But doesn't the press bear a significant degree of responsibility?
This wasn't Epstein, Tate or Saville. He had, at most, a potentially embarrassing dispute with his employer. He was not the subject of any legal proceedings, nor was he a public servant, politician or magnate.
Yet, to be blunt, his colour, background and story fuelled a right wing pile on that would never have reached the middle pages of a local paper in a university town if he had been white, middle class and educated at one of the second tier public schools.
The culture wars, or rather the sanitation of old fashioned racism, sexism and classism into what we now call a culture war so as to spare the blushes of Telegraph columnists (who, in fairness make a *career* of playing fast and loose with the truth in a way that would make a university vice chancellor feel faint), has claimed another victim.
Like Caroline Flack a few years ago, Arday was discussed, dissected, compared and humiliated by people who'd never met him, never read his with, never studied under him and didn't know him. Certainly not his, or Ms Flack's vulnerability.
To permit them to shrug, memory-hole their uninformed scribbles and move on is a shame on journalism.
I'd like to see a tiny fraction of the same focused scrutiny on editors and owners of the "free press" that bugged, burgled and once again hounded a person to death.
Feels like a brutal demonstration of the issues Heinrich Böll was worried about in Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum (oder wie Gewalt entstehen und wohin sie führen kann) and in his essay “Bild, Bonn, Boenisch” about the cosy alliance between right wing politicians and esp tabloid press and the destructive effect on individuals and their human rights when a story is seized on and pursued because it can be made to fit a pre-existing agenda.
Like Katharina Blum (who was an anonymous everywoman who ends up shooting dead a journalist who had invaded and destroyed her life), Prof Arday was broken on the wheel of the press and social media.
He wasn’t a saint, he was a flawed man as we all are. He shouldn’t have had to be a saint or flawless to deserve basic humanity and decency.
This is just "shoot the messenger". It is the job of the press to hunt stuff out, whether it is Farage's finances or Arday's fantasies.
It is a terrible tragedy that Arday should have been found dead, but - as I say below - most responsibility lies with those who falsely elevated him, not with those who brought his exceptional body of lies to light.
It worries me that this post has accumulated so many likes.
I think the difference is Arday is not "powerful" by anyone's serious definition. Being a Prof at Cambridge - a non-state institution - isn't being a senior police officer, or civil servant, or politician. He has no power over your finances or freedom.
Whereas you could argue that this speaks to the way Cambridge appoints it's staff, singling out an individual who has no power to respond is blatantly bullying.
The facts of his race, class & background should make you wonder if the "anti-woke, anti-DEI" political climate encouraged those in the right wing press in particular to use his case to "prove their point", although it does no such thing.
This does not occur in a vacuum. News has to have relevance. For the vast majority of people, the intricacies of academic appointments are, to put it simply, boring.
The only point of this story for many outlets is to demonstrate that poor, unusual black kids don't deserve something or other and can't be trusted.
I don't know if Arday did embellish his backstory or not. I understand there's an independent investigation going on. If it turns out he's done something wrong, I'm sure we'll be told. I'm less convinced we'll find out if he hasn't, as it won't play to the political agenda I identifed above.
Even if he did, he has little power. I'm far more interested to hear about such malfeasance by senior MPs, Elon Musk or the current President of the US. Not because of their politics, but because they have power, and if the messenger has a role, it's to hold power to account
"The facts of [Arday's] race, class & background" qualify him to be treated as any other persistent liar. Employers are held to have a duty of care to their employees. Is that what we see here? In a happier world, Arday's conduct would have been found out many years ago by the interview panels at Cambridge, Glasgow and Durham and his doctoral supervisor at LJMU; and the poor man might now be alive. But all failed.
Cambridge has just been ranked as Britain's leading university; Glasgow and Durham are Russell Group. That represents power: to educate, to add to human knowledge, to form opinion and to set standards. There is a reasonable public interest in how these bodies conduct their business. Given their performance, I cannot see how they could be held to account for their irresponsibility save, in the first instance, by drawing attention to Arday's lies. That is the job of the press.
It is hard for me to understand why a good-faith appetite to learn of the malfeasance of American leaders should exclude a like appetite for British Universities.
If we hounded "any other persistent liar" in the same way, I could almost agree (although that'd be a lot of hounding!). But we don't. The UK press in particular seem to give right wing politicians, financiers & media personalities a pretty free pass.
I also agree there is a public interest in universities, as I previously said. But the debate was not about the appointments process. Could you name one member of that panel? One policy? Whether it was violated or not? I've seen no reporting in that subject.
I think you're being a little disingenuous in your defence of the reporting. The points you raise were n not the subject of press scrutiny. The individual that was, Prof Arday, may bear some responsibility for the outcome, but there were other actors involved, who now are all "deeply saddened". Something they perhaps should have thought about before vilifying a flawed and vulnerable individual
David wrote wisely, "Jason Arday was a combination of self-invention and the projections of others". At risk of tedious repetition, the press comes out of this better than poor Arday or his employers, as doing its job as they failed to do theirs. Thank you for liking my post below. Shall we call it a day?
Sure. I'll admit to working in a "press adjacent" role. And much as I admire your faith in the press, I'm not sure anyone comes out of it "well" when a man is dead for clicks & likes
Another excellent thought provoking piece of writing. I feel sad about his death, what a waste of a life and it will affect many people, most of all his family.
My secondary school appointed a PhD in Classics to teach 6th formers. After 18 months of what his pupils described as the most lively and stimulating lessons in Latin and Ancient Greek, he was found not to have a PhD, nor even a degree, and he left. All his pupils did well. One got a first from Oxford and the other a second from Cambridge, both in Classics. I have often reflected on this, and how this teacher managed to convince people for so long, and to be so successful at getting such a job. But also how good a teacher she/he must have been. So what is more important? The qualification or the teaching? I experienced some really bad teaching from the most highly qualified people, both at school, and at university. In most of the jobs I have gone for, there was always an element of 'bigging' myself up. Who doesn't? I do think there was way too much press interest in this tragic story. For me it was an example of kicking someone repeatedly when they are down. There was indeed a person there. No-one deserves that.
Your extraordinary story reminds us that fabulism may have good outcomes. But that cannot be a reason for tolerance by default.
Poor Arday qualifies for our human sympathy, but not for a thumb on the scales. Before he was down, he was up. I quote from today's Times leader.
When the Times Higher Education....tried to ask questions of Arday last year, [he instructed] Carter-Ruck, the defamation lawyers, and its reporter was reported to the Metropolitan Police for “harassment”.
Any reason not to call that the bullying of a liar on the run?
David, has it been confirmed that Jason Arday died by suicide? The published reports I have seen say only that his death was unexpected but not considered suspicious. I have not found any official confirmation of the cause.
I appreciated the humane intention of this piece, particularly “there was a man there.” But it appears to treat suicide as established, speculate that he could not live with the consequences, and describe his death as “taking back control.”
Samaritans’ media guidance advises journalists not to speculate about suicide before it has been officially confirmed, not to attribute a death to a particular cause or trigger, and not to use language that could present suicide as a solution or regained agency. Given the potential effect on vulnerable readers, I thought you might want to review the piece urgently:
"The gap between his claims and the truth were bound to come out in the end, and the question (we now realise) was whether he could live with the consequences. All the fabulists I mentioned in last weekend’s piece brazened it out somehow, or just retreated from view. It looks like Arday just couldn’t."
Surely if there were a gap (and I am not qualified to say) it shouldn't come out at the end, but at the beginning during the interview procedure. If he were a fabulist, how come he was appointed?
It strikes me that the fault lies with Cambridge on so many levels - its interview procedure, its complacency in letting other (white) academics get away with being found guilty of plagiarism but keeping their jobs, its folding under the pressure of racist comment, its lack of support for one of its employees.
As I understand it Arday was already a professor when Cambridge offered him not one, but two professorships (both taken in by a fabulist!) He had also been through a rigorous plagiarism procedure which had found some evidence of plagiarism but not enough to dismiss him. Surely if Cambridge was concerned about plagiarism they should have investigated it before offering him a job.
I believe Arday's field of study was quite niche. If this is so, then I should imagine primary sources will be quite narrow and the conclusions drawn, similar. What will be important will be the overall breadth of understanding shown and presumably he satisfied the senior academics who appointed him to his professorships.
What is Aaronovitch's evidence that Arday was any more of a fabulist than many other thesis writers?
you make many good points here, but the one thing I think you're missing is that Arday's fabulism mostly concerned claims that had nothing to do with his academic career. His autobiography, which was due to be published in the UK the week after next and for which he received a substantial advance, was going to be subjected to line by line scrutiny. Obviously, I haven't read it but there are good reasons for believing that large passages were to say the least unreliable.
There was something intoxicating about this whole case. I’m not even British and I couldn’t stopped myself from following news, reading every article, each one more scathing, scrolling twitter to read more and more unhinged tweets… I don’t know, even though I obviously didn’t publish anything (I’m a nobody) I was a part of this industry of outrage and while I believe Jason wasn’t some innocent flower, I feel ashamed and dirty about all of it.
When I heard the news this morning I though how awful. I too felt that the subject had suddenly changed form the usual knockabout to a terrible tragedy.
But now you must forgive me, David, if I dissent from your generally humane post. However much Arday was a deliberate fantasist, there was always something of the innocent about him. This makes it important to say that those who falsely elevated him should have known better; and those mourning him with dog-whistles most damage those giving their remarks ear.
I think Chris Counsell makes a valid point. If anyone has seen ‘School of Rock’ it’s a perfect example of an unqualified person making an excellent teacher.
We don’t know what the various investigations would have thrown up. We don’t know where the truth ends and the fabulist begins. Whether Arday died because of massive injustice or because he couldn’t face being found out,
I do not wish to become the bad guy of these chains, but please recall that "School of Rock" was a work of fiction. It cannot be a perfect example of anything in the real world. Various actual persons are believed to have played a part in inspiring the scriptwriters; none engaged in deceit as to their quailfications.
There is something that is not mentioned here and that is that Jason Arday was neurodivergent. Simon Baron-Cohen, the director of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge, pointed out that he was a vulnerable adult. That being the case, his employer, the university, had a duty to assess any risks he was exposed to in his employment and to make reasonable adjustments to protect him if risks were found. I suppose that if this did not happen, the university's defence would be that he was exposed to bullying and harassment because of his own behaviour, not because of any risk in his job, so they did not have a duty of care to him as a person with a disability. That might or might not be a legal defence. It doesn't seem to me to cover the moral position.
Thanks for that David, you have shown a sensitive insight into the whole subject of suicide. I don't really have a view about Jason Arday, but I do care about humanity. and suicide for what ever reason is complex and usually a tragedy.
I agree entirely that suicide is complex. That is precisely why the Samaritans media guidelines advise writers not to speculate about a cause of death before it has been officially confirmed, not to suggest a single explanation for a suicide, and not to use language that risks presenting suicide as a means of “taking back control”.
As a Samaritans listening volunteer, I found those aspects of this piece deeply concerning, despite its humane intention.
For once I disagree with David. Although gratuitous cruel bullying was and is unacceptable, lessons should be learned from this tragic affair. Not only was Arday himself failed by the over promotion that resulted from Cambridge negligence in accepting his obviously made up claims about his achievements, but so were the other academics who didn’t get the jobs, as well as the students who missed out on the teaching and education to which they were entitled.
This affair highlights a lack of care for everyone, particularly Arday himself, by those who appointed him and kept him in a post which must have caused him anguish in constantly trying to keep up. I don’t believe he consciously lied, I think he was a sick young man who probably believed his own version of himself, and upon whom Cambridge piled far too much pressure in appointing him. I am devastated for him.
I am returning to this as I am upset that the pattern of comments and likes in this chain seems so to be driven by skin colour. There’s also a real “my team vs the other lot” theme, despite David’s regret that this should be the case.
Let us step back. Arday was the child of Ghanaian immigrants. In this country, that is no disqualification. As with all West Africans, first-generation Ghanaians outperform educationally. But he shares skin colour with underperforming West Indians and - far more to the point - the descendants of slaves in the US.
The Americans have grappled with the matters arising since Lincoln’s proclamation. The westerly wind has led many to see our circumstances through their lenses. So too the American expedient of DEI (here, I gather, EDI). Hiring and promotion have never been entirely meritocratic; we like faces which fit. There always duff professors, duff departments, even duff universities. But the word gets out and the world turns.
I am disregarding Arday’s claims of cognitive or physical disadvantage, as imperfectly credible.
The complex of subjects within which Arday made his career is - as another poster has already suggested - “niche”. Nonetheless, it bears upon a matter of great public importance, education: all of Arday’s qualifications and posts referred to this. Educational bodies have a responsibility of good faith to the public, the academic community in general, those they hire and those they decline. They conspicuously failed.
Blaming the press, as the "Likes" to Matt's first post, is blaming the messenger. Some posters evidently regret the message itself. Forgive the plain words, but that is unrealistic and irresponsible.
Folks get excited about these things. Lest any incline to question my motivation, please find a sense of my attitudes in these things at <https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/contra-kruger>
But doesn't the press bear a significant degree of responsibility?
This wasn't Epstein, Tate or Saville. He had, at most, a potentially embarrassing dispute with his employer. He was not the subject of any legal proceedings, nor was he a public servant, politician or magnate.
Yet, to be blunt, his colour, background and story fuelled a right wing pile on that would never have reached the middle pages of a local paper in a university town if he had been white, middle class and educated at one of the second tier public schools.
The culture wars, or rather the sanitation of old fashioned racism, sexism and classism into what we now call a culture war so as to spare the blushes of Telegraph columnists (who, in fairness make a *career* of playing fast and loose with the truth in a way that would make a university vice chancellor feel faint), has claimed another victim.
Like Caroline Flack a few years ago, Arday was discussed, dissected, compared and humiliated by people who'd never met him, never read his with, never studied under him and didn't know him. Certainly not his, or Ms Flack's vulnerability.
To permit them to shrug, memory-hole their uninformed scribbles and move on is a shame on journalism.
I'd like to see a tiny fraction of the same focused scrutiny on editors and owners of the "free press" that bugged, burgled and once again hounded a person to death.
Tend to agree.
Feels like a brutal demonstration of the issues Heinrich Böll was worried about in Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum (oder wie Gewalt entstehen und wohin sie führen kann) and in his essay “Bild, Bonn, Boenisch” about the cosy alliance between right wing politicians and esp tabloid press and the destructive effect on individuals and their human rights when a story is seized on and pursued because it can be made to fit a pre-existing agenda.
Like Katharina Blum (who was an anonymous everywoman who ends up shooting dead a journalist who had invaded and destroyed her life), Prof Arday was broken on the wheel of the press and social media.
He wasn’t a saint, he was a flawed man as we all are. He shouldn’t have had to be a saint or flawless to deserve basic humanity and decency.
This is just "shoot the messenger". It is the job of the press to hunt stuff out, whether it is Farage's finances or Arday's fantasies.
It is a terrible tragedy that Arday should have been found dead, but - as I say below - most responsibility lies with those who falsely elevated him, not with those who brought his exceptional body of lies to light.
It worries me that this post has accumulated so many likes.
I think the difference is Arday is not "powerful" by anyone's serious definition. Being a Prof at Cambridge - a non-state institution - isn't being a senior police officer, or civil servant, or politician. He has no power over your finances or freedom.
Whereas you could argue that this speaks to the way Cambridge appoints it's staff, singling out an individual who has no power to respond is blatantly bullying.
The facts of his race, class & background should make you wonder if the "anti-woke, anti-DEI" political climate encouraged those in the right wing press in particular to use his case to "prove their point", although it does no such thing.
This does not occur in a vacuum. News has to have relevance. For the vast majority of people, the intricacies of academic appointments are, to put it simply, boring.
The only point of this story for many outlets is to demonstrate that poor, unusual black kids don't deserve something or other and can't be trusted.
I don't know if Arday did embellish his backstory or not. I understand there's an independent investigation going on. If it turns out he's done something wrong, I'm sure we'll be told. I'm less convinced we'll find out if he hasn't, as it won't play to the political agenda I identifed above.
Even if he did, he has little power. I'm far more interested to hear about such malfeasance by senior MPs, Elon Musk or the current President of the US. Not because of their politics, but because they have power, and if the messenger has a role, it's to hold power to account
"The facts of [Arday's] race, class & background" qualify him to be treated as any other persistent liar. Employers are held to have a duty of care to their employees. Is that what we see here? In a happier world, Arday's conduct would have been found out many years ago by the interview panels at Cambridge, Glasgow and Durham and his doctoral supervisor at LJMU; and the poor man might now be alive. But all failed.
Cambridge has just been ranked as Britain's leading university; Glasgow and Durham are Russell Group. That represents power: to educate, to add to human knowledge, to form opinion and to set standards. There is a reasonable public interest in how these bodies conduct their business. Given their performance, I cannot see how they could be held to account for their irresponsibility save, in the first instance, by drawing attention to Arday's lies. That is the job of the press.
It is hard for me to understand why a good-faith appetite to learn of the malfeasance of American leaders should exclude a like appetite for British Universities.
https://davidaaronovitch.substack.com/p/icarus-falling/comment/315571846?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=3riobv
If we hounded "any other persistent liar" in the same way, I could almost agree (although that'd be a lot of hounding!). But we don't. The UK press in particular seem to give right wing politicians, financiers & media personalities a pretty free pass.
I also agree there is a public interest in universities, as I previously said. But the debate was not about the appointments process. Could you name one member of that panel? One policy? Whether it was violated or not? I've seen no reporting in that subject.
I think you're being a little disingenuous in your defence of the reporting. The points you raise were n not the subject of press scrutiny. The individual that was, Prof Arday, may bear some responsibility for the outcome, but there were other actors involved, who now are all "deeply saddened". Something they perhaps should have thought about before vilifying a flawed and vulnerable individual
David wrote wisely, "Jason Arday was a combination of self-invention and the projections of others". At risk of tedious repetition, the press comes out of this better than poor Arday or his employers, as doing its job as they failed to do theirs. Thank you for liking my post below. Shall we call it a day?
Sure. I'll admit to working in a "press adjacent" role. And much as I admire your faith in the press, I'm not sure anyone comes out of it "well" when a man is dead for clicks & likes
Another excellent thought provoking piece of writing. I feel sad about his death, what a waste of a life and it will affect many people, most of all his family.
My secondary school appointed a PhD in Classics to teach 6th formers. After 18 months of what his pupils described as the most lively and stimulating lessons in Latin and Ancient Greek, he was found not to have a PhD, nor even a degree, and he left. All his pupils did well. One got a first from Oxford and the other a second from Cambridge, both in Classics. I have often reflected on this, and how this teacher managed to convince people for so long, and to be so successful at getting such a job. But also how good a teacher she/he must have been. So what is more important? The qualification or the teaching? I experienced some really bad teaching from the most highly qualified people, both at school, and at university. In most of the jobs I have gone for, there was always an element of 'bigging' myself up. Who doesn't? I do think there was way too much press interest in this tragic story. For me it was an example of kicking someone repeatedly when they are down. There was indeed a person there. No-one deserves that.
Your extraordinary story reminds us that fabulism may have good outcomes. But that cannot be a reason for tolerance by default.
Poor Arday qualifies for our human sympathy, but not for a thumb on the scales. Before he was down, he was up. I quote from today's Times leader.
When the Times Higher Education....tried to ask questions of Arday last year, [he instructed] Carter-Ruck, the defamation lawyers, and its reporter was reported to the Metropolitan Police for “harassment”.
Any reason not to call that the bullying of a liar on the run?
David, has it been confirmed that Jason Arday died by suicide? The published reports I have seen say only that his death was unexpected but not considered suspicious. I have not found any official confirmation of the cause.
I appreciated the humane intention of this piece, particularly “there was a man there.” But it appears to treat suicide as established, speculate that he could not live with the consequences, and describe his death as “taking back control.”
Samaritans’ media guidance advises journalists not to speculate about suicide before it has been officially confirmed, not to attribute a death to a particular cause or trigger, and not to use language that could present suicide as a solution or regained agency. Given the potential effect on vulnerable readers, I thought you might want to review the piece urgently:
https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/media-guidelines/10-top-tips-reporting-suicide/
I find this passage hard to take:
"The gap between his claims and the truth were bound to come out in the end, and the question (we now realise) was whether he could live with the consequences. All the fabulists I mentioned in last weekend’s piece brazened it out somehow, or just retreated from view. It looks like Arday just couldn’t."
Surely if there were a gap (and I am not qualified to say) it shouldn't come out at the end, but at the beginning during the interview procedure. If he were a fabulist, how come he was appointed?
It strikes me that the fault lies with Cambridge on so many levels - its interview procedure, its complacency in letting other (white) academics get away with being found guilty of plagiarism but keeping their jobs, its folding under the pressure of racist comment, its lack of support for one of its employees.
As I understand it Arday was already a professor when Cambridge offered him not one, but two professorships (both taken in by a fabulist!) He had also been through a rigorous plagiarism procedure which had found some evidence of plagiarism but not enough to dismiss him. Surely if Cambridge was concerned about plagiarism they should have investigated it before offering him a job.
I believe Arday's field of study was quite niche. If this is so, then I should imagine primary sources will be quite narrow and the conclusions drawn, similar. What will be important will be the overall breadth of understanding shown and presumably he satisfied the senior academics who appointed him to his professorships.
What is Aaronovitch's evidence that Arday was any more of a fabulist than many other thesis writers?
you make many good points here, but the one thing I think you're missing is that Arday's fabulism mostly concerned claims that had nothing to do with his academic career. His autobiography, which was due to be published in the UK the week after next and for which he received a substantial advance, was going to be subjected to line by line scrutiny. Obviously, I haven't read it but there are good reasons for believing that large passages were to say the least unreliable.
There was something intoxicating about this whole case. I’m not even British and I couldn’t stopped myself from following news, reading every article, each one more scathing, scrolling twitter to read more and more unhinged tweets… I don’t know, even though I obviously didn’t publish anything (I’m a nobody) I was a part of this industry of outrage and while I believe Jason wasn’t some innocent flower, I feel ashamed and dirty about all of it.
When I heard the news this morning I though how awful. I too felt that the subject had suddenly changed form the usual knockabout to a terrible tragedy.
But now you must forgive me, David, if I dissent from your generally humane post. However much Arday was a deliberate fantasist, there was always something of the innocent about him. This makes it important to say that those who falsely elevated him should have known better; and those mourning him with dog-whistles most damage those giving their remarks ear.
Thank you for your thoughts here David.
I think Chris Counsell makes a valid point. If anyone has seen ‘School of Rock’ it’s a perfect example of an unqualified person making an excellent teacher.
We don’t know what the various investigations would have thrown up. We don’t know where the truth ends and the fabulist begins. Whether Arday died because of massive injustice or because he couldn’t face being found out,
I feel really, really saddened at the outcome.
We are all saddened by the news.
I do not wish to become the bad guy of these chains, but please recall that "School of Rock" was a work of fiction. It cannot be a perfect example of anything in the real world. Various actual persons are believed to have played a part in inspiring the scriptwriters; none engaged in deceit as to their quailfications.
There is something that is not mentioned here and that is that Jason Arday was neurodivergent. Simon Baron-Cohen, the director of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge, pointed out that he was a vulnerable adult. That being the case, his employer, the university, had a duty to assess any risks he was exposed to in his employment and to make reasonable adjustments to protect him if risks were found. I suppose that if this did not happen, the university's defence would be that he was exposed to bullying and harassment because of his own behaviour, not because of any risk in his job, so they did not have a duty of care to him as a person with a disability. That might or might not be a legal defence. It doesn't seem to me to cover the moral position.
Thankyou. That was insightful and wose. I was shocked by hos death.
Thanks for that David, you have shown a sensitive insight into the whole subject of suicide. I don't really have a view about Jason Arday, but I do care about humanity. and suicide for what ever reason is complex and usually a tragedy.
I agree entirely that suicide is complex. That is precisely why the Samaritans media guidelines advise writers not to speculate about a cause of death before it has been officially confirmed, not to suggest a single explanation for a suicide, and not to use language that risks presenting suicide as a means of “taking back control”.
As a Samaritans listening volunteer, I found those aspects of this piece deeply concerning, despite its humane intention.
https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/media-guidelines/10-top-tips-reporting-suicide/
Thanks for this, David. As always, a nuanced piece that resists the rush to judgement.
For once I disagree with David. Although gratuitous cruel bullying was and is unacceptable, lessons should be learned from this tragic affair. Not only was Arday himself failed by the over promotion that resulted from Cambridge negligence in accepting his obviously made up claims about his achievements, but so were the other academics who didn’t get the jobs, as well as the students who missed out on the teaching and education to which they were entitled.
This affair highlights a lack of care for everyone, particularly Arday himself, by those who appointed him and kept him in a post which must have caused him anguish in constantly trying to keep up. I don’t believe he consciously lied, I think he was a sick young man who probably believed his own version of himself, and upon whom Cambridge piled far too much pressure in appointing him. I am devastated for him.
I am returning to this as I am upset that the pattern of comments and likes in this chain seems so to be driven by skin colour. There’s also a real “my team vs the other lot” theme, despite David’s regret that this should be the case.
Let us step back. Arday was the child of Ghanaian immigrants. In this country, that is no disqualification. As with all West Africans, first-generation Ghanaians outperform educationally. But he shares skin colour with underperforming West Indians and - far more to the point - the descendants of slaves in the US.
The Americans have grappled with the matters arising since Lincoln’s proclamation. The westerly wind has led many to see our circumstances through their lenses. So too the American expedient of DEI (here, I gather, EDI). Hiring and promotion have never been entirely meritocratic; we like faces which fit. There always duff professors, duff departments, even duff universities. But the word gets out and the world turns.
I am disregarding Arday’s claims of cognitive or physical disadvantage, as imperfectly credible.
The complex of subjects within which Arday made his career is - as another poster has already suggested - “niche”. Nonetheless, it bears upon a matter of great public importance, education: all of Arday’s qualifications and posts referred to this. Educational bodies have a responsibility of good faith to the public, the academic community in general, those they hire and those they decline. They conspicuously failed.
Blaming the press, as the "Likes" to Matt's first post, is blaming the messenger. Some posters evidently regret the message itself. Forgive the plain words, but that is unrealistic and irresponsible.
Folks get excited about these things. Lest any incline to question my motivation, please find a sense of my attitudes in these things at <https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/contra-kruger>
A fine, thoughtful, deeply humane piece. When I heard about his death, I felt only very sad. I could say more, would that achieve anything? I doubt it