Was Jason Arday just the perfect victim?

[KellyK2026]

Surely I can’t be the only one that feels like Jason Arday was a victim, right? Yesterday he was found dead and I feel bad for him. Here’s the reasons why I think he was a victim:

1. It is absolutely insane to me that Cambridge University would appoint him as a Professor when he was in the early stages of his career. It’s practically unheard of. At any university you typically have to earn your dues (which means working as an academic for many years) OR do something truly special, like a Nobel Prize nomination, to be promoted to Professor. I cannot imagine the amount of pressure he had been under to prove himself and likely had a tremendous amount of imposter syndrome. Cambridge let him down.
2. I’ve worked in academia for many years, and let me tell you, academics are under a tremendous amount of pressure to publish. This pressure can compromise quality. Arday isn’t the first nor will he be the last to publish questionable papers.
3. As I’ve worked in academia for years, I’ve experienced academics make racist and sexist remarks first hand. One white academic I worked with got drunk at a work get together and started a rant about how Black people shouldn't be president (this was when Obama was in power), that Obama was a Muslim and interracial relationships were ‘disgusting’. What made this somewhat even worse was that this particular academic wrote about racism in the public sphere, so he profited from writing about Black struggles while harbouring these personal views. There was no repercussions for him, despite presenting himself as something other than what he was.
4. I’ve also been sexually assaulted at a conference by a male academic. No repercussions for him either and he no doubt pretends to be a feminist in his work.
5. I don’t think it’s in doubt that Arday had autism. Now I don’t know how it affected him personally, but, again, that must’ve been extremely difficult and perhaps even blurred what is and isn’t acceptable in higher education.
6. He was also cleared of plagiarism but, again, so many academics have plagiarised ideas and papers, but they haven’t been strung up like Arday has been.

So, long story short, I feel like Cambridge let him down. And I feel like he was targeted because there’s plenty of other examples but they never get called out and nobody cares. It was a witch hunt. But I’d be interested to hear what others have to say on this matter.

You know deep down your cat will never be as loyal to you as you are to it. However if he has worked hard and is as deserving as you say who am I to stand in his way, contact the university straight away.

Just remember when the cat leaves you for someone with a softer sofa or nicer food because those types tend to get yourself a dog

@KellyK2026
But politicians lie all the time, from how much money they are getting from donors to tax avoidance.
a) It is not true that politicians lie all the time. Name some who you think did and got away with it.
b) We expect Academics to be truthful and ethical in their work. If the are not then the next set of textbooks is going to lead us all along wrong paths.

I’ve got to go and talk to my cat. He’s not sure.

he’s headed out to predator before i could chat to him.

He’s good though lol…..

As the child of a suicide, having lived with the consequences, I firmly believe that killing your self doesn’t suddenly exonerate all your past actions or close the book on who you were. Nor does it represent deserved consequences; it’s pretty much the opposite of facing up to the consequences of your life.

None of this is good.

It is absolutely insane to me that Cambridge University would appoint him as a Professor when he was in the early stages of his career. It’s practically unheard of. At any university you typically have to earn your dues (which means working as an academic for many years) OR do something truly special, like a Nobel Prize nomination, to be promoted to Professor. I cannot imagine the amount of pressure he had been under to prove himself and likely had a tremendous amount of imposter syndrome. Cambridge let him down.
He was entirely unqualified to be a Chair and Professor and Cambridge should never have appointed him in that context. Why they did that is one of the wider issues which makes this whole affair about much more than Arday's individual case. They were doubtless influenced by Glasgow having already made him a Professor, none of the institutions eager to appoint him seem to have checked his work or his record. The appointment seems really to have been a kind of PR ambassadorship with courtesy titles. Cambridge should have been honest about his real status. I don't think he had 'imposter syndrome', I think he was an impostor. However, it's unclear what he actually believed, given his reported neurodevelopmental disorder.

I’ve worked in academia for many years, and let me tell you, academics are under a tremendous amount of pressure to publish. This pressure can compromise quality. Arday isn’t the first nor will he be the last to publish questionable papers.
Do they get Chairs at Cambridge though? All of Arday's published work is questionable. It's true that people publish poorly-conducted work, much of which is simply re-statement of fashionable and unchallenged humanities and social science theories, peer-reviewed by people who themselves think this is valid and scrutinised by no-one else. Arday was able to get to PhD level by this means. The second wider issue is how John Moores' passed him not only with high levels of demonstrable plagiarism in his thesis, which they then 'cleared' him of with no outside scrutiny, but validated work which doesn't seem to have any real scholarship or method or new data analysis - how is work like this being passed and of what quality are these Doctorates? That's bigger than Arday's single case.

As I’ve worked in academia for years, I’ve experienced academics make racist and sexist remarks first hand. One white academic I worked with got drunk at a work get together and started a rant about how Black people shouldn't be president (this was when Obama was in power), that Obama was a Muslim and interracial relationships were ‘disgusting’. What made this somewhat even worse was that this particular academic wrote about racism in the public sphere, so he profited from writing about Black struggles while harbouring these personal views. There was no repercussions for him, despite presenting himself as something other than what he was.

I’ve also been sexually assaulted at a conference by a male academic. No repercussions for him either and he no doubt pretends to be a feminist in his work.
This is not confined to academia, but the gap between the reality of institutions and their corporate image produces the conditions in which someone like Arday is used as PR. I have seen concepts like 'decolonising the curriculum' used uncritically by white and PoC academics as the means of getting on in their careers, the latest in a long line of insincere trends. The suspicion is that Arday was inappropriately appointed, with his academic record and demonstrable fantasies unverified, purely to provide an image for Cambridge and the rest is another wider issue, as are the threats made to journalists and others who wanted to ask questions about his appointment.

I don’t think it’s in doubt that Arday had autism. Now I don’t know how it affected him personally, but, again, that must’ve been extremely difficult and perhaps even blurred what is and isn’t acceptable in higher education.
I haven't seen specific evidence of Arday's autism, although some of the public claims he made about his condition are impossible confabulations, but his autism isn't what makes his work poor - autism doesn't stop scholars publishing genuinely world-class work.

He was also cleared of plagiarism but, again, so many academics have plagiarised ideas and papers, but they haven’t been strung up like Arday has been.
He was 'cleared' of plagiarism by the people who would be liable to explain how it ever got past them - I'd like to see the details. What other cases do you have in mind? No other single case brings together these elements of institutional academic scandal in the UK: of the validation of poor-class work in the arts, humanities and social sciences, the lack of verification for academic qualifications and competencies on appointment, and the blatant institutional insincerity in appointing him because the idea of a young, black, autistic prof from a deprived family provided a DEI symbol for them.

I don't disagree he's a victim in various ways but the media and others questioning this affair are right to do so, despite his suicide. I don't think it's simply a 'race' issue either, I can see this whole scenario playing out if he'd been 'trans'.

The fantastical claims to me sound like bipolar. I do wonder if there was more to it with his mental health.

This story represents a tremendous failure on Cambridge’s part. It is difficult to understand how an institution that prides itself on excellence could have failed to carry out sufficiently rigorous checks before appointing someone to such a prestigious position.
Rather than focusing the narrative almost entirely on the individual, Cambridge should have been under scrutiny about its own selection and vetting processes, not the man. This appears to be the tragic story of a deeply vulnerable man who may have been experiencing significant psychological difficulties, yet was able to progress through a system that one would expect to be exceptionally robust.
Instead of allowing one individual to bear the full weight of what happened, Cambridge should publicly examine how its own processes may have failed. The institution should be prepared to acknowledge its part in the circumstances that led to such a tragic outcome, rather than distancing itself from someone who may himself have been profoundly vulnerable.

Your cat has never claimed to be hungry despite having just been fed? I for one am highly suspicious

Yes, I think this is a fair assessment. A very prestigious organisation, famed for high standards and academic excellence has significantly failed here.
It's quite shocking.

If Cambridge had done their due diligence, this poor man would still be alive.

If he hadn’t decided to be a con man and lie about everything then he wouldn’t have had the ego collapse from his lies being revealed or the publicity of it all.

The house of cards was tumbling down around him. With so much of his past being called into question and being proved false he must have known that his book was going to be scrutinized to an nth degree and more exaggerations or lies would be uncovered.

The game was up, basically.

He was clearly very vulnerable though wasn’t he? And someone out there has lost their son because of this.

Narcissistic personality disorder seems a perfect fit - comes across as charming but has grandiose views of themselves and seek admiration, feels victimised when held to account so seeks out those who uphold his delusions, lacking empathy for others…

Yes I believe there’s a genocide going on. You’ve mentioned some yourself. No, I don’t have to disclose my political opinions to you. Get over it.

I think its a PD rather than MH per se (and there is dispute about whether PDs are considered a MH condition or not). He seems to have EUPD as far as I think

Men are rarely diagnosed with this though

Narcissists are both vulnerable and abusive. They feel victimised when held to account. But that does not mean they should not be or that others should put up with their abuse - conning others to support you grandiose feelings is abuse.

Prisoners are routinely put on suicide watch when they first enter jail. It is well recognised that they are at risk during this point. They are ‘vulnerable’ but no one would suggest that because of this we should be blackmailed into not imprisoning them. Of course Arday was ‘vulnerable’ when his lies were exposed but inferring it should therefore have been brushed under the carpet is totally unreasonable.

He is hardly the first con man to have gotten lots of publicity when his con came to light. That chap who pretended to die on a kayak trip but lived next door to his wife in secret had a to series made about him. Ironically Arday might have been safer if he had been arrested for his con.

The problem is that almost everything you've listed can also have an autistic explanation, particularly if you're describing someone from the outside. Masking can look like charm; rigid thinking can look like arrogance or grandiosity; difficulty processing criticism can look like feeling victimised; seeking people who understand or validate them can look like seeking people who reinforce their ‘delusions’; and difficulty recognising or demonstrating other people's emotions can look like a lack of empathy. None of those things, in isolation, distinguish NPD from autism. The really important question is what is driving the behaviour, whether there is a lifelong developmental pattern consistent with autism, and whether there is actually the pervasive pattern of grandiosity, entitlement, exploitation and need for admiration characteristic of NPD. You can't infer a personality disorder simply from behaviours that have perfectly plausible autistic explanations.

People are messy. They fuck up. Some of them REALLY fuck up. Some people are beyond redemption. Some aren’t. It’s so nuanced but that’s what makes us human. I’ll bet nearly every person reading has a person in their life that has made some mistakes but that they love regardless. Somebody that possibly continues to make mistakes but that we love regardless.

Jason was vulnerable and used as a poster boy for institutions that wanted to capitalise on his race, disability and background. I am not saying that Jason Arday was innocent of any deception or confabulation or that shouldn’t have been held to account, but the way in which he has been held to account is the whole issue here. He did not deserve that.

Did he make mistakes? Probably. He’s human. Was he committing serious crimes of a violent or sexual nature? No.

Hear, hear jonesonscam.

One of the problems in this country is that CAMHS wont diagnose PD or psychopathy prior to 18 so will muddy the waters and not really call the traits of those conditions for what they are. Meaning a chronology of behaviour is not accurately noted.

Doesnt really matter what was wrong with him in any case, the ultimate problem was he made a lot of stuff up, caused harm.

Let’s talk about the harm you say he caused. It’s it comparable to the way in which he was hounded by the media? Do you think The Telegraph and The Daily Mail would’ve treated a white academic in a similar way for similar circumstances? Would they have been front and centre in print and online, having their character assassinated?

I don’t think they’d have even had them in the side bar.

As a pp said, when does press scrutiny become hounding ? Is it when it’s not in your favour ? So when your ( fraudulent) accomplishments are lauded it’s ok, but when they’re proven to be lies it’s hounding ?