There’s been much commentary about Professor Jason Arday over the past few weeks, including after the shocking news of his death. It feels like we know so much about him and the case and yet at the same time, if we are honest, we know very little despite different sides holding to opinions with increasing strength.
Was Arday a fantasist who made up stories about himself? Or was he the victim of a vicious media hounding? Did Cambridge University fail in its duty of care to him? Was this a horrendous example of DEI at its worst? Newspaper articles and blogs have been quick to jump to their own certain conclusions whilst disparaging the conclusions of others.
There’s much we don’t really know. Whilst we know that Arday has been accused of plagiarism, we also know that the awarding university had investigated the accusation at the time and concluded that Arday had not, intentionally at least, plagiarised another student. However, we don’t really know how the concerns came about and what Liverpool John Moore’s reasoning was when dismissing the claims.
We know that Arday had claimed to run over 600 miles and 30 marathons in 30 days, part of the time with an injury. We know that evidence for the claim has not been forthcoming and we know that sports scientists have expressed scepticism at the claim. However, we don’t know whether in fact he did manage this incredible sporting achievement, whether there has been some exaggeration or confusion around categories (e,g Marathons and half marathons) or whether the story was completely made up. Nor do we know the extent to which Arday believed his own claims.
We know that the originator of most recent claims has himself been dismissed from Cambridge because of his own disturbing, heterodox views about ethnicity and intellectual ability. We cannot say though that problems with his accuser invalidates the allegations. Nor can we say for certain that the media have treated him differently in their pursuit of him and a story because of his ethnicity even if for many of us, it feels that way.
Combine that with the rawness of tragedy, the needless loss of human life, the pain and distress caused to his family and this feels to me like one of those stories that we should be cautious about rushing to comment on. And yet, people have not been cautious about rushing to comment and to judge. Furthermore, whether or not we wish to have an opinion on this particular case, sadly whilst newsworthy, it is not that untypical of the kind of challenge that we can face pastorally when accusations and denials fly around, when there is great confusion and uncertainty and when great pain is caused.
So, having left a little bit of time from the events, I wish to tentatively make some suggestions about what we can know and say about this case. Hopefully that will help us think through how we might approach similar pastoral situations
What we know
With so much speculation going round, it’s important to stick to the facts that we do know. For example, in all of the shouting about DEI, we have been told that the University of Camb ridge is to blame for employing someone who was not qualified for the role.
So, let’s be clear. Arday was appointed to the position of Professor in the Faculty of Education. This is the department at Cambridge University that focuses on teacher training. Arday had a PHD in that area, indeed, his research focus had been on the role of peer mentoring for trainee teachers. He also had experience of teaching at various institutions, whether or not he had inflated his honours and titles.
We may have opinions on the academic standing of his particular subject area, however, objectively, you would have to give a good reason as to why, based on the evidence they had at the time, the Faculty of Education should not have considered Arday suitably qualified for the role.
We also know that there are plenty of other examples of people who have exaggerated claims about their biographies and inflated their CVs. We know of other Cambridge academics and indeed, we know of evangelical theologians who have been found to have committed significant plagiarism. Yet, these stories have not had the same kind of media attention or drawn the same heated reaction.
At the same time, we also know that questions were raised about Arday’s own research and that complaints were made about his teaching. That concerns were raised is objective fact as is the analysis that identified significant overlaps between his work and that of a fellow student. We may consider that his case has received more media attention than other academics. We may suspect that this is at least in part related to his ethnicity. However, it does not mean that we can rush in to judge the motives of those raising concerns.
In this specific case, we need separate out opinions and value judgements from facts. We need to be careful that we don’t simply run with our presumptions. It is not easy to do this when understandably emotions are deeply affected by the shock of the tragedy and when we are dealing with controversial issues.
What we can say
First, we should recognise and share in the grief of a family and friends who have lost someone they loved. We can talk about the sting and the evil of death itself. It is grievous that a young man has lost his life. The circumstances exacerbate that.
Secondly, we can acknowledge the strong emotions and legitimacy of concerns. Whilst we need to separate them out from the known facts, this does not make them unimportant. They still matter. We need to acknowledge that it is legitimate to raise concerns about truth and about standards in education. At the same time we need to acknowledge that when people express concerns about racism, they do so with good reason. The experience of being singled out, scapegoated, subjected to different standards and discriminated against is real for many. Further, it is difficult, if not impossible for those of us who have not experienced racism and prejudice ourselves to get the impact of that. Indeed, it is impossible for someone like me to truly understand what that experience was like for Jason Arday.
Thirdly, we can point to a better hope. It strikes me that much of this story has been to do with identity and value. Our society places much weight on questions of status and reputation. And indeed, here is something else we know, that hasn’t been mentioned. There has been a long history of people finding status and identity through their relationship with Oxford and Cambridge.
Not only that but historically there have been different routes in, at least for white middle- and upper-class people. Think of all of those people who have had the privilege of being tutored through expensive private education. Or consider how different colleges and different subjects have different academic reputations within the universities. Finally, consider those students whose places were based more on sporting ability than academic ability. To repeat, that status matters in worldly terms and people will find ways to achieve it. There may also be an understandable perception therefore that those with such a status will go to any lengths to exclude those that they don’t wish to include.
There’s nothing new under the sun in that respect. Think of the efforts made by the Pharisees to achieve prominence and the way they despised those they considered unworthy. Consider their attitude to Jesus. One of their greatest offences against him was that he welcomed, ate with, included the very people they wanted to exclude.
The better hope is not in dismissing identity and value as irrelevant. Rather, that hope is found in discovering our true identity in Christ. He forgives us our sin and declares us right with God. He chooses to value us with infinite worth, made in his image and redeemed by his blood. It is when we discover that identity that we no longer need to be concerned about the way that society around us values and identifies us.
Faithroots 