Log in
It was never going to end well. Jason Arday, the University of Cambridge’s “youngest-ever black professor,” was found dead, apparently by his own hand, on August 14. News of his death, at just 41, came after weeks of public speculation that began with claims that his academic work had been plagiarized before rapidly morphing into a broader investigation into the rigor of his scholarship and the quality of his teaching, as well as his claims to achieving almost superhuman athletic feats while overcoming seemingly insurmountable developmental and health obstacles.
Many on the woke Left are determined to set these criticisms aside and exonerate Arday. Mass vigils, reminiscent of the Black Lives Matter protests that swept the globe in 2020, have taken place in London. Universities and academic organizations have issued statements of condolence, with some promising to do even more to root out racism. Following the 2020 death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, scrutiny turned to police behavior. In the wake of Arday’s demise, some are pointing the finger at journalists. Arday’s supporters claim that he was “lynched” by a “media running on monetised hate and cruelty.”
These claims might be easily dismissed if they weren’t also part of what seems to be a groundswell for a new assault on press freedom in the U.K.
Cambridge University’s chancellor has described press coverage of Arday’s story as a “racist feeding frenzy.” A senior Labour MP has declared that Arday was the victim of “a vicious campaign.” Others claim that Arday faced levels of scrutiny far surpassing that of white academics accused of plagiarism. The story now taking hold on the academic Left is that journalists hounded the innocent, vulnerable Arday to death in a coordinated attack designed not just to take down one scholar but to discredit the entire DEI project.
This narrative bears little relationship to the truth. Though it was former Cambridge scholar Nathan Cofnas who ignited this summer’s press coverage, other professors and journalists had previously raised questions about Arday’s academic integrity. Far from being a naive victim, Arday reported his detractors to the police for harassment and hired a top law firm to quash news stories investigating his background and qualifications.
Nor is it true that white people accused of fabricating their life stories have been spared scrutiny. This time last year, the British media ran numerous stories about Raynor Winn, author of the best-selling book The Salt Path, who, it turned out, wasn’t named Raynor Winn and hadn’t led the life described in her memoir.
The accusation that Arday’s story received excessive or disproportionate media coverage is impossible to answer. August is usually a quiet news month, and editors look for stories. Arday’s own fantastical embellishments to his biography virtually guaranteed public interest. Ironically, if Arday and Cambridge University had dealt internally with the criticisms first made by other academics or let accusations be aired in the specialist trade press, the story might never have gained momentum. From first to last, it’s hard to see how Cambridge even once acted in Arday’s best interests.
Blaming the media for Arday’s death lets not just Cambridge but British academia off the hook. Arday received his Ph.D. from a university in Liverpool despite allegedly having had only one formal meeting with his supervisor. He then worked at several other universities in quick succession, climbing the ladder as professor, before arriving at Cambridge. These universities were so in thrall to DEI that they abandoned all critical faculties. When journalists challenged them, they dug in their heels and defended Arday. Rather than investigating whether diversity initiatives had overridden academic integrity, they are using Arday’s suicide to justify more DEI training as necessary within a “racist” society.
Meantime, press freedom—and journalists themselves—are coming under threat. Activists are compiling lists of those who wrote about Arday, with some demanding that they be targeted, scrutinized, and held to account. They have already scented success: the University of Ghent has suspended Cofnas, the academic and blogger who broke the Arday story. One of the journalists who initially criticized Arday has issued a video apologizing for his comments.
The attacks on journalists covering the Arday story play into the hands of those with a long-standing suspicion of free speech and antipathy toward press freedom. Zack Polanski, the leader of Britain’s Green Party, which polls around 10 percent, has called for a national inquiry into the “culture and behaviour” of the media over the treatment of Arday. Other Greens are demanding tighter regulation of journalistic practices, arguing that reporters should be allowed to opt out of assignments they deem unethical and that large online platforms have a statutory duty to “actively promote and protect plurality and diversity of voices.”
Author Will Self has added his voice to those demanding a full public inquiry into the role of the media in Arday’s death and has even named individual journalists he holds responsible. Others are calling for legal limits on the number of articles about one person that can be published within a particular time frame: IPSO, the independent press regulator, is already reviewing the “high volume” of coverage Arday’s story garnered. The Good Law Project, a campaign group that uses the law “to fight against hate and spread hope,” has joined calls for more state regulation of the press: “There cannot be any doubt that Dr Arday’s tragic death was the direct, foreseeable and foreseen result of press harassment. A significant element in that harassment was the colour of his skin. Self-regulation of the press has comprehensively failed.”
It’s important to note that Jason Arday’s death did not create this censorious press climate in Britain, where left-wing activists have long railed against journalists who publish material they dislike. But Arday’s suicide has become an excuse to take up this anti-press campaign with renewed fervor.
Arday’s death is a tragedy for his family and friends. It must not become an excuse to introduce yet more restrictions on press freedom.
