The Jason Arday scandal

[Ilikesundays]

To think that Cambridge University’s reputation has been shot to pieces by the revelations about ex-professor Jason Arday?

Fascinating that the article on the University of Cambridge's website linked to in your post refers to him as a 'renowned' sociologist and says he has published 'extensively':

He has established himself as a leading scholar in his field, publishing extensively on subjects including the experiences of Black students in universities, the under-representation of ethnic minority people in academic careers, and the long-term impacts of racial discrimination in education. Throughout his career, he has committed himself to helping as many ethnic minority and under-represented people as possible gain access to opportunities within the sector.
He has also sole-authored and co-written several books, including works that explore the roots of structural racism in higher education, and the ‘Cool Britannia’ phenomenon of the 1990s from an ethnic minority perspective.

But he hasn't published extensively - not at all. Here's what I've been able to find that he has actually published (as opposed to what he has said he has published - as we know, at least one book he claimed to be sole author of was never actually completed and shelved by the publisher):

One 80 page monograph on 'Cool Britannia' and how it was actually racist - which appears to be autoethnographic (and so not actual research).

Co editor of 'Dismantling Race in Higher Education' - a book in which he contributed one chapter.

Co author of 'We See Things They'll Never See: Love, Hope and Neurodiversity' - which again is an autoethnographic work very tenuously linked to any actual theoretical framework or meaningful research methodology.

Co editor of 'Doing Equity and Diversity for Success in Higher Education' - to which he contributed one co authored and one sole authored chapter, both very short, and again both lacking in any actual research content.

These and a small handful of utterly nonsense journal articles in very disreputable journals are the entirety of his published research output.

This should never have been enough to make him an 'expert' in his field. None of this work is rooted in any actual scholarship or wide-ranging research. On paper, it is clear that this is not someone who has published 'extensively' and this is not someone who is contributing anything like groundbreaking or unique research in this area. He also had only been teaching in a university setting for a couple of years before being given a 'professorship' title, which is ridiculous given that a Professor is the highest rung on the academic ladder. He has achieved nothing of any particular academic note to justify such a rapid promotion.

Even if he interviewed well, he shouldn't have met the criteria for a Professorship with so little research output and so little experience. I was taught by the world's acknowledged expert in the field of my specialist area of literature when I was an undergrad and she had been teaching at my (prestigious) uni for twenty years - with about 8 books under her belt - before she was finally considered eligible for a professorship, because the bar to reach a professorship is - and rightfully so, given the salary and status attached - very high.

The more you dig into this, the more it absolutely beggars belief that he was given a professorship after 5 minutes as a pseudo academic.

You're missing the point entirely. Leaving aside for a moment the disability, Jason Arday enjoyed courting attention for being a relatively young, black, professor. When people wanted to interview him because he was black and successful, he didn't say "What racism that you should be more interested in me than the white professors who surround me..." He said "Yes, of course, I'm free on Tuesday." So it is in equal measure that now his academic history is being questioned, it is getting media attention.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that his apparent duplicity is anything to do with his racial profile. He's a liar who happens to be black. But he's a liar who happens to be black and well known.

So I guess, in a circuitous way, you could argue that had he not been black he might not have had so much attention for gaining his role, so might not have been given so much attention for the lies that have been exposed.

While we're on the subject, people conveniently forget that only 3-4% of the UK population is black, so it's not that surprising that the number of professors who are black isn't high either.

I can’t find it! The Guardian generously let me read an article (while selling me a Nissan) on the 6th that REPORTED the AV clip but I don’t know anyone who has WATCHED it. If you post it and I see / hear it and it’s not that AI generated voice, then I’ll happily concede with good grace.

The Guardian article conceded that it wasn’t “impossible” for him to run marathons on a hairline injury too. Wasn’t there a World Cup footballer who played on a fractured leg?

Honestly, I don’t know what is true anymore- about this or many things. Trump is having peace talks with Iranians, Iranians say he isn’t. Which is true? The BBC does run The News on its channel anymore it’s called ‘verified’ . WTF is happening?

💯 applause

It led to the situation because they didn't acknowledge their own biases. They selected him not because of his work (which is a load of rubbish) but because he was suitable in other ways (black and allegedly disabled) Those things clouded their judgement.

What does ‘publishing’ mean nowadays? We’re all ‘published’.

Good post. A slight side issue but if articles are behind a paywall, I simply put the URL into archive.ph to read it. It's only failed once.

Brilliant. Is your name a reference to the poem or the manics song or both?

Surely being published means a peer reviewed academic paper as opposed to posting on line if you are suggesting that is in anyway being 'published'?

Everything he said and did was a load of bollocks. Hats off to him that he pulled it off, those gormless Cambridge dons must be squirming with embarrassment. Just wonder what the next steps are really.

I posted the video, you said you don’t have Twitter and it was probably a deep fake so I’m not particularly inclined to bother any further than that. Here it is again

https://x.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/2084889820678004923?s=46&t=vKGM6xpoeW3wdlaVVVagQA

The Guardian doesn’t have a pay wall.

You are forgetting that it was Glasgow University that made Arday a professor, not Cambridge. If due diligence was missing, it's Glasgow that has questions to answer. It's not up to Cambridge to question whether he merited that professorship.

Haha. The poem actually, but mainly life in general.

You need to read Enid Spyton’s post shortly before yours.

And if the Cambridge elite can’t tell a brilliant academic from a complete fraud by talking to them, what does that say about them?

I have read it, and you're kind of missing the point. I know his published work looks very thin - I looked it up myself.

The point is, everyone's talking as if Cambridge picked up Arday as a complete nobody. He had already been appointed professor at a prestigious university. If there are questions to answer, it's not just Cambridge we should be looking to.

Not just Cambridge, no. But they aren't off the hook just because other unis gave him a pass.

I mean, I can sniff out when someone is talking bullshit about something I know a lot about. Can't they?

If they can - did they not care that he was bullshitting?

If they couldn't - is that because their line of work is indistinguishable from bullshit?

I am reminded quite strongly of the Sokal Hoax of 1999 when a physics professor got a bullshit made-up article published in a social studies journal.

30:30 in for the Birkbeck claim:

If they couldn't - is that because their line of work is indistinguishable from bullshit? - I think you may have hit the nail on the head there.

His 'specialism' is the experience of Black academics in higher education.

The woman interviewing him - Hilary Cremin - has a specialism in 'peace and conflict' in schools.

Given that Hilary Cremin is also a pseudo-academic spouting a load of hippy shit and calling it academic research, she is hardly best placed to judge another fraud when she sees one.

However, there is also the reality that she wouldn't know anything about what Arday was 'researching' because it's not in her line of 'specialism' at all.

So I can see how he might have blagged his way past panels in interviews if he was being interviewed by people with no knowledge of his very narrow field of 'research' - if you haven't read widely in the 'literature' being produced by 'academics' in this area, then you won't be able to challenge or critically evaluate what someone is saying in an interview setting.

That being said, a cursory look at his published output would tell you he didn't have a robust enough research background to justify being given such a prestigious post, so I really can't see how anyone involved in hiring Arday is going to get out of this with their reputation intact.

Furthermore, I would be very, very sceptical if someone applied to a post after having jumped ship very quickly from ALL of their previous academic positions. He barely stayed 18 months anywhere. Very unusual in a profession where a permanent job is highly sought after, especially for someone so early in their career. I can't believe this didn't raise any eyebrows or prompt any concerns.

Reminds me of a former colleague (pre teaching) who was a 'change consultant' for fundraising departments in charities. He would breeze in on very highly paid temporary consulting contracts, make all sorts of promises about how he would turn things around and bring in the big bucks, talk endlessly about all his contacts and connections, and then leave after 12 months with another prestigious organisation on his CV, without having achieved anything of note - because the reality is, it takes much longer than a year to see the results of fundraising efforts. None of the applications he made for the charity I was working for came off - we got absolutely zero income from his involvement. However, by the time we knew that, he was already 6 months into his next job. An absolute charlatan - and yet he's still at it, a decade later, because he always leaves before he's found out.

More recently there was the Grievance studies affair in which 3 authors managed to get 4 bogus papers published in peer reviewed journals. Some of the topics were so absurd it is genuinely hard to understand how anyone took them seriously. I keep wondering if this case is a hoax too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

Do we have three universities that have been made fools of?
Glasgow which I thought was a heavyweight, genuine Premier League
John Moore's Liverpool which is a lightweight kind of place
Jesus College Cambridge which really should know better.
Any more?

Wasn't Leeds Beckett also involved?

The arts is one of the most elitist institutions in the country. Their record of getting WC kids into one of the UKs growth industries is woeful. They are also chock full of Nepo babies and also, ironically people who love to tell everyone how lefty they are. I suspect they loudly declare this to cover up for them not really wanting a more meritocratic industry, because it might mean their ordinary kids having to jump through the same hoops and take the same chances as everyone else David and Georgia Tennant.

@noblegiraffe

I stand by the observation, I haven’t seen anything to contradict it.

Why would discussion of racism have a reputation? Unless of course you question its validity. If anything events highlight the importance of exactly this field of interest.

Do I think teaching Baudelaire and de Musset would be affected by a rogue academic? Of course not. The personal contribution would be binned and the conversation continued without them.

I’m not sure what damage you think I’m trying to limit? I don’t know the bloke, don’t work at Cambridge, don’t work in that field. I just have a different perspective to you that’s all.

Why would his actions make it harder for other black academics? (And why are they behind rather than in front?) Unless you believe he’s representative of
poc in general or his choices are somehow fundamental to his colour. What really makes life hard for black academics is the scale and tone of the reaction to this event and the ugly attitudes displayed in its wake.

Leeds Beckett? An ex poly? Think we can give them a pass. It's the prestigious places that you'd think would spot a fake at a thousand paces.

'Do I think teaching Baudelaire and de Musset would be affected by a rogue academic? Of course not'

Oh fgs of course content is affected if taught by a fake. If they make bollocks up on an everyday basis God knows what nonsense they are peddling in the classroom.