Exactly. The plagiarism claims are what triggered the wider interest. His behaviour thereafter fuelled further interest from more main steam journalists. And he then tried to prevent legitimate investigations into accusations by intimidation and false allegations to the police (with the Metropolitan police having to issue an apology for his they handled it- I wonder if they got it wrong, again, because of concerns about not being seen to handle claims of racism towards a public figure properly).
Whilst I don’t think the average person on the street would have considered him a household name, he was also not an obscure, reclusive Cambridge Don either. He actively participated in the media- I have seen him a number of times on TV, he was happy to be publicly feted by the university and he clearly sought further attention/fame/recognition when he wrote his autobiography (which is likely to be largely a work of fiction). If you court attention and public recognition, you have to accept the good and the bad- especially if you create fantastical claims which are easily probable as such.
I think we should not retrospectively canonise this man because of untimely death. I’m very sorry for his family and friends, who are no doubt absolutely devastated. It doesn’t, however, follow that his death means he is exonerated of any and all wrongdoing, nor does it mean it’s all everyone else’s fault. Jason Arday was l, ultimately, the cause of much of the problems he faced. I do think there were some who had a racist agenda, but that is not the beginning, middle and end of this situation. If it is labelled as such, we aren’t going to get to the bottom of it all and we won’t be able to prevent something similar happening again.
I also think there are some utter hypocrites coming out of the woodwork to defend him now (having previously distanced themselves) and quite a few self-serving commentators screeching about racism and blaming the media. They seem to have their own agenda with regards racism claims and I think for a number of them his case is a useful bandwagon upon which they can jump in an attempt to further that agenda.
Jason Arday was clearly a fantasist, and it wound appear lacked the academic ability to fulfil the role to which he was promoted. There are claims from a number of students regarding his failings as a lecturer and supervisor- and it would seem any complaints to the university were met with claims of racist bias. Highly inappropriate and intimidatory tactics. This is not the actions of a fair man or a responsible institution. Having read some of his work, I am utterly baffled as to how he could be viewed as a fine academic mind- though given the questionable nature of some of their other appointments within this department, it would seem a theme from this institution which was once a bastion of intellectual rigour.
Those in leadership positions within Cambridge university and those who appointed him carry responsibility for the failure in integrity by recruiting someone unsuited to the post because it met their DEI agenda and he was someone who could be publicly flaunted as such. They either knew of the problems surrounding Arday, or should have done and failed in their due diligence prior to his appointment. I find it doubtful that there were no concerns about him during his tenure. I think they have failed in their duty to the institution they are entrusted to manage, failed in their responsibility towards their students and academic staff, abd also failed Jason Arday- firstly by promoting him to a position he was unsuited for and publicly lauding him and then by not managing the situation when it was clear there was an issue that needed to be resolved properly. I think they were more bothered about their public DEI image than anything else. And that is the problem with this kind of facade creates- the appearance of being inclusive is more important than the substance behind it. Academic rigour, quality of teaching and the impact on the students the lecture is educating barely registers on the priority list.
i also think LJMU has some questions to answer. I wonder how keen they would have been to uphold those plagiarism claims- it seems they accepted his defence that he did not mean to plagiarise, which seems odd to me. Maybe I have misunderstood the decision as only glanced at it briefly. To uphold it they would have to public ally admit defincies within their own processes- and be going against Cambridge’s much-feted golden DEI poster-boy (who is also not afraid to take legal action).
All in all, a sorry episode for everyone involved.