The bizarre tale of Cambridge University professor Jason Arday

UPDATE: I just saw this, and I’m not surprised:

Jason Arday’s planned interview with the New York Times on Monday, ahead of his book launch, has been cancelled.
“Asked if, at any point in the editing process, revisions were made to Arday’s book to adjust or correct claims that have been challenged publicly, a spokeswoman said… pic.twitter.com/E46U8pt18E

— Sidsy (@GrumpyOW) August 4, 2026

***************************************

This is the most egregious example I know of someone advancing to a high position in academics while constructing an apparently fraudulent past, as well as having committed multiple instances of plagiarism. The amazing thing is that Cambridge University is apparently not investigating sociology professor Jason Arday despite a complete lack of evidence for his unbelievable claims about his past.

That, perhaps, is because Arday is one of the few black professors at Cambridge, and has argued strenuously that his critics, and those who pointed out his plagiarism, are motivated solely by racism. Besides the accusations of using other peoples’ words (and committing other errors) in both his Ph.D. thesis (granted at Liverpool John Moores University) and in published papers, Arday argues that his achievements come in the face of severe disabilities: he is, he says, autistic, did not speak a word until he was 11, and couldn’t read or write until he was 18.  Despite that, he managed to attain his full (tenured) professorship in 2023, at the age of 37 or 38, and was the youngest black professor in the UK. (He had previously had positions at at the University of Rothampton, Durham University and the University of Glasgow.)

The story or Arday, and how his claims unraveled (or now look unbelievable) has been told widely in the press. The fact that the Guardian has the most comprehensive summary of his apparent behavioral fabulism (e.g., apparent lying) is telling, for the Guardian, being very woke, would be the one “mainstream” paper I would expect to defend Arday, or at least to avoid reporting on the issue. To paraphrase Walter Cronkite, “If you’ve lost the Guardian, you’ve lost the progressives.”

You can read three of UK articles below by clicking on the headlines. The Guardian and Times of London articles are particularly informative.

From the Guardian (photo by Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian)

Interview with the Times of London  (archived here)

From the Spectator:

I just found a NYT article here.

Here, in bold caps are the areas in which Arday has made dubious claims or committed apparently unethical acts:

AUTISM AND LATE DEVELOPMENT: I’ve mentioned these claims above, and, as far as I know,there is no evidence presented for any of them. Surely if he didn’t speak until age 11 and did not become literate until 18, there would be some evidence or testimony to that effect. Wikipedia says he got “his undergraduate degree in education studies with physical education at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree validated by the University of Surrey in 2008.”) In other words, he got his undergraduate degree five years after he became literate, which means that he began university only two years after becoming literate.

PLAGIARISM: Initially the instances of Arday’s accused plagiarism were turned up by two people who have reputations for “race realism” (whatever that is), but since then other people have examined the evidence.  Here’s a small part of it.  This is the report from Grok when I asked it to give examples of Arday’s purported plagiarism. Grok gave references, but I’ve left them out.

PhD Thesis (2015, Liverpool John Moores University) Titled “An exploration of peer-monitoring among student teachers’ to inform reflective practice within the context of action research,” this is the most prominently cited case. Analyses (including by Cofnas using plagiarism detection software like Copyleaks, and by The Telegraph) identified extensive textual overlap with the 2009 PhD thesis of Paula Zwozdiak-Myers (Brunel University), on a closely related topic of reflective practice and student teachers in action research.

• Reports cite more than 100 passages (or in later analyses, around 180–188 sentences) that are identical or nearly identical, often with minimal editing (sometimes retaining copy-editing errors from the source). Zwozdiak-Myers is cited about 17 times in Arday’s thesis and appears in the bibliography, but the overlapping passages frequently lack quotation marks or clear in-text attribution for the specific wording.
• Additional overlaps were noted with other sources, including a 2013 paper by April G. Douglass, Dennie L. Smith, and Lana J. Smith; a 2007 paper by Semiyu Adejare Aderibigbe, Laura Colucci-Gray, and Donald Gray; and works by Muhammad Athar Hussain et al. (2011) and Peter Kahn et al. (2008).

Critics (including Harris and biochemist David Sanders, who reviewed related evidence) described this as a pattern of close paraphrasing or near-verbatim copying beyond isolated passages. LJMU and Cambridge stated investigations cleared him on this point.

2018 Paper in Social Sciences “Understanding Mental Health: What Are the Issues for Black and Ethnic Minority Students at University?” (claiming focus groups with 32 minority students). A 2023 correction was issued to add citations and clarify where ideas were adapted from prior research (particularly Memon et al. 2016 in BMJ Open, on mental health services in Black and minority communities).

• Accusations include substantial unattributed textual and structural overlap with Memon et al., plus interview quotes presented as from Arday’s own subjects that closely matched (or appeared patched from) those in the earlier paper. The correction notice focused on citations, but Retraction Watch reported additional undisclosed post-publication changes: alterations or removal of multiple quotes (e.g., 12 of 31 reworded/trimmed, 6 cut), removal of claims about using NVivo software for iterative coding and independent verification by a second researcher (replaced with simpler “review and reflection”), and participant numbering inconsistencies.
• Harris and others flagged “puzzling similarities” in 2023, leading to the correction.

Other Papers: Cofnas and others examined additional publications from Arday’s listed works and reported issues in several:

• A paper in Educational Philosophy and Theory (around 2020/2021, “Attempting to Break the Chain…”) was corrected for text overlap with the Memon paper and Arday’s own prior work (citations added in methodology).
• 2018 paper in Whiteness and Education (“Dismantling Power and Privilege through Reflexivity…”): Reported overlaps with Nicola Rollock (2012) and Payne Hiraldo (2010).
• 2022 papers (e.g., in Higher Education and British Journal of Sociology of Education): Minor instances such as sentences matching Wikipedia, reused/altered quotes from prior work, and methodology descriptions closely tracking the Memon-derived approach without full citation.
• Harris had notified journals of concerns about solo and co-authored articles, resulting in at least two corrections.

Experts like Sanders stated there was “no question that there is extensive plagiarism” based on dossiers of comparisons. Some analyses noted that certain overlaps might not trigger basic software checks focused only on exact matches.

I ran Arday’s 2015 PhD dissertation through the plagiarism-detection program Copyleaks. It found substantial overlap with previously published work, particularly a dissertation submitted by Paula Zwozdiak-Myers in 2009.

There’s no doubt that these allegations were made because of political and ideological reasons. There’s no coincidence that they initially were made public by a long-time critic of both the school and DEI broadly. There’s also no coincidence that the story has been largely carried by publications that share those ideologies.

But the coverage in Retraction Watch, the increasing number of academics expressing concerns and the evidence itself indicate, to me, that this shouldn’t just be dismissed. It needs a public, transparent investigation.

While I understand Cambridge’s reluctance to investigate a dissertation that was submitted elsewhere, Arday was hired on the basis of those credentials. If they are dubious, the school should want to know. Similarly, Liverpool John Moores University should want to know if their PhD was granted on false pretenses. If they have performed a thorough investigation and it does clear Arday, then releasing details would only help both him and the school.

PHSICAL FEATS:

Arday claims that he ran 30 marathons in 35 days, falling on the 20th marathon and sustaining a hairline fracture in his fibula. The Guardian asking doctors, deems this nearly impossible, but Arday says his finished with “his right leg swelling to twice its normal size.”  This may include his claim that he ran 300 miles in three days and 600 miles in six days.

CHARITY WORK:

Arday says that he raised 5 -5.5 million pounds for charity over 20 years.  Challenged on this, he explained that this was not personal fundraising, but as part of a larger group,whose identity he cannot divulge because of nondisclosure agreements.  There is thus no evidence about this, either.

PERSONAL THREATS:

Arday claims a history of threats, and though I don’t doubt that some of them are real, he makes wild claims that have not been substantiated. From the Guardian:

In a subsequent interview with the Guardian, Arday claimed to have been confronted at his faculty building on two separate occasions by a masked man threatening to harm him if he did not resign, and evading detection both times. On the second occasion Arday said the intruder produced a knife and threatened him with it.

The Guardian understands that after Arday reported the first intrusion to the university, enhanced CCTV was placed in the faculty and a panic alarm was installed in his office. The professor said he hit the panic alarm during the second confrontation, but that no one responded. It should have triggered an alarm alerting the faculty’s security team, all of whom were present at the time of the alleged incident.

The intruder was not picked up by CCTV on either occasion and no one in the faculty reported seeing anyone suspicious. Arday did not report either intrusion at the time, telling the Guardian that after the second incident he continued his working day and even conducted a PhD viva for a student less than two hours later.

He did not inform colleagues that a masked man with a knife was in the faculty building.

Arday confirmed in an interview with the Guardian that the “mutilated animals sent to his family home” mentioned in the open letter was a severed pig’s head, delivered in a large cardboard box to his parents’ home address in south London. He claimed to have intercepted the package and immediately thrown it away, only telling the police several months later.

In a subsequent interview he claimed the police investigated, checking with butchers in south London if they had sold a pig, eventually finding one that had sold a “whole hog” on the morning the head was left outside the family home.

When the Guardian checked those details with the local butchers Arday named, they said no police officer had come in to ask them about a pig. When asked if they were sure, the butcher said “that’s the kind of thing we’d remember”.

When the details Arday gave about the pig’s head investigation were checked by London’s Metropolitan police, the Guardian was told they were “categorically” incorrect and no investigation had taken place.

Again, there is no evidence to substantiate Arday’s claims. We see a pattern of apparent fabulism.

APPEARANCE ON “SEVEN UP!”:

Arday claims that he was in the well-known BBC documentary series Seven Up!, which tracked a group of children born around 1957 over many years. This could not be true because Arday was born in 1985.  The Daily Fail of August 3 (here and see reference below) notes that Arday has since backtracked:

Last night Professor Arday said that when he talked of ‘Seven Up’, he didn’t mean ‘Seven Up’ the famous TV series, which followed children at seven-year intervals in the format he described. He says that in fact he was referring to ‘a local community and parent-led initiative developed around the Ubuntu principle that “it takes a village to raise a child”.

A tweet about it:

Incredible. https://t.co/xFh3xVJdBR pic.twitter.com/p4HBMlWEBU

— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) August 3, 2026

Two things struck me about all this. First is the eagerness of both Cambridge and his Liverpool unis to exculpate Arday despite what seems to be arrant plagiarism. This surely has to have something to do with Arday’s ethnicity as well as his claimed learning disability, which would appear to make him a double victim.  And he leans heavily on the victim trope, arguing that the accusations are motivated by his blackness and a desire to bring him down.  Perhaps some of that inheres in this fracas, but as the size of this scandal became apparent, as well as the failure of universities to do anything about it, lots of reputable people have become involved. Some black people have claimed that if Arday’s missteps are excused, it will diminish the real accomplishment of black British scholars.

Second, as far as I can see, there’s a complete absence of evidence for any of Arday’s claims, whether they be about his disabilities, his marathons, his charity donations, the threats he claims he received, and his appearance on television. And there’s simply no credible accusation for his plagiarism. We’ll have to hang on and see if Cambridge does anything about this.

Here’s a lecture by Arday: “I know what I know: The story of Graceland”. I’ve just found it and have listened only to the beginning. I can see that Arday’s genial demeanor could make people less willing to come down hard on his missteps and misstatements. In the short bit of the lecture I heard he’s very critical of Paul Simon, accusing him of racism and taking credit for other people’s music. As far as I know, none of that is true, either.

h/t: Luana