcastle University; Professor Louise Archer, University College London; Professor Jo Dillabough; Professor Tim Harper, M; Professor Michalinos Zembylas, Open University of Cyprus; Professor Karen Coats, HO; Professor Martin Mills, University College London Professor Paul Ramchandani
7 Yes.
8 Story is out of control, so no-one cares about Varsity (though they have suppressed repeated stories about bullying & misconduct over the last 2 years)
Teddy Bear is back. He’s in trouble again. Naughty Teddy
Do you mean this Teddy Bear?
https://21percent.org/?p=1608
I think he never left 😂
Hilariously he spent years enmeshed in a plagiarism saga in his own department and then hired a plagiarist who surpassed all boundaries
@InfoCheck
Exemplary.
How to not be distracted by a race war.
These are the questions Cambridge doesn’t want us to be demanding answers to.
Varsity published two articles (‘the Plagiarising Professor’ and ‘Copycat Don’) attacking the professional reputation of historian William O’Reilly years ago. The stories had the same author, Erik Olsson. I wouldn’t know who him or the accuser. Maybe a history undergrads. If so I’d suspect conflicts of interest.
Mr Olsson openly mocked claims of a homophobic bullying campaign behind the plagiarism allegations. If it was anger in the name of research integrity, why has the Varsity been silent on the topic when many other members of Cambridge have emailed and been emailing them to report egregious cases like Dr Arday’s?
A betting man would put money on the Varsity never reporting on Dr Arday and surely never mocking his claims of a racialised smear campaign. Correct me if I’m mistaken that Varsity have not posted one serious piece of journalism about research integrity. They are like a miniature FT, meaning abysmal, in serving the public interest w/ facts and holding the administration to account on research integrity.
On 2 , if Arday’s Bluesky post was real, it suggests CR are still being paid on account.
On 4, there was more than one arrest / attempted arrest.
5. At least one investigation ongoing.
7. Yes. Cannot find UPB in the DSM; but this provides a strong case for mental health abuse on the diagnostic criteria for autism.
8. Varsity seem to have had some internal dissent around this. The last term appears to have been the phase of maximum silence, when even the donor scandals and student abuse cases were barely covered.
This old YouTube video of S. Baron Cohen in Cambridge tells me that he would be keen to participate on the Netflix version of the current saga:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJBVEfY015o
3:00. The student says, “This is a serious University”
**** BREAKING ****
James Orr in the Byline Times
https://subscribe.bylinetimes.com/edition/88/reform-uk-and-big-tech-palantir-co-founder-peter-thiels-political-pipeline-recruitment-project-at-the-world-renowned-university-revealed/
Thanks BreakerMorant!
In case people got tired of Arday’s, now we can focus on Orr’s. What is the excuse for this story?
But the Guardian finally woke up regarding Arday!
https://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2026/aug/01/playbooks-plagiarism-pigs-head-new-claims-surrounding-cambridge-professor-jason-arday?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
The Guardian piece is a bombshell. It strongly implies, without saying as much directly, that Arday made up an entire fable of racial harassment that he submitted to the police and they found no evidence to confirm any part of it.
“Arday confirmed in an interview with the Guardian that the “mutilated animals sent to his family home” mentioned in the open letter was a severed pig’s head, delivered in a large cardboard box to his parents’ home address in south London. He claimed to have intercepted the package and immediately thrown it away, only telling the police several months later.
In a subsequent interview he claimed the police investigated, checking with butchers in south London if they had sold a pig, eventually finding one that had sold a “whole hog” on the morning the head was left outside the family home.
When the Guardian checked those details with the local butchers Arday named, they said no police officer had come in to ask them about a pig. When asked if they were sure, the butcher said “that’s the kind of thing we’d remember”.”
“Some of the audience thought it was strange. Keynotes are usually places where academics talk about their work and discuss breakthroughs, yet here was Arday talking about racism and harassment. Some felt he must have been saying this for a reason.”
“When asked if the £5m figure was accurate, Arday clarified to the Guardian that the money was raised with the help of “many fundraising collectives over a two-decade period”. When asked to identify other people who took part in these efforts, Arday said he had signed NDAs preventing him from disclosing that information.”
“Doctors have told the Guardian that running nine marathons with a hairline fracture in a fibula would be incredibly painful, though technically not impossible. In his forthcoming memoir, Arday says he completed the distance by taking painkillers and despite his right leg swelling to twice its normal size. He previously said in a 2012 interview that he used ice baths to ease the pain between his runs.”
“The intruder was not picked up by CCTV on either occasion and no one in the faculty reported seeing anyone suspicious. Arday did not report either intrusion at the time, telling the Guardian that after the second incident he continued his working day and even conducted a PhD viva for a student less than two hours later. He did not inform colleagues that a masked man with a knife was in the faculty building.”
“When the details Arday gave about the pig’s head investigation were checked by London’s Metropolitan police, the Guardian was told they were “categorically” incorrect and no investigation had taken place. Arday took no photographs of the bullet, the banana, the corrosive substance or the pig’s head.”
“When Arday was asked about his claims by the Guardian, he stood by them. “To be honest with you, I thought you’d just believe me,” he said. “Why would I lie?” He would be jeopardising his career.”
It seems clear that Arday is not well and cannot distinguish what is true from what is false.
Time for Cambridge University to focus on how we have made such serious mistakes.
Concentration of all the power in a tiny handful of senior leaders of no real ability is one problem.
“Concentration of all the power in a tiny handful of senior leaders of no real ability” who also cannot distinguish what is true from what is false?
Many of our senior leaders appear to use retreating into a fantasy world as a way of coping with the stresses of jobs beyond their capabilities. This does not improve stress levels further down the food chain. (One could argue that the same phenomenon exists in Westminster too, where CVs also undergo inflation.)
“It seems clear that Arday is not well and cannot distinguish what is true from what is false.”
Interesting. I wonder if that will be the strategy. If a student had made all that, namely hiring Carter-Ruck and calling the police, what would happen to them regardless of their mental health?
The 21 Group wrote on X,
“Liverpool John Moores University have questions to answer too
After inadequate supervision, LJMU granted Arday a PhD for a thesis that was of low quality
LJMU then dismissed plagiarism charges, as they were “well within accepted range of compliance with academic standards””
21 Group… Knowing UCam as you do, don’t you think that it is plausible that UCam contacted LJMU in the background and discussed the matter as they do with “Responsible Persons” in internal investigations? Do you think that UCam could afford that LJMU found misconduct of their rising star? Remember what Dr Morgan said to Professor Harris, “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.”
I bet that if Professor Harris makes a SAR at LJMU (not in UCam because they will find a way to cancel it), he will find correspondence between Dr Morgan and LJMU.
“... 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”.
Like you, we find this phraseology suspicious.
I fear that Dr Morgan will have a problem if his office gets an external audit.
The matter has clearly done enormous damage to
1 British Universities (who have few friends and desperately need more),
2 the reputation and standing of Cambridge University,
3 Black scholars & researchers,
4 Sociologists,
5 Research integrity,
6 EDI,
7 the senior leadership team of Cambridge University (many of whom are hopelessly compromised).
There must be an external inquiry. We must not allow one of the Cambridge ‘cover up’ inquiries, where the HR Business Manager or an insider takes charge and directs everything
“We must not allow one of the Cambridge ‘cover up’ inquiries, where the HR Business Manager or an insider takes charge and directs everything”
We also need to ask ourselves what we have done when we saw this happening in front our eyes with colleagues or students, and what we are willing to do moving forward. Many people knew that Cambridge University is the cover-up University, and still were silent when junior members were abused perhaps convincing themselves that was not their business. That mentality too needs to change. But one thing at a time. First, we have to expose those who actively participated in the farce that Cambridge University became, and that will only happen with external audit.
At this point there is more than enough evidence to take a few obvious decisions, in addition to whatever not-very-independent investigation the university wants to run to somehow absolve itself of all blame.
Of all the surprises in this crazy story one of the biggest ones for me was to see the “Good” Law Project working hand in glove with Carter-Ruck
The number of signatures froze at 12.7K early this morning. However, their website says “Nicolas signed less than 1 minute ago; Georgia signed less than 1 minute ago; Benjamin signed 1 minute ago; Helen signed 1 minute ago.” Not clear what is going on… I will quote Prof. Arday here as it seems appropriate:
“Could I have ever guessed that somebody would literally come through every single word I’ve ever said on that? There’s no way because I never, ever guessed I’d ever be in this position.”
I think after the Guardian story they must have frozen it. Even Cambridge and the GLP have a limit to self-humilation (albeit an astonishing high one).
The last 3 years thought me that UCam does not have limits when it comes to cover up and thus I would be surprised if this was their limit. I hope so, but I will assume for now that they will try other cards before throwing in the towel. They cannot afford an external audit and thus they will try everything they can. Keep a close look to those who will be against the idea because they will have a lot to lose when these external audits happen. There are people who will lose much more than Arday because they were involved in many cases.
Agreed. The Guardian article ended the first cycle of the story. Almost everyone has now conceded there is serious evidence for extensive plagiarism. There never was a “vile campaign” as the University asserted.
Utter humiliation for Cambridge, can’t think of anything like it. Someone is losing their job.
The Orr story is beginning to break. We can only hope they handle it better.
Of course, it did not end… another from The Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/01/professor-jason-arday-university-plagiarism/
Archived: https://archive.is/RADub
Key lesson UCam: Bullying and harassing students and staff is one thing, but doing it to journalists as well, and systematically, it can backfire. Where is Carter-Ruck now?
I trust this is the world record of negative press that one single University ever got…
Do you guys remember the time when journalists would contact Cambridge before publishing something? Are they really doing that now? It seems that the Comms Office is on holidays and only the “spokesperson” is working these days repeating the same song…
Bullying and harassing staff members that happen to know half the press personally not exactly a wise move either
Interesting comment about bullying and harassing staff members who happen to know half the press personally
It does seem like the USS Cambridge went into battle with its media-distortion-protection-shield sabotaged. Even the Guardian fired a shot straight at its back.
The whole institution is now spinning randomly out of control, firing random shots at nothingness, while the crew wrestle one another on the bridge for a navigation computer that is offline.
Those in comms who know the backstory know that this was a gradual process over a period of 18 months that involved threats to The Telegraph for daring to cover the Connolly case, pressure not to cover CRUK or High Court injunctions, outright lies and lobbying of The Guardian by POLIS, then enlisting Carter-Ruck to bully the Times Higher, and finally the neutering of Varsity. It has culminated in Arday, sure, but really, it could have happened at any point, over any number of issues.
So forget about Arday. This is what needs an independent investigation.
Until it is set right the university will never have media or public trust again.
And what is the role of the university lawyers in all this? Logically they would have to be involved at every stage when a negative story is forthcoming; after all, a press team cannot issue “love letters”, as they can only come from solicitors. So their fingerprints would have to be all over this too right?
“Until it is set right the university will never have media or public trust again.”
Exactly. They will need to knowledge fault, apologize, and build from there. Until then, they have to be exposed and embarrassed because that is what they all deserve.
Finally BBC…
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78gmp7zylvo
Pathetic and shoddy journalism from the BBC. They should be ashamed. They try to present this as a story with “two sides” — which at this point, it is not. Alan Lester, for example — who they cite as backing Arday — has already publicly disowned him. The BBC needs to apologise to fee payers, just as Cambridge must apologise to student fee- and taxpayers.
Only if Alan Lester DID NOT read the data could he back Jason Arday. Plz tell me Alan Lester isn’t an apologist for Jason Arday’s plagiarism.
Why’s he being consulted on the topic, he’s in history……..not sociology……
I was wondering why the Financial Times did not yet comment on Arday as, after all, this is happening in the “UK’s Best Employer” according to their ranking. And found this…
https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/executive-education/strategy/cambridge-and-financial-times-strategy-programme/
Another well-deserved carnage…
https://rorywaterman.substack.com/p/notes-on-a-cambridge-debacle
“Do the academics named above sit on student academic irregularity panels? Will they do so in future? I’m fascinated. I’d love to audit one.”
Good point. Or staff panels. The Good Law Project signatories have shown willingness to judge without considering the evidence. That must call into question their suitability to make decisions with implications for individuals, eg as responsible persons. Heads of House make such decisions all the time as part of the job.
The day is not over yet…
“Jason Arday Said He’s Not a Liar. The Receipts On His Charity Claims Say: Decide for Yourself.”
“The Cambridge star professor now says his £5.5 million charity total was the work of a 100-person syndicate. I found every version of the story since 2010, down to his £6,285 JustGiving page.”
https://benryan.substack.com/p/jason-arday-said-hes-not-a-liar-but
It is somewhat unbelievable that the Varsity has not covered this story, even in their weekly roundup. It is embarrassing for the editors.
Interference with Varsity is a discredit to the University. Which newspaper this side of Moscow will ever give them a job once they graduate?
Arday telling the audience that he took part in the Seven Up project. The issue is that the so-called Seven Up children were born in 1957 and were 7 years old when the programme aired in 1964…
https://x.com/colone1flanders/status/2083510175076381022
Daily Britain…
“Cambridge called Arday a ‘victim of a vile campaign to undermine his credibility’, yet never fully investigated his published work.”
https://www.dailybritain.co.uk/news/the-professor-cambridge-wont-fully-investigate.html
This just posted on Twitter. To my knowledge the only attestation of personality from someone who claims to have met him.
“I actually saw Jason Arday at a grocery store in Cambridge once. I told him how cool it was to meet the youngest black professor in history, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything.
He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”
I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Milky Ways in his hands without paying.
The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.
When he took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After he scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.”
Without any medical training, it seems plausible that he has a personality disorder
Very unlikely the University did not notice these behaviours before, but preferred to bully and harass journalists with Carer-Ruck/Police. Now that the press presented the issues to the public at large, I hope they will focus on the institution that allowed it moving forward as focusing on Arday alone will not solve the underlying problems of Cambridge.
When you see someone as socially dysfunctional as that in a supermarket, you can only assume they are either homeless, or a Cambridge professor
This is the kind of comment that bothers me, which the 21 Group just replied to in X:
“If the judgement of so many Cambridge University professors is so bad when it comes to Arday the marathon man, how can we trust their judgement over neuroscience or imperial history or whatever it is they are deemed to be the experts on?”
This person does not know the real Cambridge, namely that staff and students voice concerns and they are ignored at best but can be bullied, harassed and expelled if they insist on reporting misconduct. This public view about Cambridge is a humiliation for those who decided to speak, who lost everything and still are still portrayed as having weak judgement. Even students reported on Arday and they got retaliations as a response from the University.
This is true. We were a successful research lab generating high impact research. Closed after 20 plus years triggered by one false allegation by a so-called colleague who went on to take over our studies, promoted to full professor and directorships fully supported by other senior personnels, ROO ie the usual University machinery who doubled down to “find” more allegations to fully ensure our lab was closed down. There was no thought or care for the lab members. We are fully exonerated after lab closure but not a single apology. Where were the duty of care to us? We never plagiarised or fake any data. The University decides who it wishes to protect and once that decision is taken, they can only go forward
When this scandal breaks, it will get huge publicity.
This is the Year of The Fire Horse.
And last year was the Year of the Snake, but that story is hidden for now…
The references to neuroscience and imperial history are interesting indeed…….
TruthBeTold, that sounds horrible. Poisonous. Can’t make that stuff up. Too many other similar cases:
Why are we so uncomfortably reminded of another professor who recently featured in an Employment Tribunal?
Having made up the most breath-taking stories, this time about his colleagues, having defamed them, reviled them, rewritten their lives, painted them as loathsome frauds, bullies, criminals, ruining lives and careers in the process?
Shame on this University who allows, promotes and even pays for the propagation of falsehoods in the name of “opportunities for all”.
A professor who as head of department was already found to have engaged in defamation by high court and then was protected and allowed to continue in his role?
The Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge
If you’re talking about Professor Wyn Evans, he’s seen as a threat by administrators at Cambridge. His supporters and blog are also viewed with suspicion and hostility. Cambridge paid for the lawyers of Professor McMahon. It’s a wonder Professor Evans made it out of the smear campaign on the other side and with the blog still live.
Can I just say, why has no-one yet pushed back against the possibility that Arday also made up his autism diagnosis or was at some point simply misdiagnosed for some other disorder(s)?
I have lifelong autism, and I do not see in his interviews the mannerisms or behaviours that I would recognise as being on the spectrum. He maintains fixed eye contact without once looking down or looking away. He does not engage in any form of self-soothing “stimming” activity (which even highly-functional nerds like Bill Gates do from time to time).
But most of all, he is evidently lacking in the most elementary personality traits that are associated with autistic personality in academia – namely, excessive perfectionism, attention to detail, conscientiousness over accuracy, or sensitivity over minor errors. He declares in one interview that he believes in the triumph of “will over skill” and that just seems like the exact opposite of what every person in our community believes. And somehow, Cambridge has allowed him to “represent” us in the worst possible and grossly false and inaccurate light. Learning difficulties, yes. Mental health concerns, plenty. But autism? I am not convinced.
Agreed.
The other terrible thing about this is, if you are the parent of an autistic child, Arday’s story must have seemed an inspiration. Must be heart-breaking to find much of the story is constructed.
True – but if indeed Arday did make up his autism backstory, then there is a glorious sense of cosmic justice about the fact that many of the people who took him down are in fact rather on the spectrum.
In my view this is why Elon Musk called bullshit on Simon Baron Cohen via X yesterday.
Elon is effectively the world’s “autist-in-chief” after all and he has hired thousands of talented spectrum-y types over his career and driven employees to deliver amazing outcomes.
I bet Musk sees instantly that Arday’s personality doesn’t line up.
He’d then be as enraged as the rest of us by the attempt to use “autism” as an excuse for sloppiness and soft treatment – when that is the exact opposite of why you hire for neurodiversity in teams that require focus, precision and obsessive attention to detail.
True! When an autistic person is accused of plagiarism, they don’t report the accuser to the police!
Instead they write a 100-page word response, with hundreds of references and details, specifying every single reason why:
1. they are utterly right
2. why you are utterly wrong
3. and then, why you should never have held an academic post in the first place.
In short, a typical journal review / response piece.
Good point. I’d add that the same might be said regarding Arday’s self diagnosis of having dyslexia.
I think this is why they will ultimately have to fire Arday. I can fully understand why the Black community has been torn over this incident. After all, there is no doubt that Arday is Black – or that he was (or indeed still is) the youngest Black Professor at Cambridge. But he’s no hero in the neurodiversity space – except among neurotypical do-gooders who were looking to earn extra wokeness points.
Whatever shreds of credibility he may have had left, he destroyed completely in his Times interview when he blamed his acts of fraud as a result of autism. Disgusting and shameful.
Can the 21 Group share a PDF version of the article that BreakerMorant mentioned above on Orr & Thiel? I could not yet read the article, and I worry that the same happened to many people who do not have access to Byline Times.
We need to have MPs involved in the broader issue “Cambridge Scandals” as soon as possible and this story on Reform UK will likely attract their attention more than Arday’s, but if we cannot easily read and share the article, it is a problem… I intend to contact a few, and cc our friendly leadership.
“In summary, then, while we can agree that Arday’s career has been founded on lax standards, the perpetuation of flagrant fantasies and simply bad work, much of that same thing could be said about a great deal of what has been going on across the sector in recent decades. We expect less and less of undergraduates; we delude ourselves into thinking that universities are of profound importance in the project of global improvement and progress; we waste time producing an awful lot of unreadable, unhelpful ‘research’ that almost nobody reads. No, few of us have done anything as bad as the things Arday has been accused of. But we – I speak to any fellow academics reading this – are all implicated in a collective failing; it has happened on our watch.”
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/08/02/bloody-awful-work-creeps-in-when-standards-are-relaxed/
Again, suggesting that people saw this coming and did nothing… Not all.
Thank you for sharing it is a brutal yet honest piece. One point I would push back against though is the argument blaming REF for this outcome, as one can hardly fail to be aware that many of the humanities and social science departments at Cambridge (for example history, politics or education) have scored exceptionally poorly on the REF exercise in recent years. Meanwhile members of the sociology department with the highest REF rank (Oxford) have been clear in calling for Arday to be held to account.
The signatures keep increasing though… 13.2K at this stage. It is not that much compared to the number of people who have been following this saga, but still, 13.2K of people who could not care less about evidence. They would have a place in the current Cambridge University!
https://goodlawproject.org/petition/stand-in-solidarity-with-jason-arday/
Have you not signed ? You get an email back saying
Congratulations — you’ve passed the test. You are now officially qualified to work in University Human Resources, where responsibility is carefully diffused, accountability is optional, and the correct answer bears no relation to the truth.
You’ve demonstrated core competencies: prioritizing process over people, and delivering outcomes without honesty. Welcome aboard.
Damn it… Who signs it that email? The most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group? It would be hilarious if after expelling me from the University (twice!) she said “welcome aboard”… The key question is, how long will she stay aboard?
There are reasons to be suspicious of the Good Law Project. They were already refused permission for lack of standing in Good Law Project v EHRC in February 2026. So GLP after being publicly told by the High Court that they are not a proper party in a landmark equality case, they now launch a high-profile solidarity campaign whose factual assertions are visibly contested. It saddens me that Arday may be taking them down with him.
Scene: An Office at Universities UK
Viv: This has been really very damaging
Debs: That sounds a bit dramatic, Viv. Anyway, I just got another nice pay rise — pretty good, right?
Viv: We’re really at the end of our tether. We spend all our time trying to get MPs to take the crisis in university funding seriously.
Debs: I mean, I’ve got a big salary now, so I’m not really worried about that stuff. Everyone I know is absolutely loaded, Kamal and Bhaskar are doing just great.
Viv: Can’t you see, your handling of this, it makes us all look really, really bad. Really, really incompetent. We look like fools. We won’t get anymore money off the Govt if everybody thinks we’re wasting it.
Debs: My future’s fine — I just want some more first-class air travel.
Viv: You don’t care about how hard it’s getting for the universities, and everyone in them?
Debs: Not really, I did what I needed to do, now I just want more … before I bail out
The Telegraph just published another, with what I had said above on the Seven Up!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/02/cambridge-diversity-poster-boy-claims-he-was-in-seven-up/
“Prof Jason Arday says he featured in series that started in 1964… despite being born decades later”
5K comments already… one of the articles with more comments in The Telegraph in 2026, and just after 5h of being online!
Debbie: Hey [8.02, 07-16-2026]
Debbie: Hey [23.13, 07-17-2026]
Debbie: Hey [5.05, 07-19-2026]
Debbie: Hey [22.45, 07-20-2026]
Andy: fml debs busy rn ttyl [22.46, 07-20-2026]
Debbie: Hey [09.13, 07-21-2026]
Debbie: Hey [22.25, 07-22-2026]
Debbie: Hey [07.53, 07-23-2026]
Andy: ffs debs educ white ppr nxt wk [23.46, 07-24-2026]
Andy: smdh stfu ru serious? plz talk asap fml [23.47, 07-24-2026]
[voice call; 8 minutes; 23.47, 07-24-2026]
Is it possible that she is in a pub drinking since last week to forget this mess? It is not every day that one will be remembered as the most useless Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University!
On the markers of success of a VC according to The Critic:
https://thecritic.co.uk/is-the-cambridge-vc-worth-it/
“Is it all really worth it? Faced with financial deficits, internal dissent and rising recruitment troubles, the University waits to see what the clear markers of success for Prentice and her team will emerge to be.”
October 2025 (shortly after Carter-Ruck being hired to silent Jack Grove/THE)
Arrivederci Prentice!
https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2026/08/02/news/jason_arday_professore_nero_cambridge_caso_plagio-425507873/
This raises a depressing concern as to whether Prentice and team, much like Arday himself, have acquired a regrettable and perverse incentive to hold at Cambridge (on full salary) until the bitter end.
After all … if the story has made Italy, Canada, France, and the Netherlands (as well as obviously causing a firestorm in the USA), they are presumably burned right now for fresh appointment at any other institution, and not simply across the UK, but worldwide. We could be stuck with this fiasco for months if not years… Sorry to be bearer of bad news……
She (& the rest of the senior leadership) can be no-confidenced by Regent House, no?
Suspect this is where things are headed, especially if they cannot appoint a proper senior leadership team by Michaelmas and then things simply continue to deteriorate. But it is not a simple process and the chaos of the last week feels more like the start of a civil war than the end, will have to reach absolute rock bottom before RH finally wakes up. Who will take over? What is the process?
That would be the ultimate embarrassment! We do not even need to wait for the external audit of HR and the Research Integrity Office as the current behaviour of VC & Co shows their true quality as senior managers.
The University would gladly surrender any number of scalps, from the VC down, and then change nothing. That’s what Cambridge does: it chews people up and spits them out. Institutionally, it has survived centuries of scandal.
A quick history lesson: the most interesting example of an external review was the CAPSA review from Profs. Shattock & Finkelstein in 2001. The University had spent £10million on a new finance system which failed to work, crippling the University’s management of its finances. The review did not hold back, and made a series of major structural and organisational change recommendations. The Council responded by absolving any individual of responsibility, although apologies were made. Confidence in the University’s administration was at an all time low, despite all this being conducted in public, and the VC of the time calling a Discussion himself and personally chairing it. The Board of Scrutiny bemoaned the fact that “decisions just happen… and no one is accountable”. Twenty-five years later the issue is reputation overriding integrity, but the diagnosis is the same.
The prize, in my opinion, should not be resignations, but genuine resolve from the University to examine and change how it handles the reporting of misconduct. If there’s to be a Grace, the timing is important. Perhaps wait until the Evans tribunal has reported, and the CRUK and POLIS scandals are public.
I do not agree with more waiting. Until then further members will continue to be bullied and harassed, or eventually expelled as I was for openly challenging the state of affairs. Each week that passes is one more week for potential new victims, and another week in the lives of past victims that never had justice in this University. Not everyone had the chance the bring their cases to Court/Tribunal.
I’m not saying wait to act. I’m saying draft the Grace now and submit it when their pattern of behaviour is independently well documented and undeniable. Regent House can’t vote on anything until October anyway. A Grace just focussed on one case (Arday) may fail and the administration is safe for another 25 years. That’s the outcome with the most victims.
We have been discussing several Graces:
– Grace 1 asking for external audit of HR (waiting for signatures)
– Grace 2 asking for external audit of Research Integrity Office (waiting for submission to Ms Ceri Benton, Draftsman)
– Grace 3 working as an explicit no-confidence motion regarding VC, ProVCs and the people who feed them with information, namely the Academic Secretary and the Director of Governance and Compliance Division.
Grace 1 and Grace 2 do not need more waiting. These external audits are urgently needed because they will take to take place and results obtained. Grace 3 may wait for more cases to be public, but if members of Regent House did not understand how badly managed Cambridge currently after Arday, they must be sleeping! The case of Arday is not just 1 case, judging from its press coverage, it one of the most damaging scandals for this institution, and an embarrassment to all its members. The VC should apologize in the name of all involved, assume accountability, and explain the outstanding questions, but obviously she will not do it because she is a weak leader.
Thanks. I actually wasn’t aware that Grace 3 had been proposed in quite those terms.
Clearly the first two are simply requests for audits, and need to happen as soon as possible.
The third is of a different kind: it invites a verdict. No confidence should be founded on a failure of process, and the subverting of institutional justice. The case will be stronger when the external audits have reported and the wider pattern is on the record.
https://x.com/yuanyi_z/status/2083989079314587678
“Thanks to [anonymous] for pointing out that Professor Dame Ijeoma Uchegbu, President of Wolfson College, Cambridge, has removed her name from the Good Law Project open letter.”
Three Cheers for Dame Uchegbu if she did indeed remove her name. We should celebrate though who do the right thing and stand up for truth, even after some initial missteps. Now will the other College heads and prominent professors like Sir Baron Cohen also stand up to do what is correct and moral? They can restore their damaged reputations.
We should also salute black scholars who came under pressure to sign (as some have posted here), but held back
https://x.com/PaperWhispers/status/2082878988586746137
“Friends, Black academics, your name is yours to carry with pride, not to be ammunition for a fight that will hurt everyone in the periphery.
Do not sign anything if you have even the slightest doubt.” (Dr. Ruby Zelzer)
Kind of incredible there is anyone still on it tbh
We have fresh news!!!! The Telegraph is rocking it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/02/scandal-think-tank-appoint-cambridge-diversity-poster-boy/
Morgan survived CUH scandals unscathed but is going down thanks to Arday. Pfff what a crazy world…
Meanwhile seems the “progressives” who appointed him have just set up the perfect hit operation on Burnham.
So well done guys. Andy is really proud of you.
I love the fact they keep reminding people of some hilarious ideas:
““I can’t make people believe me,” he said. “Nobody lives their life having a receipt for every single thing they say or they’ve done.” He insisted that he had been subjected to a “dark arts” campaign.”
I initially thought Baroness Morgan should be cut some slack as an independent chair of the appointment committee. After all, it was the academic members who should have known Arday’s work and we are told it was a unanimous decision. Having seen some videos of Arday talking about what he does I’m now less sure.
On appointment committees, the Chair normally only votes in a tie. Thanks to Cremin, we know the academic members were unanimous, which seems extraordinary.
It would be very interesting to know who else was shortlisted for this position.
Gotta say, that however deplorable the situation is, and however accountable Arday and his managers need to be, @TheResearcher loses all credibility every time he praise-posts racist headlines calling a 41 year old Black male a ‘boy.’ Vintage racist language. That’s a racist headline. It doesn’t change the fact of Arday’s misdeeds but it is a racist headline from a racist paper. That weakens anyone who wants to pressure the University to do the right thing in this case. Making it a diversity case is also racist.
Strange also how few blogs and outrage the O’Reilly case appears to have elicited here other than passing comments. Did we have a lot of media attention to that, and did we have headlines calling him a ‘boy’ or ‘paddy’? Did we have aspersions cast on all white men by wonderful rightwing media? Statistically far more white men at Cambridge have committed plagiarism, and of an even more egregious kind in many cases. We have white men who committed sexual harassment and paedophilia. Did you all spend ages and ages bellyaching about individual cases? No, because a lot of you, not least the Researcher, are convinced that it’s only the likes of Arday who ‘took jobs’ from you or your mates. He didn’t. In fact, the other candidate who came close was also of colour and far more distinguished.
Yes, we’ve seen the token allusions to the O Reilly or Goldhill cases. But I can’t see the pages and pages of blogs on them.
The Goldhill case was covered in a lot of detail and there was harrowing testimony from one of his victims. There were 4 blog postings on it.
https://21percent.org/?p=3485
https://21percent.org/?p=3528
https://21percent.org/?p=3566
https://21percent.org/?p=3588
That is far from “a token allusion”. The O’Reilly case is ongoing and sub judice, but we expect to be covering it in more depth.
Coverage depends on how much information we have.
The Arday case played out in real time in the media. It is also a highly significant case for multiple reasons — much more so than Goldhill or Huppert.
The 21 Group is very open to contributions — you are very welcome to write a blog contribution and send it to us on [email protected]
It has been pointed by a number of posters that some of the headlines are racist.
@Spectre,
You are very wrong about me and my motivations. I could not care less about the race of people who engage in misconduct and surely Arday did not take my job. I was doing a second PhD at Cambridge as a part-time student in History after doing a PhD in Oxford in Biology and was expelled from the Cambridge for reporting misconduct of senior staff, Professors and HR (https://21percent.org/?p=3618).
I can assure you that once the following scandals associated with Cambridge break in the news, I will posted them here too. Note above what I ask about Orr and what I intend to do.
p.s. I should note that I did not make complaints of Professors of History (or History of Science, to be more precise as I was in HPS), but from DAMTP, the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, where I was working. I never had any problem with the Professors where I was doing my degree and they never had problems with me. Just in case the message above was not clear.
1. There has been plenty of 21% coverage of the O’Reilly case.
2. TheResearcher does not write headlines for the Telegraph. I for one am grateful for his press links, which have been informative.
“Spectre” was terminology used by a KC recently, in a very public Employment Tribunal – in lieu of “conspiracy theory”.
Coincidence no doubt.
Another one at the Daily Mail. At this point, if half of these claims made in major media sources are true, it seems that the fellow is a serial liar.
https://mol.im/a/16023581
At any private company everyone involved in this would have been fired by now – the academics on the hiring committee, the faculty of education, the lawyers who appointed Carter-Ruck, the individuals on any research integrity panel, and most of the press office.
And another at The Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/jason-arday-pigs-head-claim-k7j8bwl08
@Spectre
You’re right about the vintage racist language in the racist headlines. Some of those same newspapers covered O’Reilly and used vintage racist language about Irish people, too. O’Reilly’s also gay, and the Tortoise insinuated he was a pedo. A jolly and generous Irish man grooming boys.
There wasn’t much outrage, no, you’re right about that. The racist headlines were generally accepted w/o question. Irish (Catholic) people in England have had their own historic experiences with racism.
The focus on race is itself racist. You’re not wrong, but O’Reilly was attacked in the media over a long period, and the university certainly didn’t hire Carter Ruck or pressure the Varsity to stop their stories. To the contrary. You probably didn’t see the stories b/c two were taken down for making TH look bad.
It’s more important to question the University’s two-tier systems of justice (including the Dr Graham Calbert case) that affects everyone than to lose our power fighting a self-defeating race war. The University arguably created these scandals.
Dr Calbert Graham