Very tragic news has broken about the death of Jason Arday.
Whatever mistakes you may have made, and whatever controversies surrounded you, your life was worth more than the way it was ultimately treated.
You were placed in situations where others appeared to take advantage of you, using your vulnerabilities and circumstances to serve their own interests. At times, it seems you were not simply exploited but mistreated by those around you.
Behind the controversy, there was a human being who was struggling, who was vulnerable, and who needed understanding, compassion and meaningful support. Whatever people thought of you, you deserved the opportunity to receive help rather than being defined solely by your difficulties or by the way others chose to portray you.
And yet, when you appeared to need help most, it was was nowhere to be found. As the criticism, condemnation and hostility intensified, there appeared to be very little concern for the person behind it all. The sheer weight of what you were facing must have been overwhelming, and it is heartbreaking to think that, amid all of it, there was no one able to provide the care, protection or intervention you needed.
Ultimately, you were left to carry an unbearable burden largely on your own. That you should have had to face the end of your life in such circumstances is very sad. Whatever disagreements people may have had with you, you were still a human being deserving of dignity, compassion and care.
Your death is a tragedy, but it is made even more painful by the sense that you were failed when you were at your most vulnerable.
RIP, Jason Arday.
Another victim.
RIP Jason.
Condolences to his family and friends.
This could have been any of us caught up in the Cambridge legal grinder, and very nearly was, in more than one instance.
This is so sad and I agree that this could have happened to me when I faced my own investigation. When it was over after nearly 2 years of fear and worry, I didn’t even get an apology. I said to my partner – “ if I die, do you think they will say sorry?”
RIP Jason. UCam failed you!
Terrible news. Clear he was out of his depth with the newspaper interviews he gave a couple of weekends ago. He needed help then
Let us never forget that two months ago, when Professor Wyn Evans cried in court for the death of a colleague who had committed suicide, the official response of the University of Cambridge, via barrister KC Reindorf, was to accuse him in public of showing “crocodile tears”.
Cambridge showed no empathy or pity for either Professor Evans or the woman whose life ended unnecessarily. This is the culture that Gardner, Hudson and their ilk have birthed. One entirely without care, responsibility, duty or love, and in which those who do express compassion are shamed and humiliated as weak.
The sight of Sam Gardner giving the KC a “thumbs up” after that disgraceful incident is the worst thing I have ever witnessed from any university.
Extracts from the judgement (which is definitive rather than to be “considered” as suggested to all IoA staff yesterday)
466. Professor Harper issued the outcome letter on 16 May 2024 after being provided with comments from Ms Gardner the in-house solicitor. We draw no negative inference from the act of seeking legal advice as it is normal to seek legal input on matters like this. The comments from Ms Gardner have been redacted as they are entitled to be on the basis of legal privilege.
467. We nevertheless acknowledge that Ms Gardner provided legal support to various different people in this matter at different times and with respect to overlapping complaints about them, and this is a factor we take into consideration when turning our minds to the issue of whether this forms part of what the Claimant argues to be Groupthink or organisational enmity on the part of the Respondents and their witnesses towards him as a whistleblower.
This statement is incorrect. The ThumbsUp was a response to a witness, clearly well-briefed, carefully stating that all letter-writing support came from “legal”. It was already apparent that HR being “credited” by so many senior people with drafting decisions was damaging. As indeed it became in the judgement. Legal however are protected and allowed to remain redacted.
________
Cambridge showed no empathy or pity for either Professor Evans or the woman whose life ended unnecessarily
.______________
Yes, and Cambridge is not rewriting their suffering or tragic death as a hero story– like they’re doing with Dr Arday. All the fraud is erased from the plot. It’s more evidence of two-tier systems of justice for favoured academics of the administration.
Ten months ago, the 21 Group published this post on me:
https://21percent.org/?p=2837
It was one of the lowest points of my life, and it got worse until Christmas when a doctor back in Portugal told me that I had lost half of my vision since our last encounter. I had absolutely no support from the University and indeed the University even used the post above against me to expel me as a Cambridge student because I was criticising their actions. The University completely ignored the letters from my GP, whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals from third parties about my state. The University carried on with their investigations against me and applied an unprecedented number of “precautionary measures” to silence and break me because I dared to openly challenge the culture of cover up of misconduct we have in this institution.
As some posters said above, this tragedy could happen with any of the victims of serious abuses at Cambridge University. We can help to prevent this and similar incidents in the future by demanding an independent and externally-led investigation of what has been happening in Cambridge when it comes to reports of misconduct and make those responsible accountable for their actions.
You didn’t say what happened. You talked about how you felt.
I understand the issues surrounding it, but would you give a public account if it was anonymised?
As you argue things won’t change unless these things are known. So I’m interested in understanding if people actually would if a safe way was provided.
This is very sad news indeed.
Internal processes which could and should have addressed this matter early, discreetly and with compassion and support, are no longer operational in the University of Cambridge.
This has now thankfully been brought to the attention of all with the judgment of Prof Evans’ case.
Agreed, the common theme is complete lack of safeguarding
Safeguarding at Cambridge: here is the NHS counsellling phone number, in the meantime we will ignore everything you report and continue to bully and harass you until you disappear just like the rest eventually did
The death of Dr Arday is one of the worst outcomes of the public demands of Cambridge for accountability. This young academic deserved to be assisted and looked after from the moment the plagiarism, data falsification and fabricated biological claims were reported. The apparent cover-up by the university started with the failure to investigate and continued up to Dr Arday’s death. ‘Agreed, the common theme is complete lack of safeguarding.’
Commentators who have faced HR and Legal have referred to having suicidal thoughts, if not suicide attempts. It does seem the university stalls or ignores cases as to make ‘problems’ and ‘difficult people’ like whistleblowers disappear. I have privately discussed with colleagues how Wyn Evans survived. I know other victims of retaliation and defamation who have attempted suicide or been on suicide watch multiple times.
The problems of HR and Legal’s approach, making problems disappear, are myriad. The approach can double or triple victimise the whistleblowers. It denies everyone the right to repair a broken system. It stops finding of fact and refuses to allow victims and perpetrators to be reintegrated into the academic communities that cast them out.
Because let us not forget that whistleblowers are also expelled from their communities, as their cases are extended, and the complete lack of safeguarding may result in their deaths too.
Tributes paid to Jason Arday with comments from Simon Baron-Cohen:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9982znvyk4o
I find it odd that all these Cambridge people like SBC are now claiming how hard they were working to console Arday, whom they set up to fail, but when Cambridge itself decided to eliminate and destroy successful and honest academics, they were nowhere to be see. What total hypocrites.
Indeed
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/15/world/europe/jason-arday-cambridge-hiring-questions.html
That is a very good article.
“Heidi Mirza, an emeritus professor of education at University College London who once mentored Dr. Arday, said in an interview this past week that he had been ill-served by university administrators’ carelessness in their efforts to demonstrate their commitment to diversity. “He’s a pawn,” she said, “whose ambition made him vulnerable.”
Her comment is insightful.
The grandiosity of the biological claims of Dr Arday, such as having survived Cancer, been illiterate and run a marathon with a stress fracture, may have been because he believed joining Cambridge requires exceptionalism and extreme brilliance. He would be no different in this belief from most of the population. His fantastical claims may have reflected his fantasy image of Cambridge. The may have been shattered with the harsh reality of the complete lack of safeguarding.
It’s infuriating that Cofnas & friends didn’t look into someone like O’Reilly or reflect on the fact that Wagner, of Connolly memory, is now a trustee at St Edmund’s. It makes my blood curdle. But hey, they are not racist, are they? Disgusting.
It is the job of the Research Integrity Office to look into plagiarism allegations.
It’s fair to say they have a lot of questions to answer about a number of cases, including the ones mentioned.
I agree about Dr Wagner. Thank you for this comment.
I beg to differ about Dr O’Reilly. If you check the news, I believe you should find numerous articles that attack Dr O’Reilly. He was first accused of mishandling a student complaint at Trinity Hall and then of plagiarism by an unknown student complainant. I believe you may see that, unlike Dr Arday, he has rarely spoken. In law, the finding of fact requires more than one side only.
As for racism, the Irish in England have their own history of being considered to be second class. Dr O’Reilly was not spared that form of racism from the articles I have read. The death of Dr Arday reinforces that the Culture Wars and personal attacks must have no place in the problem of research misconduct by star professors.
However, I agree with you: Cofnas & friends ought to look into the Dr O’Reilly case and report their findings of fact.
Cambridge University is blind to the misery it inflicts on its employees. The HR Department, Research Office, School.of Clinical Medicine and Regius Professor didn’t think twice before destroying an honest, hardworking and productive group of Cancer Research UK scientists in the Department of Oncology..
They just could not be bothered to investigate the easily disprovable malicious allegations that began the whole saga. They took the path of least resistance, sided with the people they perceived to be the “in-group” , faked the appearance of independent investigations, subjected everyone to years of suffering and costly legal expenses by grinding them through their ludicrous meaningless managerial protocols.
They seem completely oblivious to the suffering they cause by their incompetence. There could easily have been incidents of self-harm among the CRUK people they pursued so relentlesly and unjustly. Of course if that had happened, they would have just shrugged and got everyone to sign another round of NDAs, before moving on to another wrecking exercise somewhere else in the University.
Sam Levans is right.
The stalling of a university process extends the injustice, prolongs the suffering of the whistleblowers and creates more victims.
The CRUK case is a tragedy global in scale.
The sentiments in this post about dignity, compassion and safeguarding are important. Perhaps they should prompt some reflection not only on the University’s conduct, but also on the way this site conducts its own campaigning.
The recent whistleblowing tribunal judgment is a powerful reminder that processes involving allegations can have profound human consequences. It emphasises the importance of safeguarding health and wellbeing, and strongly criticises failures of natural justice. Those are lessons the University must take seriously. But surely they apply more widely too.
This blog has carried repeated personal criticism, ridicule and calls for named University staff to lose their jobs, including people whose professional responsibilities required them to deal with difficult allegations through established processes, with fairness, confidentiality and appropriate regard for everyone involved. One can disagree strongly with particular decisions without assuming bad faith on the part of everyone involved.
If, as the 21 Group now says, the common theme is a “complete lack of safeguarding”, where is the safeguarding for those people? They are human beings too, with families, careers and wellbeing that can be affected by sustained public attack.
Robust scrutiny is entirely legitimate. Personal vilification is not necessary to achieve it. Perhaps the most constructive response to recent events would be for the 21 Group to model the standards it rightly expects of the University: challenge decisions and institutions vigorously, but extend dignity, fairness and humanity to everyone involved.
There would seem to be a serious imbalance of power — administrators investigate academics, destroy their careers, their research and drive them to near-suicide.
There is no possibility for the administrators themselves to be investigated. No-one from HR — who have caused very serious problems in the University — has ever been found guilty of misconduct.
Maybe if that were changed, maybe if there was real responsibility, then we would not need the 21 Group website at all.
Whatever happens with regard to the Arday investigation, we guarantee the really culpable people will not be held to account.
“This blog has carried repeated personal criticism, ridicule and calls for named University staff to lose their jobs, including people whose professional responsibilities required them to deal with difficult allegations through established processes, with fairness, confidentiality and appropriate regard for everyone involved. One can disagree strongly with particular decisions without assuming bad faith on the part of everyone involved”
We dispute these sentences. This is clearly not happening. This is the problem
The whole point of Employment Judge Graham’s judgment is that this was emphatically not the case in Astronomy. Has the University acted on this Judgment by disciplining any of the individuals involved?
Outsider, if I may, assuming that by Outsider you mean that you are not a member of Cambridge University and never interacted with these people, namely those who address reports of misconduct, then please understand that many people in this University actively damage people’s lives. There is not fairness in their investigations when they decided a priori the outcome. Confidentiality is used and abused in this institution to manipulate information and cover up misconduct. This has been a recurrent pattern across cases from different departments and schools. And yet, the University continues to deny this fact and humiliates victims with videos like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pizOGdQK4tE
TheResearcher: I appreciate your response and admire the determination of people who are prepared to challenge powerful institutions when they believe something has gone badly wrong. The persistence and courage people have shown in continuing to raise concerns when they feel established processes have failed is commendable.
Wyn’s tribunal case exemplifies this. The judgment is extremely serious, and he deserves considerable respect for having had the determination to pursue it and to reveal failures from which the University clearly needs to learn and respond.
So I hope nothing I wrote appeared to dismiss the experiences you describe, and I apologise if it did. I can understand why people who have experienced, or witnessed, processes they believe to be profoundly unfair will become sceptical about claims of confidentiality, rigour, transparency and fairness.
I suspect, in fact, that we agree on more than might initially appear. The concerns expressed here about accountability, fairness, wellbeing and the human consequences of institutional actions are important ones, and I take them seriously.
My point is simply that those principles become even more powerful when we apply them universally. Recognising institutional failure should not require us to assume that every individual working within an imperfect system is acting dishonestly or maliciously. Some will be people trying in good faith to deal with extraordinarily difficult situations, under considerable pressure and within structures that may themselves be flawed.
They may make mistakes, and their decisions should absolutely be scrutinised. Where there is wrongdoing or error, there should be accountability, and you are right to insist upon that and to campaign for it.
But accountability and humanity are not opposing principles. The people whose decisions we question have feelings, families, reputations and wellbeing of their own.
One of the strongest messages I take from Wyn’s case, and indeed from many of the concerns raised on this site, is that institutions must never lose sight of the human consequences of their actions. I think that principle is at its strongest when we are prepared to extend it even to people with whom we disagree.
That seems particularly important after a tribunal case which has shown us all, amongst many other things, how damaging processes can become when the humanity of the people caught up in them is lost.
Safeguarding cannot sensibly mean safeguarding only the people whose side we happen to be on.
Thank you for clarifying your position.
I can only talk on my behalf, but other victims may feel something similar. There is no “disagreement” when one of the parties actively manipulates information and uses power differences to retaliate and humiliate members, staff and students, who do not accept the culture of cover up of this institution. In the case of Evans vs Cambridge, for example, there was no genuine disagreement because those individuals knew perfectly well what they had done to Wyn and other victims of IoA and preferred to cover it up.
I have personally never said that all members of HR, leadership or any other group of Cambridge University are incompetent and corrupt, but I know for a fact that many I interacted with are, and they continue working as usual, with the potential for damaging the lives of other staff and students, despite my reports and the reports from others. These people do exist at Cambridge University, and they are protected by the senior leadership. In parallel to this, many members are aware of these practices, and the consequences to those who speak up, but look the other way.
Many individuals from Cambridge University have done everything they could to silence and break me for over 3 years, and some of them have done the same to others prior to me. They will continue with the same practices if they are not exposed. That is the only thing that I and others are asking: that this culture of cover up and retaliation against whistleblowers ends once and for all, so that the victims can move on with their lives without the worry that what happened to them may happen to others.
@Outsider
The University of Cambridge is a public institution. All employees of the University of Cambridge are public figures. The administrators and most senior officials are no exception. They are professional agents who make decisions the public has a right to be informed of and to criticise.
You seem to be advocating for public figures to be treated as private individuals in their public roles. Accountability does not work that way. Democracy does not work that way. You must surely be aware of the differentiating characteristics between democracy and dictatorship.
The imbalance of power at Cambridge and the false information campaigns are radically extreme to the point of destroying careers and lives. You must ask yourself why Dr Arday has suffered death when there were many opportunities for the university to address the matters that Mr Cofnas ultimately reported. The power of the university and its administrators extended over the media.
This dear blog by a professor despised by the university is the only place where victims of retaliation and defamation can gather and discuss the issues. Most whistleblowers are hopelessly powerless in comparison to the university and its administrators. By your logic, you are placing the powerless on the same level as the most powerful. It is as if to argue that commentators on newspaper articles are on the same level as the media companies and journalists themselves. It is utter nonsense!
If you are from a democratic country, your responsibility as a citizen is to be informed and to hold those governing accountable. Do not condemn the community here for honouring our duties! Public figures accepted positions that come with public scrutiny and criticism. They have the right to step down at any time but not to be treated as private figures when in public roles.
For reference to the double-standard condemnation:
‘This blog has carried repeated personal criticism, ridicule and calls for named University staff to lose their jobs, including people whose professional responsibilities required them to deal with difficult allegations through established processes, with fairness, confidentiality and appropriate regard for everyone involved.’
Hitler had a family.
The Nazis had families.
What’s your point. Millions of deaths don’t count b/c THEY HAVE FAMILIES? Don’t scrutinize or criticize or name b/c THEY HAVE FAMILIES!
You’re mixing public and private.
It reeks of the Trumps and is plain wrong.
You don’t want names, you ain’t for accountability.
The good thing about ET and grievances and complaints is that: there are some good people reading the emails on the other side and being silenced too. The more people know, the wider the impact. Silence is not louder than the truth. One day, those that have been silenced to cover up, will also raise up. It is all a matter of time.
Jason wasn’t the first staff suicide at Cambridge. But, if we work together to end the culture of retaliation, then he could still be the last.
What he was accused of is nothing compared to others who are protected by the institution, and who would never become a story. He was thrown to the wolves and Prentice and the entire leadership should resign. They have failed throughout and are either incompetent or uncaring – either way their positions are untenable.
“The people whose decisions we question have feelings, families, reputations and wellbeing of their own.”
These people had a responsibility.
As academics they should have relied on evidence i.e. determined whether a allegation is true or false, rather than “difficult”. Not relied on second-hand information or an HR brief. That is why they would have been called “investigators” or “responsible person”, and rewarded for their efforts.
As HR administrators they should have done their jobs, advise on process (correctly if possible) and not engage in decision-making or influencing, or in the provision of legal advice (or “advice from legal”)
These people are now accountable for their mistakes. There is no call for them to be treated without fairness or justice.
In the meantime, the victims (in Astronomy) have received no apology and no justice, for years of hounding, of mistrust, malicious gossip, public humiliation, demotion, defamation, loss of standing, simply for telling the truth, duly substantiated by evidence, about the actions and accusations of Professor McMahon.
To say nothing about humanity or consideration for their feelings and wellbeing.
As yesterday’s message by the co-directors made abundantly clear, that is not about to happen anytime soon.
Indeed.
In my experience heads of institution dictate what the working culture is like and are ultimately responsible for many HR issues. Some are absolute dictators and when joined by like minded administrators, they can make everyone’s life a misery. If they want some action taken, the whole bureaucratic machinery usually supports them no matter how mad or bad. Although, one previous HR Director did intervene to stop a dismissal against the wishes of a HoD and DA (technically justified but not at all the right thing to do given the circumstances – which were caused by the aggressive attitude of the DA). That director did not last long.
On the other hand, some institutional administrators do their absolute best to juggle the demands from the centre, legal compliance and the wishes of academics, often with no thanks from anyone. I would not like to be the secretary of an appointments committee in the present circumstances. The academics make the decisions and a scoring spreadsheet doesn’t make any difference when they want their favourite (no matter that essential criteria are not met). It’s most likely the administrator who will face any future criticism and have no support from anyone.
Many support staff, whatever their grade or role, work hard and try to do their best.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/notices/news/message-from-the-vice-chancellor-15-august-2026
A former colleague of mine at Cambridge was bulled by HR to the point of making a suicide attempt.
He thought that by informing HR and the university lawyers of what they had done to him, would bring them to stop.
It did not.
What they did next is a story that must be told.
He told the Vice Chancellor as well, she never replied. While they all compose words about Jason Arday, they should know that their words will be judged against their actions, and compared side by side.
@Anonymous
Your post is why blogs like this one are important. They create a record of what is happening in an institution that is hostile to paper trails.
The case of your former colleague does seem to be a story that must be told.
Probably not the only case. There’s an episode like this from the same week Arday was hired.
So why has the story not been told?
@Hope
Most scholars want to be known for their positive contribution to science and the enterprise of advancing human knowledge. We want to be known for the minds that we helped to foster and the careers that we helped to launch. We do not want to be known forever as “victims” who were destroyed by a combination of administrative incompetence, senior resentment, and a twist of petty spite. Even when all those things really happened and caused immense pain and suffering.
A lot of people hold on to their dignity in silence for a long time in the hope of a justice that never comes, and this is the saddest untold story of all.
People do not lose their dignity for reporting what happened to them and silence does not save the next potential victim. What happens in UCam in particular is that many people are afraid of the consequences of speaking out, both victims and bystanders, and for good reason given the level of retaliation that exists in the institution. Those who speak, can, and often do, experience extreme retaliation.
One of the lowest points for me was mentally resisting a mental breakdown in a toy shop with my child during this ongoing whistleblowing situation. When my child asked if he could have a lego set – something I wouldn’t normally agree to when it was not a special occasion – I said yes you can have anything in the toy shop you want because I wasn’t sure I’d be alive to buy the next birthday present and I thought you may as well have one time in a toy shop where you can buy anything you want. You may as well have some happy memories to insulate you later in life from what life will throw at you.
Some might think high risk mental states are something a person can easily find their way out of but in my experience it can be very hard to find your way out of a high risk mental state. If an ongoing highly complex situation forces your mind to mentally approach some of these highly irrational mental states it becomes clear it is possible for a person to die of mental complexity in one of them. It’s possible to reach a point where you can find no mental solution to the mental complexity in the high risk mental state.
That is not to say a mental solution to the mental complexity does not exist or that it is not possible to simplify the mental complexity in some way and find a mental solution to the residual mental complexity. That is to say your mind could be in a highly irrational mental state and you might not have the mental capacity to find any solution to that highly irrational mental state your mind ended up in. This is fundamentally different to a mental solution to that highly irrational mental state not existing. A person could be an extremely strong swimmer, that doesn’t mean an unpredictable undercurrent could not test the person to the limits of their swimming ability and there is never any risk of the person drowning.
It took me a long time to fully appreciate that not all high risk mental states are the same. There are different types of high risk mental states and without working out what type of high risk mental state you are dealing it can be very difficult to get out of it. In order to work out the type of high risk mental state you are dealing it may be necessary to understand the mental systems behind the high risk mental state. The potential risk of trying to do this is you push your mind from an already irrational mental state – high risk mental state – into an even more irrational mental state – even more high risk mental state – that you might not be able to simplify and/or find a mental solution to [short term increase in the risk of death]. The potential reward of trying to do this is that you might be able to understand the type of high risk mental state you are dealing with and to work out how to get past it [long term reduction in the risk of death].
The high risk mental state I was dealing with on that day seemed to be connected to mental systems that evaluate person-group situations which in hindsight is not surprising because I was in a whistleblowing situation but at the time it wasn’t obvious to me what was happening to my mind other than it breaking. These are the mental systems that deal with power of a person within a group, how connected a group is to each other in relation to a person, how adversarial relations between a group and a person are. The risk is getting stuck in a mental state with extreme delusions of e.g. persecution i.e. of mentally predicting a rapid drop in power in a group, rapid increase in group connectivity in relation to you and rapid increase in adversarial relations with a group.
Some of the high risk mental states possible when doing mental calculations with these mental systems in a highly complex, highly unpredictable, high pressure person-group situation – e.g. a complex ongoing whistleblowing situation – are extreme. It is possible to rapidly mentally oscillate between no power extreme persecution states and infinite power extreme saviour states. It can extremely difficult to maintain a ground state of being a normal power person who is neither being persecuted nor a saviour in the local John Lewis because that’s the nearest toy shop with one extremely happy child who has just been given permission to buy anything they want in that toy shop, a normal power person looking at joy without limits.
I think the maintenance or loss of mental stability comes down to the fraction of time that is being spent by the mind in each of these different mental states and how rapidly the mind is oscillating between them. Feeling a rapid increase in fear during those mental calculations that are subconsciously running in your mind and not being able to determine the new limits of that fear is like a forced swim test in seas of inestimable depth in the dead of night in the nadir of winter …. it’s fear without limits – limitless terror … the feeling of fear without limits is not feeling a person will survive for very long … your life depends on your mind being able to find the new limits of fear & to find them quickly.
They punish you because they fucked your employment up and left themselves open to an employment tribunal with you even raising anything to do with your employment. They punish you for their own fuckups in order to better protect themselves from their own fuck ups.
“with you even raising anything to do with your employment” should have been “without you even raising anything to do with your employment” in the post above.
@Hannelore
In my case it wasn’t clear what the best thing to do was to reduce the overall health risk – understand the situation or get out of the situation. It wasn’t clear to me that if I went off a took any job or no job at all that either would reduce the overall health risk and potential impact on my child.
It wasn’t clear that if I abandoned trying to understand the health risk that the health risk would leave me alone and everything would be OK in the longer term. It was a case of estimating whether the temporary increase in health risk necessary to finish understanding the health risk was likely to bring about an overall reduction in health risk in the longer term or not and whether anything could be done to slow down the mental processing and to bring it under more control and incur less of a temporary increase in health risk.
It is possible to find yourself in a life situation that had you known such a life situation was a possibility you would have tried much harder to avoid that life situation but since you’ve ended up a life situation because you didn’t know such a life situation was a possibility there is then no choice but to work out how to deal with that life situation.
I thought of this situation as a work-related stress accident. There is no intention to harm but the system is set up in such a way that a person is more likely to be harmed if they end up in a particular employment situation e.g. dismissal at the end of a fixed-term contract where the objective justification for the use of the fixed term contract stated on the fixed term contract is false. There is then no particular reason to dismiss the person at the end date stated on the fixed term contract because the fixed-term contract itself is legally flawed – it’s an arbitrary dismissal.
That is what you feel in these dismissal situations – arbitrariness – you show up and the name has been taken of your office door and when your students ask you why that happened you don’t know why. Teaching is offered, retracted, re-offered in the form of a job competition against another internal candidate and external candidates all while you are kicked out of your employment coupled accommodation and your child is kicked out of their employment coupled nursery at which point teaching is re-offered. The organisation fires you from teaching and then forgets it fired you and demands teaching from you. You find out you are no longer have college work from the person who has been given the college work. You are left dealing with 3 GPs & 5 medical consultants interacting with 5 line managers and HR from 3 employers on workload adjustments. Emails to ask you to administer sharing your equipment with everyone in the university but yourself because you have blocked from accessing it. Emails to tell you there is a bonus payment for everyone in the organisation who helped the organisation during the pandemic except for you for whom there is a non payment of wages for the work you did during the pandemic. Comment in your official capacity as a charity trustee on the university suicide prevention strategy after you have raised work-related stress regulation concerns and been dismissed. You’d want bulletproof mental stamina and mental stability to put up with years of this from an organisation in one of these situations.
What I experienced is decades of pent up internal systemic problems let loose to run riot in a persons life by a series of external crises. The Cambridge undercurrent in stormy conditions.
I wanted to get to a higher standard of academic work to sustainably work on what looked to be a very challenging academic problem and to develop an accurate understanding of mental health. Wanting to work well above the minimum standard of a prestigious organisation is not the same as wanting a permanent academic post in a prestigious organisation. I was open to moving on to working in any of a wide range of academic organisations in the UK before academic organisations in the UK started making people redundant.
It took me too long to realise that one risk of a person trying to improve their own performance without close coordination with an organisation or the reciprocal process of an organisation trying to performance manage a person without close coordination with a person is the risk of dumping stress on other people during any attempt at performance improvement.
This is what seemed to be expected of me in academia, that I would unilaterally improve my own performance, and I did unilaterally improve my own performance before unintentionally fucking it up completely and realising one risk of this unilateral system of performance regulation in academia is dumping stress on other people during every attempt at performance improvement.
It’s not even that the standard of my academic work would have been out of range for Cambridge. It was that the academic problem looked like it called for a higher standard of academic work to make any real progress on it.
I think it’s important to recognise the current state the system and the role the current state the system is in is playing in the emergence of any tragic case otherwise you could end up punishing people for the position they happen to be in the system when the system itself reaches an unhealthy state – i.e. doing more of the exact thing you are trying to catch and prevent – and not only will that not solve systemic problems it will also mean systemic problems are left to propagate into more and more lives and the system could then enter into a regime of runaway stress generation.
I thought of my own situation as a work-related stress accident and I found that this gave the accuracy of personal agency and personal accountability necessary to be able to navigate that situation.
@Eileen (thank you!)
@Anonymous (“What they did next is a story that must be told”)
At my lowest point it was the thought of my children’s grief, for years to come, which enabled me to pull through. And forcing myself to think rationally. But most vital of all, was the invaluable support from three colleagues, who were later treated abominably for providing the safeguarding the University had removed.
Less than 24 hours after the first disclosure was made by Wyn Evans, in a message that left little doubt about my precarious condition and mentioned the word suicide, the PI of my funding received an email from Professor McMahon, which explained to him in great detail how he was hoping to be able to confirm that there was funding for me, how dependent this was on his approval and the PI’s acceptance of his conditions, and how the unnecessary delays to signing it off would continue for another two weeks. There was a request to communicate all of the above to me, including the timescale, with apologies (from the PI!) for any “anxiety this will have caused”.
The same McMahon later accused my colleagues, in yet another defamatory statement, of weaponizing my anxiety against him instead of requesting the funding to be underwritten.
Two weeks was the time remaining in the consultation process about the end of my contract until a termination letter would be issued.
McMahon’s communication is recorded in the judgment. I have allowed room for the possibility that it may have been at least partially ghost written.
The experience of unmitigated evil, a sense of freefall with no soft landing in sight, a sense of total exposure to harm and hatred, and abandonment by those with a duty to safeguard, can very easily drive a person over the edge. There certainly is no full recovery from it – as Eileen says, “it’s fear without limits – limitless terror … the feeling of fear without limits is not feeling a person will survive for very long”.
A new letter from Good Law Project demanding a public inquiry:
https://goodlawproject.org/petition/jason-arday-letter/
Signed
What is needed is an investigation by the Office for Students — or possibly a barrister like Edward Henry KC.
We want someone trustworthy, external to Cambridge University, who can do the job swiftly
The VC, ProVCs and other senior leadership will do everything they can to prevent an independent externally-led investigation, namely if the investigation addresses issues other than those associated with Arday.
Mr Daniel Zeichner MP has been aware of the current state of Cambridge University for a while and so far he chose not to intervene. I hope that he can consider changing his approach because the lives of several of his constituents have been seriously damaged in this institution.
This GoodLaw letter is the worst of them all. Essentially they are calling for the government to go after the press. These people seem to be against a free society.
This is clearly a cynical attempt to forestall investigation in to the role that GLP played in Arday’s death. I see no mention in the letter of the need to investigate their cynical use of Arday to garner attention, emails and donations. Coming less than 24 hours after his death I am absolutely horrified and disgusted at their cynicism.
They put out the smear campaign letter then pulled it back. Signatures removed. Yeah, imagine being in Ardays shoes that day.
True. The GLP cannot now claim that the Arday matter should have been handled quietly and sensitively, when they did more than any media organization to bring attention to his case. They even put out TikTok and Twitter videos that were viewed millions of times. They put up a giant red flag, and while Jason’s body was not tet cold, they put out more videos accusing the bull for chasing it. Does Jolyon have no sense of shame or self-awareness?
________________
The GLP cannot now claim that the Arday matter should have been handled quietly and sensitively, when they did more than any media organization to bring attention to his case…They put up a giant red flag… they put out more videos accusing the bull for chasing it.
______________________
^^^
Bullseye statement.
Hypocrisy = a common theme for weeks with the Dr Arday case. Anything to keep the fraud and cover up from being the centre of conversation
The good law project were just exposed for including a donation to GLP link on the petition they sent out after Arday’s death. They have now removed it. The monetisation of grief is the most disgusting aspect of their behaviour. They didn’t wait even a day before launching their own fundraiser – not for Arday but for themselves.
So they let the wife beating sexual harassing Prof who is a White guy Aussie go free and go home to harass more women but this poor kid is bullied to self harm! No matter what went wrong in 2015, he was raised in a Toxic Russell Group academic context and gettig Rapechatted or finding your Supervisor’s alleged fake Porn Hub or Director of your Rapechat program can help a fellow white guy bully every POC and LGBTQ in the Lewellyn Hate Crime workshop with ZERO consequences, not even when UG boys self harm EXACTLY like this poor guy! Meanwhile Oxbridge allowed Women of African descent to be attacked by far right racists until they have to go to the United Nations to give evidence for Russell Group of Universities human rights abuse AGAIN and AGAIN like Rapechat Uni & Nazi songs club (BBC, 2024) etc.
His statement: “relentless accusations, speculation and public commentary have taken a profound toll on me and on those I love.”
When are we going to talk about Reckless Negligence charges, lawsuits and ending Royal Education Charter for Human Rights violating Brit Rapechat Unis? Instead of Boycotting Scholars who are already being harassed by their own Govt, start Boycotting Toxic Old Boyz Club that deserve it for their toxic evil?
It’s you responding to the X post about Michael Glover!
Whoaaaaa!!! What else do you know???
https://x.com/HealDr68644/status/2089262068977348739
“Cambridge defends handling of plagiarism row”
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/jason-arday-cambridge-defends-handling-of-plagiarism-row-3970xcmx6
“Last night a university spokesman defended its conduct, saying that Arday was provided with extensive support both before and after his resignation.
The spokesman said Arday was given “the provision of counselling, support and advice, and security measures, including the installation of panic alarms and the screening of racist emails and post. Our support continued in the face of intense public and media scrutiny and after his resignation.””
“Academics have called for the investigations launched into Arday’s tenure and the rigour behind Cambridge’s academic appointment process to continue despite his death. It is understood the university has not taken a decision over whether to continue the investigations yet.”
There should be a thorough investigation of hiring, promotion and research misconduct, entirely independent from the Jason Arday case. It should never have taken the Arday case to bring these concerns to the fore, and it should not be derailed by controversy around his passing. These things were never linked, this group has been raising the concerns for years now, without any reference to Arday, and the continuing drive to raise standards should not be linked to his singular case either.
__________________
It should never have taken the Arday case to bring these concerns to the fore, and it should not be derailed by controversy around his passing
____________________
1,000%, 012
Good article from The New York Times:
“Jason Arday, the school’s youngest Black professor, was found dead on Friday. The school ignored a series of warnings about his life story and his work.”
“If, in hindsight, elements of Dr. Arday’s story seemed too good to be true, Cambridge ignored repeated warning signs. A review of internal Cambridge documents and interviews with former colleagues and associates shows that, in addition to passing over more experienced candidates for the job, administrators gushed publicly about Dr. Arday’s scholarship and privately disregarded complaints about his work. They declined to investigate plagiarism concerns and accused his critics of a “vile campaign” to discredit him.”
“Dr. Arday’s claims about not speaking were false, a former classmate and a speech professional who worked with him told The New York Times. His supposedly remarkable trajectory from nonverbal preteen to Ph.D. had no precedent in medical literature, experts in developmental and speech delays say. That should have set off alarm bells for the Cambridge hiring committee, which included a child psychiatrist who had done research on autism, experts said.”
The link is here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/15/world/europe/jason-arday-cambridge-hiring-questions.html?unlocked_article_code=1.5lA.bNeR.dGdg1cs0Q7Hf&smid=nytcore-ios-share
Interesting comments from HR professional on whistleblowing tribunal
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/chris-davis-llb-hons-chartered-fellow-cipd-3b01b327a_in-neil-wyn-evans-v-university-of-cambridge-activity-7493554471373881344-GgG9/
“There is nothing necessarily wrong with HR helping a manager or senior executive to draft an outcome letter. In many organisations that will be entirely normal. But there is a considerable difference between helping someone properly express a decision they have independently reached and effectively making that decision for them.
The Tribunal’s findings went considerably further than poor drafting practice. It found decisions being presented to senior managers as a fait accompli, predetermined outcomes being rubber-stamped, very substantial delays and attempts to shut down complaints in order to protect the University from reputational damage.
More strikingly, the problems were not confined to one individual or one isolated part of the organisation. The Tribunal’s findings reached across HR and into senior administration, including decision-making at the highest level.”
EXACTLY.
The obvious next question is: if these HR and senior administration have these practices with Wyn Evans and other victims from IoA, what do they do with other staff and students at UCam? Why would they behave differently with them? They do not. These practices are common across campus, and it is a shame they continue in their positions after this, allegedly “reflecting” on something they already knew.
Ok Chris Davis………..
Is there ‘nothing necessarily wrong’ with DR ARDAY GHOSTWRITING his PhD?
Is there ‘nothing necessarily wrong’ with UNDERGRADUATES GHOSTWRITING their essays?
Is their ‘nothing necessarily wrong’ with RESEARCHERS GHOSTWRITING their books?
Is there ‘nothing necessarily wrong’ with FELLOWS GHOSTWRITING student complaints?
No, there is something WRONG about it.
So why is it okay for HR and SENIOR ADMIN to GHOSTWRITE whatever they want?
The two-tiered system of justice is the problem, Chris Davis! It’s got to go! Out! Just like an exorcism. No more ghosts and ghosting and hiding from accountability. No more “don’t say his name he’s only a junior.” There IS something WRONG with GHOSTWRITING.
Can you share examples here for those not on LinkedIn?
The post is by Chris Davis LLB (Hons), Chartered Fellow CIPD
In Neil Wyn Evans v University of Cambridge & Others (Case No: 3307960/2023), an Employment Tribunal upheld 11 of 14 complaints concerning detriments suffered following protected disclosures (whistleblowing).
But what particularly interests me about the judgement is what the Tribunal had to say about HR.
This was not simply a case of an inexperienced HR practitioner getting a difficult process wrong. The Tribunal identified what it described as a “pattern of ghost-writing and HR making other people’s decisions for them”.
That distinction matters.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with HR helping a manager or senior executive to draft an outcome letter. In many organisations that will be entirely normal. But there is a considerable difference between helping someone properly express a decision they have independently reached and effectively making that decision for them.
The Tribunal’s findings went considerably further than poor drafting practice. It found decisions being presented to senior managers as a fait accompli, predetermined outcomes being rubber-stamped, very substantial delays and attempts to shut down complaints in order to protect the University from reputational damage.
More strikingly, the problems were not confined to one individual or one isolated part of the organisation. The Tribunal’s findings reached across HR and into senior administration, including decision-making at the highest level.
Which raises another question.
Where allegations are serious, prolonged and potentially involve HR and senior management themselves, at what point should an organisation recognise that an internal process is no longer capable of providing sufficient independence?
The University appears not to have brought in a genuinely independent investigator. We cannot know what would have happened if it had. But a sufficiently robust and independent investigator might have identified much earlier some of the very problems which the Employment Tribunal eventually identified.
That might, in turn, have provided an opportunity to resolve matters before positions became entrenched and before they ultimately reached the Tribunal.
And “independent” does not simply mean external. The investigator has to be sufficiently experienced and robust to challenge senior people, resist pressure as to the desired outcome and follow the evidence wherever it leads.
HR inevitably has to protect the interests of the organisation. But sometimes the best way of doing that is to recognise when HR should no longer be investigating itself and genuine independence is required.
By the time an Employment Tribunal is identifying systemic failures years later, the opportunity to do that has long since passed.
Katherine Griffiths (Bloomberg) and others also commented here:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/katherine-griffiths-9942a01b_this-is-a-fascinating-and-forensic-account-activity-7493723773980884992-bRlT
One of the posters says, “Prof Neil Wyn Evans is a prince amongst men. The bullying and venality in British universities is at a catastrophic scale, and most who have suffered it, including me, have not had the courage to pursue the matter through a legal vector. Prof Wyn Evans did, and he won. I don’t think that I’ve ever been more proud of somebody who I have never met.”
At the risk of stating the obvious, the past few weeks have been a comms, HR and legal disaster for Cambridge.
The employment tribunal showed in forensic, public detail how HR and Legal Services completely failed to protect the institution (for that is their purpose) and the people involved. Many here will see echoes of their own situation in what happened to Prof. Evans. I’m not even sure any more that we need another review to figure out what needs to change. The tribunal and Prof Evans did the hard work for us.
The diffuse, anonymous decision making we have currently doesn’t work. HR must return to an advisory role. Decisions should be made and owned by named senior academics or administrators. They need to be made quickly, with full regard for the wellbeing of the people involved. No-one currently wants to be a Responsible Person in any investigation. The incentives for doing so need to change. It’s everyone’s responsibility to promote fairness, justice and repair the university’s reputation. When unpopular decisions need to be made, senior leadership should have the courage to back them up.
We know the Evans case is the tip of a very large iceberg. To avoid spectacularly hitting it, the university needs to say “we know, we’re sorry, and here’s what’s going to change”.
I’m avoiding the temptation to comment directly on Arday, except to thank the 21 Group for keeping this blog going. It may be the only place where people can openly express their anger and grief for both Arday and their own situation.
Meanwhile, some members of the Cambridge community prefer not to look inward and reflect on the failures of the institution that is at the centre of the Arday case:
“Cambridge college head: Investigate media onslaught against Jason Arday”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/16/cambridge-college-woolley-media-onslaught-jason-arday/
I, too, am unimpressed by the calls to review policy and procedures. The main problem with our policies and procedures is that HoDs, HR, etc., rarely follow them. It might be the case that, if they were followed, we would find our current policies and procedures to be wonderful.
There is no official policy that decisions need to be taken by HR and Legal, and then sent out in the name of a PVC or the VC. There is no official policy that whistleblowing should be met with a serious response of sustained bullying. There are policies about timeframes for investigations, and they are often ignored.
Does Cambridge have a policy that, when emailing staff using a list from which staff cannot opt out, one should include what look like trackers on links to the Staff Counselling Centre, rather than including a direct link to the Counselling Centre so that it is clear that people can follow it anonymously? Of course not. A policy of monitoring who is using a confidential service would not be acceptable. If such a thing were to happen, the fault would not be policy, but the mindset of some individuals. A judge identified “groupthink”, but he did not describe a cure.
“Cambridge University defends its mental health support for Jason Arday”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/16/cambridge-university-jason-arday-mental-health-support
“A University of Cambridge spokesperson said: “Our support continued in the face of intense public and media scrutiny and after his resignation. Our thoughts and deepest condolences are with Jason’s family and loved ones at this extremely difficult time.””
“It is understood the university has paused the investigation while Arday’s family are grieving, and will consider whether to reopen it in due course.”
“It is understood the university has paused the investigation while Arday’s family are grieving, and will consider whether to reopen it in due course.”
There is no reason to stop the investigation into the University’s processes ie HR/Legal, recruitment etc. Sounds more like the Uni is using the death (RIP JArday) to hide – cowards that they are like hiding behind STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL emails that serve only to scare and not offer even an iota of care.
True. And note this sentence: “The University of Cambridge has defended its mental health support for the academic Jason Arday.”
Did they actually clarify what mental health support they provided. No. Let me guess:
“For help in a Mental Health crisis call 111 and select option 2”
For those currently in Cambridge, there’s a vigil for Arday outside Great St Mary’s today, 4-6pm.
I regret missing the vigil today but Jason, know that I remain with you in spirit. We must now stand together as one to demand an immediate investigation in to student and staff safeguarding, the conduct of the communications office (including both the handling of the Arday matter and tracking links in all-staff communications, among other matters), and failure of duty of care. That is the real conversation so desperately needed right now. Together, we will overcome.
Dear all,
The email below was sent to some members of the University of Cambridge but not all. Munir and Vira are two of the main responsible for the degrading state of this institution and dare to send this email. “Please remember you are not alone in this. We grieve together, and we will find our way through this together”? Shame on them!!!!
“Dear colleagues and students,
Following the Vice-Chancellor’s message earlier today, Bhaskar and I sent a note to the Race Equality Network. Since there are colleagues who may not be on that list, we wanted to reach out to them and our students through other channels too.
Jason’s tragic loss is felt by all of us, but we recognise that for our colleagues and students of colour, this grief carries an additional weight, and we do not want that to go unacknowledged.
You should know that you have our love and full support. Not just as university leadership but as people who care deeply about each and every one of you, and about the kind of community we are and must continue to be.
We will be reaching out personally to many of you. In the meantime, if you would like to talk, whether to process how you are feeling, to share your thoughts, or simply to be heard, please do not hesitate to reach out to us directly. We will organise a meeting next week and invite you to it.
Please remember you are not alone in this. We grieve together, and we will find our way through this together. Cambridge must come together to reinforce the values that we care so deeply about, and to continue to build a place that is safe and welcoming for all our staff and students.
With love and solidarity,
Professor Kamal Munir, Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement.
Professor Bhaskar Vira, Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education and Environmental Sustainability.”
Is this the same Kamal Munir and Bhaskar Vira who were in office in 2023-24 when they decided to take the Calbert Graham racial discrimination case all the way to court without settlement? The same Kamal Munir who was in court over the whistleblowing tribunal case? The same duo who were in office when the university forced Magdalen Connolly to court because her work was being plagiarised by a Cambridge professor, leaving her broken and humiliated?
That is these guys? Talking about how hard they have been working to build “a place that is safe and welcoming for all our staff and students” and offering their “love and solidarity”?
Have they been “reaching out” to the victims of their abuse culture? Or is this just another bullshit box ticking reputation management exercise that is about to blow back on them again?
It is time for the victims to show them some fucking reciprocity – right now.
It is noteworthy that they are presented, in a message clearly targeted at students, as “Senior” Pro-Vice-Chancellors, so perhaps they are not the same Munir and Vira we know?
If they are, then this is the same Munir who, when the Judge asked him under oath if the University had anything against Wyn Evans, he laughed in court and said “Of course not” and the same Munir who dismissed, without any investigation, whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals made by third parties on the abuses of the University against one of the students to protect HR and members of DAMTP. And as if the humiliation was not enough, when the MP of Cambridge contacted him about that student, the same Munir dared to say that the health of the student was the priority of “all of us.” His character will not change, and he should not just step down as ProVC but he should be sacked. This message of Munir and Vira shows they will continue with the same misinformation and culture of cover up.
These are two people who have caused quite a lot of our problems
“With love and solidarity, ” – i find this hilarious. Besides the VC, we included all the ProVCs in our grievance letters. Not a single one reached out to us. Some letters were replied by Rampton on behalf of VC and others by HR and Responsible Person. There was definitely no “love and solidarity” from the ProVCs. They would rather we all disappear….
Did this email contain secret tracking links too?
Dear Lord Smith, what about criticising the behaviour of your own institution?
“Cambridge chancellor criticises ‘racist feeding frenzy’ around Jason Arday”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyxklg3xypo
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/17/support-jason-arday-family-shows-britain-still-cares-windrush-campaigner
I fear this is well-meaning but misguided. Once the story hit the United States it was only going to be a matter of time before black comedians like Chris Rock would deliver a take-down of Jason Arday, just as he previously had done for Meghan Markle or Jussie Smollett. His Streamham classmates were already calling him out too and I suspect that is what hurt him the most. So it is not a simple black and white case.
This email and the ones from Debbs indicate what we have become: a corporation. UCam as an academic and collegiate institution is dead.
“if you would like to talk, whether to process how you are feeling, to share your thoughts, or simply to be heard, please do not hesitate to reach out to us directly. We will organise a meeting next week and invite you to it.”
I suggest that people who have something to say about this and related topics, reach out to Munir and Vira as they suggest and ask to participate in that meeting. I just sent them my request.
This is quite obviously a cynical move to save Vira’s skin. He needs to go, no ifs not buts, as being hugely culpable in parading Jason in the media. He has met with some of the letter signatories and claimed he isn’t at fault but the others are.
As someone says above, both are hugely culpable in the whole business. It is utterly invidious to say they will reach out to ‘some.’
I want to add that I am dismayed that some of my posts to this site–perfectly civil but critical of anti EDI ranting here–were not allowed through. That is really quite disgraceful given how much anti-EDI ranting does make it through.
@Madam Speaker
I cannot speak for other supporters of this group – but for my side of things would like to affirm that supporters of EDI are well-represented here.
There are plenty of anti-EDI rants–amazed they’ve gone unseen– some verging on the fully racist, and my challenges have been routinely deleted by a moderator.
We are happy to have pro-EDI posts.
Sorry, to clarify, it isn’t that I want to post pro-EDI. I questioned some of the language and ranting against EDI on this site and those posts were not allowed through. I have a clear sense of who didn’t allow them through, in multiple avatars with VPNs and proton accounts, so it was purely content based. That is unacceptable for a site that does this kind of work. I have a copy of a post that didn’t make it through shortly after Jason’s death.
We are looking into this — if they have been held up for some reason, they will be released
I am surprised to hear of this as 21 group has been calling out institutional racism at Cambridge since the Graham case two years ago. People attended the tribunal in person. It was risky back then to call out institutional racism at the university but people did.
Yes, we attended the Graham case, the ongoing Arifah Aftab case, we are currently supporting a black student who is suing Cambridge
We are supporting the (predominantly) Asian workers in this case https://21percent.org/?p=3474
Delighted to hear it. What happened with my posts happened. So there we are.
Wow. I had no idea there were this many racial discrimination legal cases going on in the background against Cambridge. That’s nuts!!
While the press office were getting the Beeb to run stories about diversity hires they were clearly also keeping the real story out of public attention.
Exactly. Just as Vira and Kamal are trying to do by reaching out to “some” staff and priming them with a version of events without victims being able to reach out for support from the same members of our community.
FWIW, same thing happened to some of mine. A glitch b/c site’s getting too many views may be.
So now Cambridge says:
“He was being subjected to relentless scrutiny, including ridicule, discrediting absolutely every detail of his life, and he wasn’t coping with the loss of his career, the loss of his reputation, and he felt he couldn’t go on.”
Awful things. Except, Cambridge has been doing exactly the same thing to its own whistleblowers.
For those who are gone, others are ready to speak out.
It is now only a question of time.
Let’s see what institutional hypocrisy truly looks like.
News about the Academic Secretary and acting Registrary, Dr Mike Glover.
It may surprise some, but it will not surprise all readers of the 21 Group:
https://x.com/HealDr68644/status/2089262068977348739
AI Summary of Dr Roy Heal’s post
Former Nuclear Armed Forces. Gulf War Veteran. Neuroscientist. Chartered Psychologist. Associate Fellow British …
“The examination ‘system’ was deliberated constructed to give the impression of a comprehensive assessment, but in fact was a sham, as it did the opposite…The examination format and delivery was also highly prejudicial to disabled person with learning difficulties… Warwick Medical School manipulated the ‘grading’ of the examination papers to give a false impression of breadth of knowledge, but in reality penalised students with breadth of knowledge…The bogus manipulated examination ‘grading system’ was also not scrutinised nor the use of students to teach students…The GMC Team (led by the Head of UEA Medical School) rubber stamped Warwick without proper scrutiny, which also resulted in the failure to comply with EU Legislation… The failure to deliver a medical degree course in accordance with an EU Directive meant that graduates of Warwick Medical School should not have been permitted to register as Medical Doctors in EU States.” Heal
The Basic Claim
A man named Dr. Michael Glover was hired by Cambridge University as Academic Registrar in late 2025, replacing Emma Rampton. The author is arguing that Glover is unfit for this role because of serious misconduct he allegedly committed while working at Warwick Medical School.
What Glover Is Accused of at Warwick Medical School
The Core Problem: A Broken Exam System
Warwick Medical School had an exam system that was deliberately designed to look fair but wasn’t.
The author says:
The exams were never properly validated or approved by the university
They were rigged in the grading to punish students who knew a lot across many subjects
A student could fail despite getting 80% of answers correct, while another could pass with only 36% correct
This violated EU law requiring qualified teachers to teach medical students (Warwick used student-teachers instead)
“Grover also prejudiced and performed ‘ghost writing’ for appeals, and allowed and facilitated a whistleblowing medical student to be bullied harassed and victimised, and rendered physically ill by Glover’s acts and the acts of his colleagues.
Glover corrupted an Appeals Process by failing to declare the known detriments and prejudicial fact of the course curriculum and examination at Warwick Medical School.” Heal
What Glover Allegedly Did
The author claims Glover:
Knew the exam system was corrupt and unfair but did nothing to fix it
Refused to let a student’s appeal be read before a hearing and then lied about it
Hid a supportive letter from the student’s personal tutor
Conspired with colleagues to deny a student a passing grade they deserved
Prevented the student from transferring to another medical school
Created false documents and falsified records to support his decisions
Bullied and harassed a whistleblowing student, causing them physical illness
The Student’s Situation
A medical student exceeded the passing threshold but was failed anyway due to the corrupted system. When they appealed, Glover’s team:
Didn’t read the appeal
Lied about what supporting documents said
Withheld academic support
Blocked the student from transferring
We have reached out to Dr Ron Heal, he seems very knowledgeable 🙂
Thank you. Dr Ron Heal may like to know my experience with Dr Glover.
I don’t agree w C West saying he took ‘the cowardly way out.’ I agree about the damage caused to everyone.
It seems that Dr Ron Heal knows a lot about Cambridge University:
“I resigned my post as the Cambridge University Secretariat Hardship Funds Officer because I refused to created fabricated documents and false information and lie to prospective applicants and their families about entry requirements to Cambridge University/Colleges.”
“Those applicants who would be dependent on State Funding were being denied interviews, and if by an extremely rare chance (I know of one!) applicant secured a physical interview and even recommended for offer of admission, Cambridge University/Colleges then blocked their admission and falsified official records to hide the fact that an offer of admission had been recommended by the interviewers. ”
https://x.com/HealDr68644/status/2087489157153104041
I am sorry, I don’t know who C West but on what authority do they make such sweeping claims? “A full-blown liar, plagiarizer, and woefully
unqualified man was in a position that likely damaged many of all
colors in academia through his complete lack of knowledge and
skill. He took the cowardly way out when faced with the reality of
who he was and not what everyone around him propped him up to
be. Blame those that enabled this fraudulent educator not those
that exposed him.”
And precisely how do we ‘take color [note American spelling!] out of it’ when he was quite obviously hounded in ways that others weren’t? Those who run 21 percent should really be aware of how much such nonsense, before the body is even cold, brings this site and its work into disrepute. We shouldn’t be subjected to random racist trolls and their views made without any due process whatsoever.
I agree, not the right time but it isn’t right to attribute a comment to the group as a whole and people can post what they like. To be honest I have to say the tone of the conversation here is so much more empathetic and sensible and mature than Twitter or reddit or newspaper comment sections, that is why this is the only forum I can stand ar this point. But all the same I don’t mind the odd cross post to remind me why I prefer the debate here.
We agree with Madam Speaker
Please can all posts be respectful of the tragedy that has happened.
The cowardly comment’s offensive. I missed it at first glance. Sorry. I’m not a racist troll. You don’t even know my race? Did you check the Turnitin report? There are reasonable points about due diligence. Who hired him without checking his application and why? Who dismissed the data falsification and plagiarism and why? C West says the scandal “damaged many of all colors in academia.” It’s fair to say there’s been damage all-around. The most is on the BME community. so it’s impossible to take “color” out now. The research misconduct case shouldn’t of got handed to Cofnas and racialised in the first place. Arday was always high risk. He made numerous fantastical claims, had disabilities, was Black and was pushed into the public spotlight. I read an article where a suicide attempt in 2020 is mentioned. Something about brain tumours and splitting from his wife. Can’t find that article now but the below refers to a suicide attempt. Point is he should’ve had extra safeguarding from the start of his appointment having a history of suicide attempts. The love emails from the university are written better than C West’s comment but imo are just as offensive. You wanna send love to racial minorities after not safeguarding a black academic with a history of suicide who you pushed into the spotlight ignoring the red flags? Ya keep your “love” I’m good thanks.
The below
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16036797/Jason-Arday-claimed-survived-unrecoverable-car-accident.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/books/2026/08/jason-arday-cambridge-academic-memoir-resignation/688206/
I want to share a link to the only empathetic yet mature analysis I have found online, the new video today by mental health counsellor Dr Grande.
https://youtu.be/RZsRozEemI8
Everyone should watch from 13.00 and especially then the final part where he talks about our need for a culture of empathy for mental illness and blame for institutions that fail in duty of care.
Thank you. It is a good video. The option of assuming fault and shift the blame to Cambridge University was unlikely an option for Arday if he signed any NDA when he resigned. Dr Grande is perhaps not aware that NDAs are common in the institution.
If people are not familiar with the University safeguarding statement, here it is:
https://www.governanceandcompliance.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/university_safeguarding_statement_may_2025.pdf
The designated safeguarding lead at Cambridge is the Director of HR Ms Andrea Hudson. It is Ms Hudson who decides if a safeguarding referral of adults at risk should be dismissed or not.
I have seen and heard this claim several times that Arday signed an NDA on leaving Cambridge. Do we have a source for this?
If that were true then it would constitute the ultimate act of abuse (in both senses of the word “ultimate” i.e. as the final but also the most definitive act).
It would mean that following Grande’s analysis, Cambridge not only abused Arday by hiring him for reputational “blackwashing” but then, at the final turn, abused him again by silencing him in order to protect itself and the individuals ultimately responsible for the abuse of a vulnerable man.
I think Dr Grande is right that Arday’s only route to survival – both literal and metaphorical – was going to be to admit to fault, yet blame Cambridge for taking advantage of him while asking the general public for a forgiveness that I believe he would have received had he taken that approach.
Therefore, by making him sign an NDA, he would have been denied that option, and it was this that in the end left with no option other than to end his own life. This sadly has spared his abusers from the accountability they would have faced and which they continue to evade by pushing the narrative that this was all racially motivated (by Times Higher Education – ????), and not a fault of Cambridge’s own poor behaviour.
“Do we have a source for this?”
I am not aware of any source in the case of Arday specifically, but I do know that the University uses NDAs to silence members. Therefore, given this culture, it seems plausible that the University did it in this case as well because Arday surely knew a lot about how the University behaved in the background, not just in terms of safeguarding, but also about Carter-Ruck, police, etc.
Academics have spoken out after signing an NDA with a university before. Professor Anahid Kassabian did so in 2019 after signing an NDA with the University of Liverpool.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47936662
I think the more complex a situation is where something has gone wrong the more challenging it is to speak out in relation to that situation in general irrespective of whether an NDA has been signed or not.
The higher the complexity of any situation where something goes wrong
the higher the complexity of the fault calculation in relation to that situation
the higher the probability of any side making an error in that fault calculation
the higher the probability of a defamation type case on any side of that situation.
One barrier to assuming fault and shifting blame – i.e. shifting from denying there is any problem to admitting there is some problem and to doing an accurate fault calculation and apportioning fault – in any situation is the complexity of the mental calculations that are needed to do that. A person has to be able to meet the mental energy demands of the mental calculations on the timescales needed to lift the mounting mental pressure that is mentally crushing the person in order to get enough mental breathing room to mentally survive the situation.
Thanks Eileen. This is why use of NDAs for harassment and bullying in the UK was made illegal several years later.
We don’t have a source — it is (not unreasonable) speculation.
Thanks, just watched. Here are some quotes I noted but the full discussion is valuable I agree.
“This brings me to the question, who was responsible for this tragedy?
[Ultimately] Cambridge had responsibility. The idea that an academic would lie and plagiarize is not really groundbreaking. It’s not front page news. What made this story special was the behavior that Cambridge displayed. They hired someone who was unqualified…
They were so desperate to maintain a specific narrative which they needed to improve their image. They ignored glaring warning signs. By lifting Jason up to a high level, they made his fall from grace more disastrous than it needed to be. Cambridge set Jason up for failure.
So I find it curious that an institution determined to adjust their stance on race appeared to make a decision based on race. when they looked at Jason, that was the only thing they saw.
…There’s one other thought that I had about this case that I wanted to share…
…I think the case of Jason Arday highlights the importance of mercy and forgiveness.
He did some things that were wrong certainly, but I think the real story was the behavior of Cambridge.
I don’t think it was necessarily about Jason. He was in some ways a victim. He did a lot of it to himself, but he then became part of this larger cultural shift, this desire for Cambridge to repair the reputation. It really was unfair to Jason. He never should have been elevated to that level.
So I think people can be upset about his plagiarism and the alleged academic fraud and all that and still think this was tragic. This should never have happened.”
I think what was most psychogically destructive for Jason was that his book had just come out in the US four days earlier. Was being marketed to Black America as a miracle story by Simon and Schuster, they had Atlanta and Chixago airports promoting it, they definitely believed before the scandal they could be on to a winner.
So am feeling like Jason must have felt that ok, maybe he would get some kind of final redemption in the US after being hit so hard by the white UK media, and when that week it became clear it was not working out, that have been the devastating moment.
like see this video from two Black critics.
https://youtu.be/yOWzgmRXl3Y
There is a lot of this kind of reaction out there. Black America has a much lower bullshit tolerance threshold than white America. Or white women in English tea society either my guess.
Anyway my guess is that the failure of the book launch was an important factor in what made him feel like his final redemption arc option had disappeared and have to wonder too if he push S&S hard beforehand to go ahead with the book launch as well. I suspect they would have gladly taken the financial hit and canceled otherwise.
Not so much tolerance for gaslighting in Brixton either. Ayoola calls it out here and wonder what Trevor Phillips would have to say. SO not a black and white thing, nor a right and left thing, just a right and wrong thing is all.
https://youtu.be/OcTuI6adIuk
Not sure this is true, the book is selling well in US.
If Jason Arday received a huge advance beforehand (as is claimed), he may not have been able to back out of the book deal without returning the advance.
Anyhow, what is certainly true is that Simon & Schuster have behaved even more disgracefully than Cambridge University
Is it really selling well? I thought during the first week the numbers were really bad on Amazon etc, and so Jason would have seen that too.
https://statmodeling.substack.com/p/university-professor-is-a-job-not
another cogent take by Gelman
Gelman makes similar points as Ayoola, e.g. a professorship is a job and involves duty of care to students to provide education and mentorship, just as a doctor has a duty to care for patients. An employer in either sector who puts image management above that duty to patients or pupils is engaged in negligence
“An emotionally-troubled pathological liar who killed himself after his fabrications unraveled in public.”
What a disgraceful description without any real evidence. One can say that there are legitimate questions around Jason without this kind of sweeping authority at that distance–unscientific at the very least. Gelman undermines himself with this kind of personal invective.
Thanks 21 Group for the sensible commentary here. One more thing, I also think it is important to acknowledge that, while suicide is a plausible hypothesis, strictly speaking we do not yet know the exact cause of mortality. For example if we lend credence to his having previously had a brain tumour (as well as the more credible history of epilepsy), then it could be due to a fit or stroke, induced by the stress he was under, yes, but not an intentional act. Similarly it could have been due to an overdose, even from prescription medication, and again this would be a reason to refrain from allegations that he behaved irresponsibly by taking his own life.
My purpose here is not to invite speculation but precisely the opposite, to go by standard guidelines to avoid such speculation until more in known for certain.
Agreed. It is best to wait for the coroner’s verdict.
I agree that now is a time for calm and reflection.
But we have just seen a master of a Cambridge college, Lord Woolley, standing in front a massed crowd yesterday in London, pouring fuel on the fire. In his own words, he called journalists “rabid wolves”, “the dogs of hell” and “demons”, before telling the crowd that “there needs to be some reckoning”.
I have no idea what he meant by “reckoning”, or how his words were interpreted by the crowd. Still, I am concerned that this is coming directly from Cambridge itself, from a Cambridge head of house.
It does seem like yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre.
I respect Lord Woolley’s right to freedom of speech. But I am also concerned that it is so directly in contrast to the calls Jason made for the world to be guided by love and empathy, as it feels more like Woolley’s cause than Jason’s, would he have used those words?
Jason Arday: We need to follow the example of Nelson Mandela
Simon Woolley: Julius Malema?
Jason Arday: M-a-n-d-e-l-a
Simon Woolley: Malema it is
Deborah Prentice heckled at Arday Vigil: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9wzr5545yo
This is an odd story, almost as if Prentice is an ethnographic observer of her own job. Had no idea she was even in Cambridge at all until now.
Oh dear, I even feel some sympathy for the VC. A mistake to attend any event organised by the SWP who are as opportunist and sanctimonious as they are anti-political. The morons of the left.
I think this attests to how lost she is right now. I guess she was trying to get a sense of the mood of opinion by attending a SWP rally without knowing anything about SWP. If she’d spent the last two years meeting with staff, UCU, or members of this group she’d be in a position to know the lay of the land but right now she seems totally lost.
That video on the BBC site of Prentice turning up at the demo in summer clothes and then being filmed walking away in shame is not going away. Was the first time she’s been on camera since this thing began and it was an accidental catch. It now just underscores the questions everyone is asking – why hasn’t she given an interview or said anything more substantive? Right now the only voice of Cambridge on this is Simon Woolley and he definitely doesn’t represent the whole community nor is it his role.
This is one possibility but another possibility is that it attests to how lost a society is right now.
A person shows up to a remembrance gathering to pay their respects to a person and is told by another person at that remembrance gathering that it is shameful to show up to that remembrance gathering to pay their respects to the person on that day because they didn’t show up to a previous remembrance gathering to pay their respects to same person the day before.
If it would not have been shameful for the person to attend the first remembrance gathering to pay their respects to a person why is it shameful for the person to attend the second remembrance gathering to pay their respects to the same person? It’s a gathering a person can attend for the act of remembering a person, it’s a gathering a person can attend to pay their respects to a person.
If the person was not able to attend the first remembrance gathering and was able to attend the second remembrance gathering why is attending the second remembrance gathering shameful? If the act of not attending the first remembrance gathering is judged to be shameful compared to the act of attending the first remembrance gathering why is that suddenly reversed for the second remembrance gathering such that the act of attending the second remembrance gathering is judged to be shameful compared to the act of not attending?
If it’s a remembrance gathering to bring people together to pay their respects to a person why is one person at that remembrance gathering directing the attention of all the people gathered to pay their respects to a person away from the act of paying their respects to a person and towards the act of publicly shaming another person attending that remembrance gathering to pay their respects to a person. No only can the person who is being publicly shamed not pay their respects to a person, neither can all the people whose attention is being directed away from the act of paying their respects to a person and towards the act of publicly shaming another person.
I agree there’s nothing wrong with an individual paying their respects in a private capacity. But if that individual also held a senior position of authority over and duty of care to the deceased, legitimate questions may still be asked, in particular if they had shown little public leadership over the case.
“I agree there’s nothing wrong with an individual paying their respects in a private capacity. But if that individual also held a senior position of authority over and duty of care to the deceased, legitimate questions may still be asked, in particular if they had shown little public leadership over the case.”
No legitimate question was being asked in the case above. One person made an assumption that another person could have attended a previous remembrance gathering to pay their respects to a person and on the basis of that assumption the person who made that assumption directed the attention of all the people gathered to pay their respects to a person away from the act of paying their respects to a person and towards the act of publicly shaming another person who was in the act of paying their respects to a person.
A person’s presence anywhere for any reason could be turned into an opportunity for a spontaneous public inquiry. A person’s life could be made into a 24/7 public inquiry. That could maximise the number of legitimate questions that the public could ask of a person but it doesn’t mean that it maximises the number of answers the public receives to the number of legitimate questions the public could be ask of a person. It could in fact minimise the number of answers the public receives to the number of legitimate questions that the public could ask of a person.
If a person persists with an approach that maximises the number of legitimate questions the public could ask of a person but minimises the number of answers the public receives to the number of legitimate questions the public could ask of a person then a person is persistently asking questions of another person without any real interest in getting answers to the questions they are asking of that other person. If a person has no real interest in getting an answer to a question they are asking of another person then it’s not clear that the question being asked of that other person can be said to be a legitimate question.
This means the foundation of “turning a person’s presence anywhere for any reason could be turned into an opportunity for a spontaneous public inquiry” and/or “making a person’s life into a 24/7 public inquiry” – i.e. the public asking legitimate questions of a person could in fact be non-existent which could mean that what was being done to a person in “turning a person’s presence anywhere for any reason could be turned into an opportunity for a spontaneous public inquiry” and/or “making a person’s life into a 24/7 public inquiry” could then amount to public abuse of a person.
I just viewed the clip online. What struck me most was that she appears to have turned up without any security etc. For me, maybe something positive can be drawn from that.
To the VC of UCam, from an outside perspective and fellow academic – please move forward with integrity, and do the right thing. The matters raised recently across various issues, if addressed properly, will likely have a positive impact across the sector.
I fear that what it underscores for me is just how alone she is. I would imagine that she does not fully trust the administration but at the same time, she also has no-one to advise or protect her in any meaningful sense, physical or otherwise. One would have no idea that she was, nominally at least, the person running the university.