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.

Yep and accusing us of being so offensive that we got deleted as far as im aware none of my posts on this thread have been deleted

You CANT ‘ disagree’ about him being a pathological liar.

Do you think you can ‘ disagree’ that we’ve had a drought?!

No mine neither!

Some of us haven't had a drought! (grin) And as I wrote upthread somewhere, I am unsure whether he was a pathological liar or a compulsive liar. Not that I feel the distinction makes all that much difference to the people lied to.

I have been wondering whether, since the OP objects to "fantasist" on the grounds that's a medical diagnosis (I don't think that it is, but hey), he or she would settle for "fabulist" as a description of JA, going by his public utterances. It's not a medical term, and it does seem to suit him to a T.

What is the imaginary difference between ‘ pathological liar’ and ‘ compulsive liar’…..

JA is a touchstone for a debate about equal opportunities. The authorities at Cambridge jumped on him without due diligence, disadvantaging other academics, because he ticked diversity boxes. They tried to shut down any dissenters legally rather than examining the facts. They have a huge responsibility for what happened to him and that is why they have launched their investigations.

JA himself embellished his life story and used others’ work to facilitate his career; he took a high profile role in the media and on line which, some would say, was incredibly naive. He had written his life story and was about to embark on more media tours. It was inevitable he would eventually be exposed. That is his responsibility.

When it all began to unravel press of all persuasions covered it and he came to represent a failing system where merit was less important than ‘look’ or ‘backstory’. It wasn’t unreasonable to use him as a way of examining what might have happened within the system and there was clearly enormous public interest in the issues.

That he felt he couldn’t carry on is tragic. But it doesn’t make the press responsible and it is important they can hold truth to power.

I have no idea, but apparently there is one even though the end result is the same for its victims. Possibly (but please don't take this as me being a mental health expert, because I'm not) a pathological liar is one who lies deliberately in order to be manipulative, selfish, and cunning, but does not him or her self necessarily believe the lies, while a compulsive liar is one who lies by bending the truth about everything until lying seems normal to him or her and he or she does believe the lies, such that telling the truth is awkward.

So it could be quibbled and argued about endlessly, as we have seen the OP doing about other things this thread.

How did his family and friends stand by and watch him be a conman? Surely they knew they were watching a slow car crash?

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime ah, I see. I rather think over emotive presumptive narratives deserve a resounding lack of attention.

It seems possible that some at least of his friends did try to help him, but didn't succeed.

As for his family, I simply don't know how much family he had any more. If it is true that his wife had left him (is the source for that his book?) then she and his children may not have been around to notice what was happening to his mental health at the critical time; and if (is the source for that his book?) he had gambled away all the money his natal family had as savings (or was it his wife's and children's savings?) they might not have been all that keen on him any more.

But since it is pretty-much impossible to know what in his putative life-story may be true and what is entirely his invention, it's hard to say, isn't it.

I don't recall anyone stanning Rachel Dolezal or Jessica Krug this hard.

He wasn't exonerated.

"LJMU cleared him of plagiarism, but academics said legitimate concerns remained".

There is a huge difference between exoneration and that statement!

You're assuming he had actual 'family and friends'. There seems to be a degree of doubt around this also.

Ah! His wife had left him. He was a solo fantasist.

So what I’m saying is unhelpful but actually a lot of people agree and actually more people are signing petitions wanting the media and Cambridge to be investigated?…… I don’t see 100k people starting a petition supporting your argument. I don’t see students of JA who disliked him setting up a webpage giving examples of what they didn’t like

Dear me - there’s already an investigation! As for your second point, why on Earth would any student of his want to set up a webpage saying all the things they disliked about him??! The poor man is dead. Some students have come forward and giving their negative experiences with regard to him, but who would want to set up a whole webpage, and why would you even think about that, having slagged off the press for investigating his lies?

There’s none so blind… JA had a major part in his own downfall. He wasn’t a passive victim. That doesn’t mean that Cambridge are innocent, but he promoted himself just as much as Cambridge did. His lies were so ridiculous and ill-considered that it’s possible he had a personality disorder or an MH condition. I suspect people close to him were aware of the lies but didn’t want to stop him in his Icarus-like flight.

People are using the word fabulist but I'm beginning to think JA was a mythomaniac. There are many parallels with Brenda Leyland, the lady that trolled the McCanns. She killed herself three days after Sky News doorstepped her. She had spent her whole life telling stories about herself for decades to make herself seem grander, more exciting, more interesting to other people than she felt she was. All of that was going to come out, not just her trolling.

Apparently we weren't allowed to talk about that because the OP said that we didn't need to know everything about his life
But apparently she's gone now so we can. That's good.

There are lots of reasons this became such a big story in the media and fascinating to so many.

1. An elite institution was made a fool of.
2. The lies were so obvious that it demonstrates how much of a bubble Cambridge is in and highlights their lack of genuine diversity.
3. It raises the much debated issue of positive discrimination.
4. Many individuals and businesses cash in on the autistic genius idea. I'm sure his publishers were not unaware of the market for this kind of thing.
5. Pathological lying is something people always find fascinating.
6. He didn't choose to stay under the radar.
7. He was, and still is, being used as a poster boy for other people's causes.

It is incredibly sad for his friends and family. It must be very painful for them.

Suppose we just need to wait for a good investigative journalist to get to grips with this whole sad and baffling story, to write the book or create the TV documentary or whatever form it takes. I do find it frightening that some people want to clamp down on the power of the press to do this, however. We need to know the true story of his life and how he managed to achieve the position he did, and to hear from the people around him.

I wonder if Jon Ronson would take it on. He’s probably currently working on the story of Anne Widdecombes murder and how the left escalated to violence via thuggishTransmen.

or he might be avoiding being targeted and staying quiet for fear of being immediately dubbed as a gammon racist.

@Windsurf & @ThatCyanCat - where does that come from, give me your evidence?

“His achievements were not real” - factually incorrect! Even after the allegations surfaced, no university, regulator, or investigative body ever concluded that his academic appointments were fabricated. What is verified is that he completed a BA, MA, PGCE, and PhD (Liverpool John Moores University, 2015). He held legitimate academic posts at Durham, Glasgow, and then Cambridge. His professorships were formally appointed through standard university processes. He co‑authored policy reports used in Parliament. He held trustee roles in major national organisations (Runnymede Trust, BSA). These are institutionally confirmed facts. They are not inventions, nor were they retroactively invalidated. So the statement “his achievements were not real” is simply false.

“He bounced up grades because he was a black man during BLM”, this is not supported by evidence, this is a political narrative, not a factual one.
There is no evidence that his promotions were fast‑tracked due to race except possibly Cambridge but I am not even sure about that. UK universities do not appoint professors through public sentiment or political movements; they appoint through publication record, teaching record, grant income, policy impact, leadership roles. His rise was unusually fast but fast rises do happen, especially in social sciences where policy impact and public engagement weigh heavily.
The BLM‑related claim is speculation, not fact.

What was disputed or problematic? Now this is where nuance matters:

His autobiographical claims - Some personal claims he made publicly were challenged, including being non‑verbal until 11 and being illiterate until 18. These were not verified, and acquaintances disputed them. Cambridge opened an inquiry into inaccuracies in his personal narrative and the outcome had not been reached at the time of his death.

Allegations about research integrity - There were allegations of plagiarism, data issues, inaccuracies in autobiographical statements. He stated that his PhD was reviewed and cleared of deliberate plagiarism, but the broader allegations remained unresolved at the time of his death. So yes there were serious issues, but they do not erase his verified academic appointments.

My original framing, that his insecurity may have driven embellishment, is far more psychologically plausible than “his achievements were fake".

He had real, verified academic achievements. He also made personal claims that were not verified and faced serious allegations. Both things can be true at once.

I understand why this situation feels upsetting, especially for academics who already deal with assumptions about DEI or legitimacy. But I think it’s important not to let one man’s mistakes be turned into a sweeping narrative about “all academics of colour” or about how universities hire.

Arday’s personal claims were disputed, yes, but his academic appointments at Durham, Glasgow and Cambridge were real, formally made, and never revoked. His case doesn’t suddenly rewrite how institutions evaluate Black scholars, nor does it invalidate the hard work of anyone else.

If anything, it shows how damaging it is when public narratives get mixed up with personal biography. Most people are capable of separating one individual’s behaviour from an entire group, and it would be unfair to let his actions be used as a proxy for everyone else.

Your frustration makes sense, but I don’t think this situation justifies the level of fear or anger being projected onto other academics who’ve done nothing wrong.

Thanks for your brilliant take. A lot of the narrative surrounding JA is very reductive and lacks nuance. You’re very right, multiple things can be true at once and we need to remember that.

LJMU marked their own work. If they admitted he’s been given a PhD with a heavily plagiarised thesis they’d be liable.

i watched the TES journalist, Jack Groves, being interviewed on LBC and he said he’s never seen anything like it. The thesis was so heavily plagiarised it was basically all someone else’s work; mostly one person but passages from another’s work too. I really hope LJMU are called to account over this but ranks will doubtless close, academics no longer there etc.

As for press hounding, Jack Groves works for a specialised publication, not a tabloid rag. He and the organisation were easy to intimidate but once the msm picked it up it was a different matter. Even then, “hounding” didn’t occur. He wasn’t being doorstepped or followed down the road as we’ve seen many others exposed to. He certainly became the hot topic and that can’t have been easy but a lot was directed at academia and EDI and the woke agenda.

Are you aware of how a PhD viva works? Because it’s not marked internally. You have external academics that sit on the panel which are experts in the field.