{"id":4129,"date":"2026-08-05T07:38:33","date_gmt":"2026-08-05T06:38:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/?p=4129"},"modified":"2026-08-05T07:38:34","modified_gmt":"2026-08-05T06:38:34","slug":"the-heart-of-the-scandal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/?p=4129","title":{"rendered":"The Heart of the Scandal"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Recent revelations<\/a> in The Telegraph<\/em> have taken us to the heart of the scandal<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the Times Higher Education <\/em>(THE<\/em>) prepared to publish a story on plagiarism and research misconduct in September 2025, the journalist Jack Grove sent a series of questions to Professor Jason Arday regarding his academic record. In response, Prof Arday engaged the law firm Carter-Ruck, which suggested in correspondence with Grove and\u00a0THE<\/em> that the publication\u2019s \u201capparent attack<\/em>\u201d might be \u201cracially motivated.<\/em>\u201d Prof Arday complained to the police. Grove was then investigated for four months. He later had a visit from police officers who advised him to cease contact with Prof Arday, citing concerns that the questions had impacted Arday\u2019s mental health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, the Metropolitan Police investigated a journalist performing his professional duty. Offering a right of reply prior to publication is a well-established principle of responsible journalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such developments are troubling in a democratic society. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who recommended this course of action? Given that Prof Arday is autistic, it is likely he sought guidance in handling what must have been a difficult situation. It seems plausible that he turned to someone in the University whom he trusted for advice, especially as this was a matter relating to his research work. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, the University had an obligation to offer advice under its duty of care as an employer. What advice was given to Prof Arday?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More broadly, the University appears to have form in handling matters in this way. There have been earlier instances where public funds were used to contain reputational damage. During the ‘Cambridge Whistleblowing Tribunal’, it emerged that Professor Richard McMahon \u2014 who had made defamatory and untrue allegations \u2014 received financial backing in a private legal case. In the Cancer Research UK scandal, Professor Paul Pharaoh received threatening letters from the University solicitors about divulging information on social media. The 21 Group is also aware of other cases in which whistleblowing academics in Cambridge have been subject to police intimidation and arrest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are not isolated incidents but reflect recurring approaches associated with the University\u2019s Human Resources, Communications, and Legal divisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Daily Telegraph reported: \u201cA spokesman for Cambridge University said: \u2018The University did not make any complaint to the police against Jack Grove in 2025. Neither was it aware of any such complaint being made.<\/em>\u2019\u201d This prompts the question: what, precisely, is meant by \u201cthe University<\/em>\u201d in this context?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given that both the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Deborah Prentice, and the Chancellor, Lord Chris Smith, have repeatedly stressed the importance of free speech, should we not expect a clear condemnation of these events? Should we not also expect a thorough and transparent investigation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The institutional cowardice and dishonesty are by far the most egregious things in this scandal. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Recent revelations in The Telegraph have taken us to the heart of the scandal As the Times Higher Education (THE) prepared to publish a story on plagiarism and research misconduct in September 2025, the journalist Jack Grove sent a series of questions to Professor Jason Arday regarding his academic record. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4129","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4129"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4129\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4134,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4129\/revisions\/4134"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4129"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}