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.

There’s no apology?

I’m referring to the complex needs he claimed he had, whatever they were. If you’re going to hire someone who has told you that they have complex needs and are vulnerable you have a duty of care to make sure you have sufficient support in place. If you don’t have it, don’t hire. It’s that simple.

I agree which much of this. I’ve been on the interview panel for many people. I’ve scored multiple job applications. When someone says that they’ve written and published a book, the first thing you do is verify that. You look it up and check that that information is correct. I’ve turned down applicants for much less, like forgetting to fill out a section because I can’t score them on it. I cannot believe that an academic institution which prides itself on research integrity and rigour did not pick up on it. You can say ‘JA lied’, but that’s why you have a panel where what’s been put to you is discussed and scrutinised. And of course they knew better. We aren’t talking about an application to Sainsbury’s. We are talking about an application to one of the world’s most prestigious universities. Academia is a small world. People know each other and Cambridge knows how to do research and cross-check evidence. So why wasn’t it done correctly?

We can not stop people lying about their achievements but employers can stop them being hired if there is no evidence of it. Saying that, it’s difficult to believe that someone who lies so shamelessly in their professional life is a honest, loyal and loving person in their personal life. Narcissism isn’t a switch that only applies to one aspect of their lives and taking their own lives is the ultimate act of control, the last attempt to control the narrative and being remembered as a victim, not the deceiving part.

I assumed he’d end up in the jungle or love island or any number of other reality shows. Then he could have framed it as a sociology experiment that he was conducting for research into how gullible people are. I wish that had been the ending.

But you tried, and that is what counts.

He was clearly appointed without due diligence.

Multiple concerns were then raised but not investigated by the University. They were instantly dismissed because of his identity status.

If these had been investigated early on, there may have been a different course of events.

Sometimes safeguarding is about investigating and clearing beyond any doubt. This is where there were multiple failures by the university.

The problem wasn't so much the dishonesty and issues with his work. It was that Cambridge didn't look into it with due diligence.

In terms of democratic process, it only went to the press because of the lack of due diligence from Cambridge and the actions they took to automatically dismiss the evidence presented to them. They clearly were presented with this evidence.

It THEN went to the media due to CAMBRIDGE'S behaviour and the effort to discredit others.

We are focused on the failures AFTER it got to the media. The truth is it should NEVER have got to the media if there was real fair process and due diligence going on.

The opportunities to protect the university and the individual concerned are always much more earlier in the process than any story that hits the news. When a story hits the news it's almost invariably because individuals and institutions have been dismissive of great big red klaxons going off because a newspaper won't publish something as damning as this without first having done a certain amount of due diligence themselves because they don't want to get their arses dragged through the courses for defamation or libel. They understand the law in this area better than anyone. They understand the principle of 'in the public interest'

Who is to blame? It always goes back to who had the opportunity to safeguard and do due diligence and who had that responsibility. That is ALWAYS an employer ultimately.

Given how many gullible people there seem to be proclaiming him as some sort of hero, I agree. I have no doubt he would have been given numerous paid platforms to spread his particular brand of misinformation and victimisation. I am sure he would have done well from his book too with the publicity.He just needed to go on holiday for a few weeks away from the internet - Africa possibly - then come out fighting.

no I didn’t?

There are a huge number of over promoted white people in academia who frankly shouldn't be in position as they aren't up to the job.

Amongst them are clearly the people around Arday who were incapable of critical thought and looking into the substance of the allegations. Instead they pre-judged the source of the allegations because it didn't suit their own agenda.

The whole thing is a farce. Maybe Arday should have lost his job. Maybe he shouldn't. There are people at Cambridge who absolutely should but they are hiding away stirring the shit to protect themselves.

Nothing will happen and nothing will change and we will have a bunch of similar stories over the next few years because there will now be people looking for them.

It is depressing.

You really think it’s coming from the left and right?

Looks like the right are willing to discuss controversial topics whilst the left use every tactic to stop.

This is why centre left leaning black and minorities like me are now moving away from left wing ideology.

For example, I was treated with contempt for believing that sex is immutable and protected single sex spaces was imperative for the safe guarding of women and children. This was met with vitriolic and violent threats from the people on the left I believe shared similar views on.

The only refuge for most gender critical women is definitely not on the left.

People on the right seem more open to discuss gender, race, illegal immigration and tax and social welfare reform.

Try and have a sensible debate with the left on any of those things and you’re racist, a Nazi, an ableist, a silver spoon wanket etc.

You’d think so, wouldn’t you? Perhaps they were too blinded by their star professor and just hand-waved everything away so they could continue to promote and patronise with their nauseating ‘best in the world’ crap while speaking to him like he was a child? (I think that was in the BBC interview where that patronising woman spoke to him - made me feel sick because it was so bloody creepy and weird).

Cambridge come out of this very badly.

If a Celebrity PR agent had got to JA first and affirmed his self-belief, rather than vultures like GLP revelling in his victimhood, the outcome could well have been very different.

Yes I do.

I think failure to do due diligence and instead screaming racism is a fundamental problem which enables narratives.

If you are going to employ someone who is falls outside the established routes then you have to make sure it's not going to come and bite you on the arse and undermine your own program by showing up its flaws.

You don't attempt a cover up and smear if you are caught out.

You do your job properly in the first place to protect anyone you promote in this way, but this includes ensuring that you don't get caught with your knickers around your ankles as that has consequences if you do.

This is about the lack of self criticism by the left to do due diligence and ensure that the ideologically driven projects they are promoting actually work. Otherwise the law of unintended consequences always applies.

Defending something that isn't working beyond all reason and then turning to silencing because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny is about as self destructive as it gets. That's ideology over substance.

If we are about demonstrating a positive point, it actually has to demonstrate that point. You don't construct a false narrative to avoid accountability. This applies to all good governance regardless of party politics and ideological leanings.

There was an interesting article a few days ago, with comments by psychiatrist, Max Pemberton. It’s paywalled but I’ve quoted bits below. For me, the strangest thing has been the bizarrely over the top lies. I kept thinking “Why would you do that to yourself? You’re bound to be found out”. The article suggests a possible answer: pseudologica fantastica:

”The people I’ve met who fit the description of pseudologia fantastica tend not to stop lying. They are seldom cold or calculating. They tend to be charming and, perhaps most importantly, fragile underneath. What strikes me most is how often they appear to half-believe the story they’ve invented. The lie is not really being told to the listener at all, it is being told to the ego of the person telling it. The listener is only there to confirm it.

The stories are hardly ever straightforward boasts of success either, because someone who simply claims to be clever or rich invites envy – and envy is not what these people are looking for.

Instead the tales are about suffering that has been overcome, odds that were insurmountable, the diagnosis nobody believed, the childhood that should not have been survived, and then the triumph over all this. It is a far more effective structure for any fantasy, because it makes doubting it feel like an act of cruelty”.

As far as I’ve seen it’s been both the right and left wing media that have criticised JA.

I think the media have a right to criticise what happened. What I don’t think was right is how many media outlets concentrated on JA the individual. JA was a victim largely because he was treated like a child and not an intelligent adult. They told him he was brilliant. They didn’t scrutinise his work like they should’ve. They didn’t treat him like an academic and made concessions. But he’s not the only one and it’s not just about colour. I mentioned previously there are currently a handful of Cambridge professors that are being investigated for/found guilty of sexual harassment but kept their jobs. There needs to be no excuses for them either. If you’re teaching in one of the best universities in the world excuses starting with ‘well he’s just a man’/‘well he has complex needs’ just doesn’t cut it. If you’re going to call yourself one of the best in the world recruit the best in the world. And I mean the best teachers, the best examples to students, not just the most published or who will create the most media attention. There’s plenty of brilliant lecturers at UK universities who quietly and passionately get on with their jobs and those are the academics that should be celebrated.

Guardian have a fairly measured opinion piece

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/19/rightwing-witch-hunt-jason-arday-legitimate-journalism

That’s a really interesting article, thanks for sharing. To be fair I’ve seen journalists for more right-leaning papers also welcoming an inquiry into the media as well as academia. I think a lot of self-reflection is going on and, obviously if the media has contributed to JA’s death, they want to know so that it doesn’t happen again.

That’s Kehinde Andrews who isn’t the most ‘reliable’ source of information as he has his own axe to grind.

After JA’s resignation he was on some news item claiming this was a witch hunt, racist pile on blah blah. He stated JA had sent him his thesis to read through and it was fine. He added that he wasn’t a friend of JA’s, hardly knew him, it was purely a tenuous, academic relationship of sorts- I’m paraphrasing but the words “I’m not a friend of his” came out of his mouth. After JA dies he’s a close friend!

He was either distancing himself in the first interview so as not look as if he was defending him for any personal reason or he didn’t know him well and is now jumping on the bandwagon à la Dianne Abbott, Woolley et al in order to further their disgusting attempts to create a culture war.

Further to my quotes from psychiatrist, Max Pemberton (above) about pseudologia fantastica, also known as mythomania, I thought I’d look for other examples of people alleged to have suffered from it.

I found people in the US, but I also found Jeffrey Archer, more familiar to U.K. readers. There are a number of articles about him around the time of his perjury trial. A weird one was when a lobbyist phoned him in a hotel and he put on a fake American accent and pretended to be Mr Archer from California for no reason.

But I also found this article, that I thought was interesting, again saying that it stems from insecurity:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/archer-the-sins-of-the-father-9231703.html

Back to JA, I do feel very sorry for him, and, because of the ridiculousness of his lies, I don’t think he was a schemer. However, I do think he made poor decisions. He sabotaged himself basically, by telling overblown lies but also by publishing a book. This drew attention to the lies and to him.

In addition, his resignation statement was very ill-judged. He denied lying - when he clearly had. That was like an unspoken challenge to the Press really, and so they sought to prove his lies. If, instead, his resignation statement had said he’d made mistakes and not been wholly accurate in what he said - a very mild admission - things could have gone differently. Comparing it to Jeffrey Archer, he’s still around and kind of faded into the background. In fact, I’d forgotten all about his lies until I saw his name mentioned in the article.

Yes - forgot about Archer. There were also the cases of Buffy St Marie and Donald Crowhurst, both fabulists who ended up committing suicide. Archer has always seemed to bounce back from his disasters, though he also knew deep disgrace.

Well said - all of it.

Yes, Archer just seemed to shrug off his disgrace, but other such liars quietly fade into the background - which seems the safest option. Public interest moves on. I suppose in Arday’s case, the book was always going to be a reminder, but even then, in a while, he’d have been forgotten (in a good way).

Well I think we are going to find out over the coming months whether the media is partially responsible as many journalists and members of the public have demanded an inquiry into the media. I’ve seen journalists from the left and right saying that they feel somewhat responsible and want it looking into so they can learn from potential mistakes to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. So we will see.

Jeffrey Archer is different though in that he was genuinely successful as a politician and novelist. His imprisonment for perjury added to his life story. He became a very successful on the public speaking circuit.

Arday didn’t have anywhere near the same talent but he must have had some public facing ability to manipulate people, including the media, the way he did. A good publicist could have got him to benefit from that and his over the top stories. It might have required a few months of lying low first.