Jason Arday, Cambridge Plagiarist?

[Angeruish]

I’m surprised to be the first to mention this, but what do people think about Jason Arday, the Cambridge professor accused of plagiarism, and the media row that is brewing around him?

For those that don’t know, three years ago Arday became – at 37 – the youngest-ever black professor at Cambridge. Arday claims to have been diagnosed with autism at an early age, and says he couldn’t speak until he was eleven, and apparently only learnt how to read and write at eighteen.

The appointment, made when BLM issues were very much in the news, was made despite allegations of plagiarism in Arday’s doctorate, which were dismissed by Cambridge as being beyond its purview, and because he had been cleared by the awarding institution, Liverpool John Moores.

Those allegations have resurfaced in the past few days, with examples that certainly seem fairly damning, including a misplaced s apostrophe in the title of part of his doctoral thesis (An exploration of peer-mentoring among student teachers’ to inform reflective practice within the context of action research). This blatant error seems to have originated in a phrase supposedly lifted from the thesis he allegedly plagiarised, although in that original case it formed part of a sentence in which it was grammatically correct.

My experience of dipping at random into the paper, which is available online, immediately showed a number of other very basic spelling and other mistakes, almost as if it had not been proofread at all.

In an abstract (the summary written by the author, which is placed right at the beginning of an academic paper) from a different 2018 Arday paper, the following three grammatical/spelling errors occur within a single paragraph of just 160 words (again, this can easily be found online):
This paper employs a Critical Race Theory (CRT) a storytelling method, which operates…
powerful ways in racism unfolds within in the Academy…
dismantle inequity in all its suboardinated forms…

There are now reports that Cambridge – which insists that Arday is the victim of a “vile campaign to undermine his credibility” – is, perhaps not surprisingly, facing a “staff revolt” over the issue. Arday himself complains of “dark arts” being used against him, and says that autism led him to rely heavily on mimicry to make sense of information.

On the web you can find reports of various claims made by Arday (though several universities seem to be scaling them down, now that the spotlight is upon them). And yes, I have copied some of these:

• To have finished his PhD in 2½ years while working full-time and living with a brain tumour.
• To have featured on a television show that ran over a decade before he was born.
• To have run thirty marathons in 35 days, despite having experienced an epileptic fit, a seizure and a leg fracture. He also says he has run 600 miles in six days, just fifty miles short of the world record (no evidence of these extraordinary feats appears to exist, nor have witnesses come forward to testify to them.
• To have raised over five million pounds for charity (when challenged in recent days over this, Arday said this was done in association with others, who he declined to name because, he said, he had signed non-disclosure agreements that stopped him from doing so).
• To have played football and snooker professionally (no indication is given as to how Arday might have communicated on a football pitch when mute, as he says he was until the age of eleven).
• To have had a stroke immediately after graduating, causing him to lose his memory of working on his PhD.
• To have two GCSEs, in PE and Textiles (no timeline is given for when he is supposed to have taken these exams, but both of them would presumably have involved some writing – a skill that he apparently only acquired at age 18).
• To sleep only two hours per night.

Try searching online..... even "The Guardian" has now decided he is not everything he claims to be. So what do people think, and what does it say about higher education nowadays???

Sociology can certainly be a proper subject. It doesn't help to stick 'education of' in front of anything though.

My experience of the teaching at Oxbridge is that it is largely good - though I heard that Arday's students were not happy. The best academics still want high standards - and many of those are exactly the people @hellofrommyothername probably thinks are too conservative. They're certainly not the ones obsessing on DEI initiatives (though many of us are keen to find good students from all backgrounds). I and other academics I know work hard for all my students, my lectures and supos are (I think!) engaging, and I get good feedback, won a university teaching award, etc. But apart from UTOs, most are there to do research, not to teach, and to engage in the unique Cambridge life of the SCR, chapel, high table, etc. where lots of the good conversation gets down (but which I imagine @hellofrommyothername you might think is too exclusive?) We're certainly not here to be engaging in campaigns to take down/put up/plaques or statues.

I disagree with @hellofrommyothername that Arday isn't an example of political correctness, and the institution remains completely conservative. Certainly there is a mix of people here, but at the end of the day, there is a prevailing sense that cancel culture and DEI will win out, and that the students voice (which overwhelmingly supports cancel culture) is very powerful. The distinctions between Oxford and Cambridge are also interesting. Strangely, Cambridge is both a more scientific and a much more creative place than Oxford* *- sciences are stronger here, as is music and the theatre scene. Oxford produces more budding politicians. I wonder if anyone here at Oxford could say anything about the sort of culture that I've described above, and whether it is the same in Oxford?

As to whether I as a parent would be happy with my kids getting into tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt for ANY non-vocational degree now, I really don't know. I am in the humanities but only paid £1k a year for it. I think Oxbridge degrees might 'just' continue to be worth it for me, given both the supo/tute system and the undeniably leg up afterwards. But paying £9k a year to read, say, English at another red brick, where research output is excellent, but undergraduate stuff pretty thin, and where students are asked to read a couple of books a term (as opposed to the entire output of Shakespeare for the Shakespeare paper at Cambridge) and turn up to a few lectures doesn't seem like a good use of money. I'm hoping my kids (with European passports) will head either to Oxbridge, Europe where it's cheap, or get a nice fat scholarship to America.

There was a striking report on Radio 4 this morning about reports from students of Arday. Unsurprisingly a number found him to be inadequate as a teacher and so they complained. They were met with accusations of racism to shut them down.

@ThreeLocusts I second this. I'd love to hear more too.

It is my understanding that Cambridge interviews less ppl but makes higher offers and more of them. If you don't achieve the grades then they don't bend (undergrad wise). Oxford, on the other hand, makes less offers and lower offers as they rely on filtering before and after the interview stage. Durham/UCL etc don't interview and rely on non-negotiable offers which you must achieve.

Although I might be out of date and excuses for the 'right' candidates who miss their grades might hold water now.

The wider debate is going on, here and in the media, academia, everywhere. But the focus is bound to be on him as it's human interest and humans are interested in humans, especially a protagonist with such extraordinary aspects.

Of course the institutions need to be scrutinised, but that debate is never going to be as compelling as the 'character' at the centre of it all who isn't even the real Jason Arday in many ways, partly by his own creation, partly by the world around him. You can't expect interest to lessen in 2 or 3 days when an individual or the story he's crafted about himself is as fascinating and bizarre as this one.

I wonder if any of his former students will take legal action if they were disappointed with their results?

Looking at the Good Law Project letter, it seems that the list of named sponsors is continuing to shrink. In particular, Simon Baron-Cohen (Sacha's cousin) now seems to have gone.

I'm really hoping for this.

I think there are several reasons for this. He functions as a sort of "synecdoche" (there's probably a better word) slash scapegoat standing for the whole issue, and it's more "relatable" and immediate, especially for the media, to focus on an individual rather than something more amorphous and systemic.

Also he's a bare-faced liar and fantasist who has cynically played the system, and people are understandably finding that rather enraging. To what extent racism is at play is of course relevant here.

@38thparallel Sorry, 'CB' is the post code for Cambridge. I meant it as shorthand for that.

A friend of mine at school was given an offer of EE by Cambridge to study law a very long time ago.

Yes back in my day (horse drawn card and chalk blackboards) offers of EE or ‘unconditional’ were not uncommon and a sign that they recognised a bright, knowledgable candidate at interview and that they wanted you even if you had a blip in the exams. I’ve only ever seen unconditional offers these days for arts-based degrees where they have reviewed extensive portfolios and interviewed the candidates.

The Atlantic has obtained a copy of Jason Arday's book proposal. In it, he claims to have:

• Experienced 'locked-in' syndrome for several months after being hit by a car. Doctors advised his family to have the life support machine turned off, but he awakened 'miraculously'
• Been struck down by testicular cancer (though this changes in the book to brain cancer)
• Been beaten up by a group of kids and then, in court, pleaded with the judge not to jail them. Coincidentally, two of the kids later became his students, and Arday became godfather to the child of one of them

• Aborted a suicide attempt on a bridge after listening to an Eagles song.
• Been awarded several accolades - of which no proof exists online.
• Been told by a 'shaman woman' in Brazil that he would suffer greatly but also do great thing. 'Every event she described has since come to pass,' he wrote.

Think you’ve mixed me up with someone else! My only comment on this thread has been to suggest a former Cambridge academic does an AMA

“We are so lucky to have you,” Cambridge’s head of faculty for education, Hilary Cremin, src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/g28uXeXz9l8" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen> told him in a clip shown on BBC shortly after his hiring was announced. “You are the best in the world in terms of the research that you do.”

How very embarrassing for her

DEI in general is too focused on what you can see about a person as opposed to the multilayered structures that create disadvantage that are often not at all obvious from just looking at someone.

This is because DEI is inherently performative. It's all about creating the appearance of action as opposed to actually doing the hard work to dismantle structural inequality and bias within organisations and society as a whole.

There are many black and minority ethnic children who come from privileged backgrounds where parents are university educated, work in professional roles and are aspirational for their children, and can support their children financially and use connections to secure them work experience and future employment.

There are many white children who come from underprivileged backgrounds where their parents lack basic qualifications, work in menial jobs or are reliant on benefits, and are not aspirational for their children. These children have no financial support for further study and no connections to help them secure placements or jobs.

However, under many DEI initiatives, a child from the former category would be privileged over a child from the latter, because race is considered a higher priority than class in DEI tick lists. In fact, class is rarely mentioned in DEI terminology on job adverts, with race/sexuality/gender usually being the focus.

I am fully supportive of DEI initiatives from a theoretical perspective, but I think the practical application of DEI in many institutions has a far too narrow focus, is not applied within rigorous enough guidelines, and is too often used to create the appearance of change rather than evidencing genuine change.

I find it very uncomfortable that two or three days in or whatever to this story it’s still so focused on the individual.

I think there are several reasons for this...

And his memoir is due to be published in the US in a few days. That will inevitably bring further attention. There are probably review copies already out there to catch the weekend papers.

So another handful of outlandish claims in addition to all the others he's previously made?! Jeez.

My sister was offered EE to study maths at Oxford in the mid 80s. She was VERY good at maths though.

I agree.

If it was just academic plagiarism in an obscure branch of education/sociology there wouldn't be any media interest outside of Retraction Watch and THE. But most professors don't get interviews on with BBC/Guardian/C4 when they're appointed, and his supposed life story is so fantastical that he's become the story.

Going back to the clip where he said he didn't even like research - was that a cry for help? Did he think the grift had gone too far by that point?

Well precisely! It's not like he's not made himself the centre of attention. He literally has publicists pushing his memoir out to sell copies. They might not like the way the story's gone but it's all come from him peddling his story.

I had one in the mid 1990s. They were common before the Oxford entrance exam was abolished.

Argh, I am so sorry! Yes, I meant @ThreeLocusts (the post you commented on!) Profound apologies!