Note: This is the English version of an article originally published in Italian on ROARS – Return on Academic Research and School under the title Il caso Jason Arday e il lato oscuro dell’università: merito, potere e sofferenza accademica. The original Italian version is available at: https://www.roars.it/il-caso-jason-arday-e-il-lato-oscuro-delluniversita-merito-potere-e-sofferenza-accademica/
The death of Jason Arday, who was found dead at his London home on 14 August 2026, just days after resigning from his position as Professor of Sociology of Education at the University of Cambridge, risks being rapidly swallowed up by the ever-accelerating succession of media controversies. That would be a mistake. The Arday case deserves further discussion and, above all, needs to be rescued from the simplistic interpretations that immediately emerged on opposing sides.
The issue is not simply whether Arday committed plagiarism, how serious the alleged irregularities were, or how reliable certain elements of the public narrative surrounding his extraordinary academic rise actually were. It is also about examining how the contemporary university operates: its recruitment criteria, the construction of careers and reputations, inclusion policies, the mental health of those who work within it and, not least, the ability of media and social-media campaigns to turn legitimate critical scrutiny into a potentially devastating form of public exposure.
The issue is not simply whether Arday committed plagiarism, how serious the alleged irregularities were, or how reliable certain elements of the public narrative surrounding his extraordinary academic rise actually were. It is also about examining how the contemporary university operates: its recruitment criteria, the construction of careers and reputations, inclusion policies, the mental health of those who work within it and, not least, the ability of media and social-media campaigns to turn legitimate critical scrutiny into a potentially devastating form of public exposure.
The Arday case: what we know and what we do not know
First of all, facts need to be distinguished from interpretations.
The allegations against Arday were serious. They concerned parts of his academic work, including his doctoral thesis, as well as certain claims relating to his biography and career. Arday denied the allegation of plagiarism while acknowledging errors. The University of Cambridge subsequently announced further investigations; on 5 August, Arday resigned, stating that the relentless succession of allegations, speculation and public commentary had had a profound impact on him and his family.
On 14 August, he was found dead at his home. At the time of writing, the Metropolitan Police regard the death as unexpected but not suspicious, and the case is to be examined by the coroner. It is therefore incorrect to present suicide as an established fact, let alone to establish a causal relationship between the controversy and his death.
This necessary caution does not, however, prevent us from observing a striking sequence of events: public allegations, increasing media exposure, the opening of further investigations, his resignation on 5 August, and his death on 14 August.
Above all, it does not prevent us from asking a broader question: what happens when the normal mechanisms of scrutiny within the academic community are replaced—or at least accompanied—by a permanent public trial conducted through newspapers and social media?
The allegations against Arday were serious. They concerned parts of his academic work, including his doctoral thesis, as well as certain claims relating to his biography and career. Arday denied the allegation of plagiarism while acknowledging errors. The University of Cambridge subsequently announced further investigations; on 5 August, Arday resigned, stating that the relentless succession of allegations, speculation and public commentary had had a profound impact on him and his family.
On 14 August, he was found dead at his home. At the time of writing, the Metropolitan Police regard the death as unexpected but not suspicious, and the case is to be examined by the coroner. It is therefore incorrect to present suicide as an established fact, let alone to establish a causal relationship between the controversy and his death.
This necessary caution does not, however, prevent us from observing a striking sequence of events: public allegations, increasing media exposure, the opening of further investigations, his resignation on 5 August, and his death on 14 August.
Above all, it does not prevent us from asking a broader question: what happens when the normal mechanisms of scrutiny within the academic community are replaced—or at least accompanied—by a permanent public trial conducted through newspapers and social media?
Neither exoneration nor public shaming
The tragic outcome itself makes it all the more important not simply to reverse the judgement.
Arday's death does not make the allegations concerning his academic work irrelevant. If parts of an academic work have been improperly taken from other authors, this must be investigated; if an academic biography contains false or seriously inaccurate information, this must be clarified. Inclusion policies cannot mean lowering academic standards, and any university system loses credibility when criteria other than the quality of research come to prevail in assessment.
But the opposite principle is equally valid: the existence of irregularities does not justify every possible form of public treatment of the person responsible for them.
This is precisely where the Arday case becomes interesting. Arday was not merely a professor accused of academic misconduct. He had become a symbol: first, a positive symbol of inclusion policies within British academia and then, for some of his critics, living proof of their failure.
When a person becomes a symbol, they easily cease to be judged solely on the basis of what they have actually done.
Arday's death does not make the allegations concerning his academic work irrelevant. If parts of an academic work have been improperly taken from other authors, this must be investigated; if an academic biography contains false or seriously inaccurate information, this must be clarified. Inclusion policies cannot mean lowering academic standards, and any university system loses credibility when criteria other than the quality of research come to prevail in assessment.
But the opposite principle is equally valid: the existence of irregularities does not justify every possible form of public treatment of the person responsible for them.
This is precisely where the Arday case becomes interesting. Arday was not merely a professor accused of academic misconduct. He had become a symbol: first, a positive symbol of inclusion policies within British academia and then, for some of his critics, living proof of their failure.
When a person becomes a symbol, they easily cease to be judged solely on the basis of what they have actually done.
The Cofnas problem
In this context, it is impossible to ignore the role played by Nathan Cofnas, one of the leading figures in the campaign against Arday. His allegations deserved, and still deserve, to be assessed on their merits independently of his political views. Yet it is equally difficult to separate that campaign entirely from the views Cofnas had previously expressed publicly on race, intelligence, meritocracy, and the presence of Black people in positions of social prestige.
After Arday's death, the affair took a further turn: on 20 August, Ghent University provisionally suspended Cofnas pending a disciplinary investigation into possible discriminatory conduct. The suspension does not, of course, amount to a finding of guilt. But it makes it even clearer how reductive it would be to describe the entire affair simply as the triumph of academic scrutiny over academic imposture.
Cambridge itself, on 21 August, publicly condemned the racist and hateful messages that, in the wake of the affair, continued to target Black students and staff at the university.
Two things can therefore be true at the same time: the academic allegations against Arday may be well founded, while the campaign that developed around those allegations may also have acquired discriminatory, ideological and persecutory characteristics.
Acknowledging the latter does not mean denying the former.
After Arday's death, the affair took a further turn: on 20 August, Ghent University provisionally suspended Cofnas pending a disciplinary investigation into possible discriminatory conduct. The suspension does not, of course, amount to a finding of guilt. But it makes it even clearer how reductive it would be to describe the entire affair simply as the triumph of academic scrutiny over academic imposture.
Cambridge itself, on 21 August, publicly condemned the racist and hateful messages that, in the wake of the affair, continued to target Black students and staff at the university.
Two things can therefore be true at the same time: the academic allegations against Arday may be well founded, while the campaign that developed around those allegations may also have acquired discriminatory, ideological and persecutory characteristics.
Acknowledging the latter does not mean denying the former.
An old text by Xavier Dunezat
It is at this point that a seemingly remote testimony comes to mind.
In 2007, the French sociologist Xavier Dunezat published an article in the journal Mouvements with the eloquent title Pourquoi démissionner de l'université? (Why Resign from the University?).
Dunezat had obtained a position as maître de conférences in sociology at the University of Lille 1 in 2006. A year later, he decided to leave it and return to teaching economics and social sciences in secondary education.
Almost twenty years later, his lengthy account remains a surprisingly relevant read.
Dunezat first described the informal mechanisms of academic recruitment, going so far as to acknowledge that he himself had benefited from what he called a coup de pouce—a helping hand. What appeared to be a meritocratic selection process was, in his view, permeated by networks of acquaintances, co-optation, local affiliations, and power relations.
Yet perhaps the most interesting aspect of the text was not his denunciation of piston—the use of personal connections. It was his description of the university as an environment capable of producing isolation, frustration, and work-related distress.
Dunezat spoke of a désert relationnel, a "relational desert": an environment in which the rhetoric of individual autonomy could coexist with the erosion of human relationships, permanent competition, and an inability to deal collectively with conflicts.
He also stressed an especially important point: the need to avoid turning structural problems into exclusively personal conflicts. Behind individual personalities, he argued, lay power relations connected with sex, class, race, and age.
Reading those pages today, it is difficult not to think of the Arday case.
In 2007, the French sociologist Xavier Dunezat published an article in the journal Mouvements with the eloquent title Pourquoi démissionner de l'université? (Why Resign from the University?).
Dunezat had obtained a position as maître de conférences in sociology at the University of Lille 1 in 2006. A year later, he decided to leave it and return to teaching economics and social sciences in secondary education.
Almost twenty years later, his lengthy account remains a surprisingly relevant read.
Dunezat first described the informal mechanisms of academic recruitment, going so far as to acknowledge that he himself had benefited from what he called a coup de pouce—a helping hand. What appeared to be a meritocratic selection process was, in his view, permeated by networks of acquaintances, co-optation, local affiliations, and power relations.
Yet perhaps the most interesting aspect of the text was not his denunciation of piston—the use of personal connections. It was his description of the university as an environment capable of producing isolation, frustration, and work-related distress.
Dunezat spoke of a désert relationnel, a "relational desert": an environment in which the rhetoric of individual autonomy could coexist with the erosion of human relationships, permanent competition, and an inability to deal collectively with conflicts.
He also stressed an especially important point: the need to avoid turning structural problems into exclusively personal conflicts. Behind individual personalities, he argued, lay power relations connected with sex, class, race, and age.
Reading those pages today, it is difficult not to think of the Arday case.
The university as a reputation machine
Cambridge in 2026 is obviously not Lille in 2007. And Arday is not Dunezat.
But the thread connecting the two cases concerns the gap between the imagined university and the university as it is actually experienced.
Academia likes to portray itself as a system in which recognition derives from the quality of research and in which a community of peers rationally selects the best candidates. Anyone with more than a superficial knowledge of academic life knows that this description is, at best, incomplete.
Academic careers certainly depend on scholarly quality, but they also depend on networks, schools of thought, affiliations, interpersonal skills, opportunities, funding, institutional balances, and public visibility. And in recent decades another element has been added: the narrative construction of the academic.
In many contexts, writing good books or good articles is no longer enough. One must have a story, embody a message, become recognisable.
Arday's trajectory demonstrates the extreme danger inherent in this process. Cambridge had not merely appointed a scholar: it had inevitably helped construct a public symbol—the youngest Black professor in the university's history, a man who had overcome enormous personal difficulties, an example of the possibility of breaking down the social and ethnic barriers of British academia.
When elements of that narrative were challenged, the fall could no longer be merely professional. The higher the symbolic construction of a career rises, the more destructive its public demolition can become.
But the thread connecting the two cases concerns the gap between the imagined university and the university as it is actually experienced.
Academia likes to portray itself as a system in which recognition derives from the quality of research and in which a community of peers rationally selects the best candidates. Anyone with more than a superficial knowledge of academic life knows that this description is, at best, incomplete.
Academic careers certainly depend on scholarly quality, but they also depend on networks, schools of thought, affiliations, interpersonal skills, opportunities, funding, institutional balances, and public visibility. And in recent decades another element has been added: the narrative construction of the academic.
In many contexts, writing good books or good articles is no longer enough. One must have a story, embody a message, become recognisable.
Arday's trajectory demonstrates the extreme danger inherent in this process. Cambridge had not merely appointed a scholar: it had inevitably helped construct a public symbol—the youngest Black professor in the university's history, a man who had overcome enormous personal difficulties, an example of the possibility of breaking down the social and ethnic barriers of British academia.
When elements of that narrative were challenged, the fall could no longer be merely professional. The higher the symbolic construction of a career rises, the more destructive its public demolition can become.
Léo Thiers-Vidal: another story, another death
The year 2007, when Dunezat voluntarily left the university, was also the year of another tragic event.
The sociologist Léo Thiers-Vidal, born in 1970, had devoted his work to the study of masculinities, gender relations and men's position in relation to male domination. On 26 October 2007, he defended his doctoral thesis in sociology, devoted to men's lived position, subjectivity and awareness of domination. Just over two weeks later, on the night of 12 November, he took his own life.
The parallel must be drawn with extreme caution. There is no reason to construct an artificial causal genealogy linking Thiers-Vidal's death to the university, just as, at present, we cannot attribute any precise cause to Arday's death.
But placing these stories side by side allows us to raise a different question:
How much do we really know about psychological distress in academia?
The public image of the university professor remains that of a privileged worker: autonomy, prestige, relative freedom in organising one's time, and the possibility of devoting oneself to subjects one loves. All of this exists.
But another university also exists: permanent competition, years of precarious employment, continuous assessment, institutional narcissism, personal conflicts that are difficult to resolve, dependence on academic networks, isolation, and an almost total identification of professional worth with personal worth.
Above all, it is a profession in which public failure can be experienced as the failure of one's entire individual identity.
The sociologist Léo Thiers-Vidal, born in 1970, had devoted his work to the study of masculinities, gender relations and men's position in relation to male domination. On 26 October 2007, he defended his doctoral thesis in sociology, devoted to men's lived position, subjectivity and awareness of domination. Just over two weeks later, on the night of 12 November, he took his own life.
The parallel must be drawn with extreme caution. There is no reason to construct an artificial causal genealogy linking Thiers-Vidal's death to the university, just as, at present, we cannot attribute any precise cause to Arday's death.
But placing these stories side by side allows us to raise a different question:
How much do we really know about psychological distress in academia?
The public image of the university professor remains that of a privileged worker: autonomy, prestige, relative freedom in organising one's time, and the possibility of devoting oneself to subjects one loves. All of this exists.
But another university also exists: permanent competition, years of precarious employment, continuous assessment, institutional narcissism, personal conflicts that are difficult to resolve, dependence on academic networks, isolation, and an almost total identification of professional worth with personal worth.
Above all, it is a profession in which public failure can be experienced as the failure of one's entire individual identity.
Privilege does not exclude suffering
Another simplification must be avoided here. Speaking about academic distress does not mean claiming that professors and researchers constitute a socially oppressed category.
Dunezat was particularly lucid on this point: while describing his own distress, he simultaneously emphasised his privileged position as a white, heterosexual man, a teacher, and someone from a relatively advantaged family.
It is precisely this ability to hold privilege and suffering together that would be useful to recover today.
The university can offer enormous privileges while simultaneously producing dysfunctional working environments. It can promote necessary inclusion policies while implementing them badly. It can proclaim meritocracy while simultaneously operating through co-optation and informal networks. It can formally defend mental health while rewarding professional behaviours based on hyper-competition, obsessive productivity, and the constant pursuit of recognition.
Dunezat was particularly lucid on this point: while describing his own distress, he simultaneously emphasised his privileged position as a white, heterosexual man, a teacher, and someone from a relatively advantaged family.
It is precisely this ability to hold privilege and suffering together that would be useful to recover today.
The university can offer enormous privileges while simultaneously producing dysfunctional working environments. It can promote necessary inclusion policies while implementing them badly. It can proclaim meritocracy while simultaneously operating through co-optation and informal networks. It can formally defend mental health while rewarding professional behaviours based on hyper-competition, obsessive productivity, and the constant pursuit of recognition.
The real failure of inclusion policies?
From this perspective, describing the Arday case simply as proof of the failure of "diversity" would be too easy.
The potential failure is more complex.
An inclusion policy fails if it substitutes identity-based criteria for academic ones. But it also fails when it turns members of underrepresented groups into institutional symbols, burdening them with enormous expectations and inevitably turning every mistake they make into a political issue.
If Arday was assessed with insufficient rigour when he was appointed, then it is above all the institution that appointed him that must be held accountable. It is not enough retrospectively to turn the candidate into the sole person responsible for a selection system administered by others.
Cambridge has in fact announced that it intends to review the circumstances surrounding his appointment and, more broadly, what happened in the years that followed, acknowledging the need to understand what went wrong.
This is probably one of the most important questions left by the case.
The potential failure is more complex.
An inclusion policy fails if it substitutes identity-based criteria for academic ones. But it also fails when it turns members of underrepresented groups into institutional symbols, burdening them with enormous expectations and inevitably turning every mistake they make into a political issue.
If Arday was assessed with insufficient rigour when he was appointed, then it is above all the institution that appointed him that must be held accountable. It is not enough retrospectively to turn the candidate into the sole person responsible for a selection system administered by others.
Cambridge has in fact announced that it intends to review the circumstances surrounding his appointment and, more broadly, what happened in the years that followed, acknowledging the need to understand what went wrong.
This is probably one of the most important questions left by the case.
From individual failings to structural dysfunctions
In 2007, Dunezat argued that conflicts needed to be depersonalised.
Perhaps this is precisely what we should do today.
We should not turn Arday into an innocent martyr. We should not turn Cofnas into the embodiment of evil. We should not make Cambridge solely responsible. But nor should we tell the story merely as the discovery of a professor who did not deserve the position he held.
The truly interesting problem begins when we abandon this representation.
How can an enormously prestigious university potentially fail to notice, during a recruitment process, problems that subsequently become the subject of a massive public controversy?
Why are academic reputations constructed so rapidly and then destroyed with equal speed?
Why do people who professionally study societies, conflicts, discrimination, and power relations sometimes seem incapable of recognising those same mechanisms within the environments in which they themselves work?
And why does academia speak so little about its own suffering except when something irreparable happens?
Xavier Dunezat's testimony is almost twenty years old. Read today, it retains remarkable force precisely because it did not offer the comforting story of a virtuous individual confronting malicious colleagues. Rather, it described a system capable of changing the behaviour of those who entered it, inducing them to adapt to practices that they might previously have criticised.
Arday, Dunezat, and Thiers-Vidal are three profoundly different stories and should not be artificially superimposed upon one another: a death whose circumstances remain to be clarified, a voluntary and publicly explained resignation, and a suicide shortly after the completion of a doctorate.
Yet, placed alongside one another, they invite us to formulate a question that academia too often tends to avoid: how much of the distress that we attribute to individual vulnerabilities, mistakes, or personalities is instead produced, amplified, or rendered unmanageable by the structures and contexts in which those individuals work?
It is an uncomfortable question.
That is precisely why it is worth continuing to ask it.
Perhaps this is precisely what we should do today.
We should not turn Arday into an innocent martyr. We should not turn Cofnas into the embodiment of evil. We should not make Cambridge solely responsible. But nor should we tell the story merely as the discovery of a professor who did not deserve the position he held.
The truly interesting problem begins when we abandon this representation.
How can an enormously prestigious university potentially fail to notice, during a recruitment process, problems that subsequently become the subject of a massive public controversy?
Why are academic reputations constructed so rapidly and then destroyed with equal speed?
Why do people who professionally study societies, conflicts, discrimination, and power relations sometimes seem incapable of recognising those same mechanisms within the environments in which they themselves work?
And why does academia speak so little about its own suffering except when something irreparable happens?
Xavier Dunezat's testimony is almost twenty years old. Read today, it retains remarkable force precisely because it did not offer the comforting story of a virtuous individual confronting malicious colleagues. Rather, it described a system capable of changing the behaviour of those who entered it, inducing them to adapt to practices that they might previously have criticised.
Arday, Dunezat, and Thiers-Vidal are three profoundly different stories and should not be artificially superimposed upon one another: a death whose circumstances remain to be clarified, a voluntary and publicly explained resignation, and a suicide shortly after the completion of a doctorate.
Yet, placed alongside one another, they invite us to formulate a question that academia too often tends to avoid: how much of the distress that we attribute to individual vulnerabilities, mistakes, or personalities is instead produced, amplified, or rendered unmanageable by the structures and contexts in which those individuals work?
It is an uncomfortable question.
That is precisely why it is worth continuing to ask it.
(Daniele Santarelli)
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento