An Open Letter from BLAC Lib Dems
The tragic story surrounding Professor Jason Arday has left many of us deeply troubled. Let us be clear: plagiarism is unacceptable. Academic standards matter, and allegations of academic misconduct must be investigated properly and fairly.
But we also need to ask a bigger question about the culture in which this controversy has unfolded.
There is a growing anti-inclusion movement in Britain — one that has imported much of the American culture war and increasingly portrays diversity, equality, and inclusion as threats to standards rather than essential parts of a healthy society.
At its heart is an ugly assumption: Black people who attain prominent positions must somehow have got there because standards were lowered, because of preferential treatment, or because their background mattered more than their ability.
We have seen versions of this narrative repeatedly. In sport, figures such as Raheem Sterling and Marcus Rashford have been targeted. In media and culture, Ed Enninful and Misan Harriman have faced attempts to diminish their achievements and attribute their prominence primarily to diversity initiatives.
This is not an argument against scrutiny. Public figures should be scrutinised, universities should uphold rigorous standards, and institutions should be accountable.
But scrutiny is not the same as suspicion.
If there were legitimate concerns about Professor Arday’s academic work or his readiness for a senior role, those concerns should have been identified and addressed through proper processes. If Cambridge failed in that responsibility, it should acknowledge it.
What we should not do is turn one Black academic’s difficulties into evidence for a wider ideological argument against diversity.
We are particularly concerned by the way some critics have celebrated what they regard as the exposure of a supposedly corrupt diversity agenda. Nathan Cofnas, described by the BBC as a “self-defined race realist” and who left Cambridge in 2024, has publicly claimed credit for exposing Arday. Whatever one’s views of Cofnas, his reaction illustrates the wider ideological context in which this controversy has been seized upon.
We should be wary of allowing American racial politics and culture-war narratives to become normalised in Britain.
There is another uncomfortable truth.
We failed Professor Arday too.
When the allegations emerged, some of us were shocked. We knew plagiarism was serious, but we also understood that the story could become part of a much broader narrative, questioning whether Black academics belong in positions of prominence.
Four of us discussed the situation online. We talked about what we should do, but we never reached a firm decision to act.
One person repeatedly suggested that we should reach out to Professor Arday himself.
We became caught in the web of inaction.
If we believe in diversity, equality, and inclusion, we can not simply celebrate representation when everything is going well and disappear when a Black person becomes the subject of controversy.
Diversity can not mean tokenism. Nor should it mean lowering standards.
The positive case for diversity is stronger than that. We should want institutions where talented people from every background can compete, succeed, and lead — and where their achievements are recognised on their merits.
We should be able to hold two truths at once:
Plagiarism is wrong.
Racism and racial bias are wrong, too.
One does not cancel out the other.
The answer is not to abandon standards or inclusion. It is to make standards rigorous, transparent, and consistently applied while confronting the biases that can determine whose competence is questioned, whose mistakes are magnified, and whose achievements are dismissed.
The attack on DEI in the United States should be a warning to Britain, not a blueprint. We should not import a politics that turns every attempt to create greater equality into evidence of declining standards.
As Liberal Democrats and as members of the Black and Liberal Democrat community, we believe equality and excellence should reinforce one another.
We should have acted when Professor Arday’s story broke. We should have reached out. We should have asked questions.
And we should have made the positive case for diversity rather than allowing others to define the debate.
Not because Professor Arday is beyond criticism or because academic standards do not matter.
But because Black people should not have to be perfect to be treated as though they belong.
And because the answer to imperfect institutions is not less diversity.
It is better institutions, fairer standards, and a society confident enough to embrace both excellence and inclusion.
Yours sincerely
Leadership Team on behalf of Black Lives Committee (BLAC)
Email : [email protected]
* Liberal Democrats Black Lives Action Committee (BLAC) aims to support the Liberal Democrat Party to be representative of modern Britain.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The executions continue in Iran
Traffic Cop Nick Lovatt sacked after committing more than 20 driving offences
Billions lost to Brexit could save NHS
Raising Awareness of Hemiplegic Migraines
Ben Mathis
Chris Cory
Nigel Quinton
theakes
expats
24 Comments
Thank you for writing about the tragic and shocking racist media witch hunt which surely drove Professor Jason Arday to his death. There’s been little about this from the Lib Dems, and your contribution is extremely welcome.
The media hounding is still raging even after his death. Your statement that Black people have to prove their excellence, & can’t be simply flawed or mediocre is well made.
But could you please correct the statement that ‘plagiarism is wrong’ – Jason Arday was never found guilty of plagiarism or any other crime.
In fact Liverpool John Moores University carried out an inquiry, & this is the distilled finding to inform this debate:
“LJMU did not establish that the alleged textual overlap did not exist. Rather, its panel accepted that there were citation problems and substantial overlap, but concluded that the problems amounted to honest and reasonable error and that the extent of overlap fell within what it regarded as acceptable academic practice at the time.”
Too many of my fellow IDs have failed to understand the false allegation of plagiarism aimed at Prof Jason Arday. A PHD thesis necessarily contains the words of others. There is a literature search to explain how far the research had progressed before the PHD was written. There are necessary comparisons with the work of others to show how the theory being expostulated in the thesis is different to, complimentary too or similar to previous research. At its heart a PHD thesis must have an original idea. Plagiarism isn’t using the words of others, it’s doing so without attribution. As Prof Simon Baron-Cohen cogently explained on the BBC, Professor Arday’s thesis was reviewed by Liverpool John Moore’s University and the charge of plagiarism was dismissed. Yet people kept on saying there was plagiarism, including a number of prominent LibDems on Facebook.
I am inexorably driven to the conclusion that this (sadly successful) attempt to discredit Prof Arday, was driven not by any concern about the validity of his thesis, but by the fact that he was black. Those driving this scurrilous campaign are determined to rid academia of non-white faces and will do anything, say anything to achieve their aims.
Outrage is not enough. Anger is inadequate and sorrow will achieve nothing. What is needed is determined political action to drive racism out of our society and to challenge head on the racists.
When will our party take the lead in this vitally important fight?
If there were any issues to investigate – and it doesn’t seem that the plagiarism accusation even stacks up from what you say @Mick – this should solely have been an internal Cambridge University matter. The fact that it was covered so widely in the media is a true disgrace. And where was the HR support for Prof Arday? All so wrong.
@Judy Abel. HR depts do not exist to help employees, they are there to cover the failings of the organisation they are a part of.
On the broader points raised, if the perception is that DEI equals positive discrimination, then anyone who is thought to have possibly benefited will be at risk of having their credentials questioned. We may say that we disapprove of such a response, but it is almost inevitable. It must be made absolutely clear that we believe in selection by merit and DEI only exists to ensure true merit is not lost in a system that has many inherent biases.
False allegations and public witch hunts against Black individuals often carry distinct, severe weight due to historical patterns of racial bias, distorted media framing, and disproportionate scrutiny within legal and social systems. This compounded vulnerability stems from enduring stereotypes and systemic disparities that amplify suspicion and prolong public trial compared to other groups.Contributing FactorsHistorical Precedent: Deeply rooted societal stereotypes frequently weaponize race to render Black individuals as dangerous or untrustworthy, making false claims more readily believed by the public. Disproportionate Media Framing: News coverage tends to over-index on criminality involving Black figures and often delays or minimizes retractions when allegations prove false.Systemic Bias: Institutional responses within policing, employment, and social spheres can move faster to condemn and slower to clear Black individuals facing unproven accusations.Prolonged Public Scrutiny: Social media and public opinion often maintain a punitive stance long after an allegation is debunked, denying the subjects a clean slate.
I too have been looking for substance in these allegations of plagerism and so far they seem unsubstantiated. This is a grim episode.
It’s worth saying that plagerism is an academic crime, second only to making up or suppressing evidence in the scholastic book. It is right that it was investigated so that standards are upheld. Professor Arday’s reputation in this respect rightly survives.
Personally I think this attack form the authoritarians is bigger than racism, though racism is undoubtedly part of it. It is part of their attack on free enquiry and reason, on the freedom of anyone to think differently than they do as the (self appointed) natural and only possible controllers of power.
“ At its heart is an ugly assumption: Black people who attain prominent positions must somehow have got there because standards were lowered, because of preferential treatment, or because their background mattered more than their ability.”
I wonder if this assumption is the result of what has been happening in the USA where the Supreme Court ruled in June 2023 that colleges and universities could no longer use race as a specific factor in admissions due to some deliberately choosing to admit students with lower grades than others in order to meet diversity targets.
We can all agree that diversity is a good thing – I hope we can also agree that discriminating against some better-qualified candidates on the basis of their race is completely unacceptable.
Just to clarify, our letter **does not state or imply that Professor Arday was guilty of plagiarism**\.
We explicitly refer to **“allegations of academic misconduct”** and say that such allegations must be investigated properly and fairly\. We also state clearly that plagiarism is unacceptable and that academic standards matter\.
Our point is that **an allegation is not the same as an established finding of misconduct**, and that concerns about academic work should be dealt with through proper, fair processes\.
We also believe it is possible to take academic standards seriously while questioning the wider narrative that can develop around a Black academic’s appointment, competence and qualifications\.
That is the conversation we are trying to have — **not a defence of plagiarism, but a defence of fair scrutiny, due process and inclusion\.**
This tragedy raises serious questions regarding the academic rigor at Cambridge University and Liverpool John Moores University. Scrutiny regarding this should never be ignored because it’s difficult or awkward. A TES journalist was under investigation for four months by the Met Police for asking a series of questions on the matter.
That the allegations are wider than plagiarism in quite frankly not the issue I was raising, but the feeding frenzy in the print and online media was focussed on alleged plagiarism and I was making the point that there already had been an investigation of this matter by Liverpool John Moores University who had rejected it.
As for Chloe, she is simply proving the point made by the authors of this piece that the issue is about trying to question the credentials of black academics by suggesting that Cambridge and LJM are not academically rigorous enough, presumably implying that they give black academics an easy ride.
This blatant racism must be fought against by all right thinking people.
Mick; Let’s see what the investigation finds. Serious allegations of verbatim on other individuals work including copyright mistakes are in the public domain. When the Guardian backtracks from it’s original stance, and professors remove their names from the online letter of support – you must understand that there are serious issues that need investigating, & that inudes the validity of John Moores original investigation. As for the other issues raised in regards to his exploits – there might not be enough spaces left on a single comment in regards tho those.
I am grateful to BLAC Lib Dems for this. I was so furious at the weekend and wanted to write about it but was worried that I didn’t know enough about the whole situation. And then I realised I didn’t need to. In no circumstance was the media frenzy justified in the public interest.
There was an assumption of guilt that effectively hounded someone the media were told in no uncertain terms by the Good Law Project was vulnerable out of their job and left them in the worst situation.
Jason Arday’s death was entirely preventable and the media have a huge amount to answer for.
As the letter states, it was not really about plagiarism, it was about creating a narrative that DEI is a bad thing and that is simply not a world we want to go back to.
I find it astonishing that, in this whole exchange, there is just one reference in passing to the other allegations that emerged about Jason Arday.
Some of those allegations were well established, and factually verifiable; and indeed in one case he “corrected” his story about an athletic achievement to make it less implausible; and in another he “clarified” a claim that, as originally understood, was clearly impossible: that he had been in a TV series starting before he was born.
That put into serious question his achievements as an academic writer.
Allegations of plagiarism are nuanced, and a matter of judgement: where should the line be drawn between drawing on the work of another academic and stealing it?
That makes it far easier to dismiss such allegations as driven by prejudice, but the fact that some racists seized on the affair with glee doesn’t invalidate the allegations.
The reality is that the massive press interest was driven mainly by his exposure as a chronic and serial fantasist.
The defences of Arday after his death are not helpful. For example Mick Taylor’s claim that plagiarism accusation is false is based purely on Liverpool John Moores marking their own homework saying everything is fine. There are many questions surrounding LJM in terms of quality of supervision in this case. The claim there was not plagiarism doesn’t look good given the software found that there were identical sentence broken up by sentences that were almost identical but had been slightly edited, this suggests a deliberate attempt to avoid being identified as having lifted whole sections rather than a failure in attribution.
Dismissing the totality of the story missed the point as to what happened here. There were so many fantastical claims that gave the story legs. It was not just a matter of someone plagiarising in a PhD.
What made the story run is the silliness of the claims and no one ever questioned.
The focus here should be on the employers in this situation, they never questioned a ridiculous story but pushed him in to the public spotlight over and over. Then once the story broke, they just accepted the resignation rather than doing the sensible thing of providing proper support. The failing is not those who raised legitimate questions, but those who contributed to set Arday up for the fall, then abandoned him.
The claim that this story was due to Ardy being black has a superficial appeal as there have been other fantasists over the years who have been exposed. They did get exposed and have coverage but not to the extent of this.
However, they tended to be minor and even if no one noticed a biography was imaginary for 10 years it was one book and it took time for someone to ask.
However, this case was such a treasure trove of such obvious fantasy it provided material for story after story. This was further fuelled by the defenders who gave a story more legs. Those claiming there are no lies here or deflecting using the police or Carter Ruck to silence anyone questioning is perfectly fine behaviour just added to the matter.
Those who refuse to accept wrong doing where it is clearly established and even accept the possibility where it is disputed so far only add to the extension of the story.
It seems to me that a bunch of people with racist intent went looking for a target until they found one with enough question marks that they could turn into a reverse poster boy for DEI.
People need to recognise a war when it is happening.
This is a tragic event with a terrible outcome for Dr Arday and his family.
On the issue about plagiarism in Dr Arday’s PhD, people can judge for themselves. On Cofnas’s wesbite ( sorry but that the only place I can see it) he has the 113 examples of plagiraism: https://ncofnas.com/p/dei-fraud-and-cover-up-at-cambridge
The author’s are right to say that Cofnas should not have been the one to take this up. But when another academic did so Dr Arday reported them to the police and when a journalist from the THES asked him some questions he reported them to the police and shut down the article with a letter from Carter Ruck .
It would have been much better for everyone including Dr Arday and his family to whom this awful tragedy has happened if Cambrisge had done their job properly.
FS people. You clearly don’t have any idea what getting a PhD involves. It took me 8 long years (part time) and everything I did was checked by my supervisors and my progress was regularly reviewed by senior faculty. The final judgement on my PhD (and any PhD) involves both an internal and an external examiner (someone from a different university). Most PhD students also go through a viva (an oral exam with the two examiners) that goes into the detail of the PhD and questions it minutely. To accuse John Moores of ‘marking their own homework’ is a best insulting and is quite probably libellous. Universities issue PhDs only after the most careful consideration and Jason Arday’s will have been no exception. I think I would rather take Prof Simon Baron-Cohen’s word on this than yours. To think otherwise is to assume that Universities go easier on non-white students when issuing PhDs and that really is not a road I want to go down.
@Mick: I also have a PhD so I have a pretty good idea what studying for one involves and I agree with @FS People. I think the thing you’re missing is that there are huge numbers of published academic papers out there, and it’s simply impossible for any PhD supervisor or assessor, no matter how dedicated, to be familiar with the text of every paper on a given topic, and it’s therefore not at all implausible that a substantially plagiarised PhD thesis could pass unnoticed, and only be uncovered later on – for example, with the kind of later detective work that Cofnas carried out. The link @Simon McGrath provided includes a detailed comparison of parts of Arday’s thesis with an earlier one by someone else and the similarities are compelling. I don’t really see how anyone can read that comparison and not conclude that Arday’s thesis was (a) plagiarised, and (b) deliberately edited in an attempt to cover up the plagiarism.
“it’s therefore not at all implausible that a substantially plagiarised PhD thesis could pass unnoticed”
Anti-plagiarism software was a standard thing to be employed on undergraduate essays in all years of my degree from 2004. Given that technology has moved on since then its inconceievable that Universities don’t employ it for PhDs. And probably that PhD authors don’t also use it to identify inadvertent slips (at least I would unless there were particular rules against that – but if there were how would anyone know).
Of cause Prof Arday had many flaws. That’s the point. These people went looking till they found someone they could target.
Thankyou BLAC Libdems for this clearly written piece. I agree with Hywel. The term ‘race realist’ is a massive red flag.
“The term ‘race realist’ is a massive red flag”
Yes in current usage, or mis-usage, it probably is. However, if we take the term absolutely literally it really should mean someone who accepts the best scientific evidence on the nature of the various racial groups that make up humanity.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that this is that any innate differences are relatively minor.
@Mick Taylor
LJMU have quite clearly marked their own homework here. They conducted their own internal review and have not published it.
I’m well aware of what getting a PhD involves, including when the process fails. I’ve seen several serious failures where inadequate supervision has taken place. I didn’t see one get awarded when it shouldn’t have been but I have heard people allude it that happening.
I’m pleased you had a good experience and it went so smoothly for you, but there are plenty of horror stories when it doesn’t. Even finding external examiners used to be a pain, even at the most basic level of those who simply review exam papers to confirm the undergrad papers are of the correct standard. PhD examiners can be hard and if you are often going further than you would like from the specialism that is being examined.
A PhD is really the most meaningless qualification that there is, you really can’t judge the worth of a PhD without reading the thesis. For some subjects you have to virtually (or literally) find a cure for cancer, and others you can just interview a few mates. There is no national standard, and the examiners are chosen by the supervisor. They may be external to the university, but all supervisors choose examiners carefully to maximise the chance of student success. Lots of academics won’t do PhD vivas now anyway because they take too much time, so often it is more a matter of who you can get.