¹¹You must not steal; you must not cheat or deceive a fellow-countryman.

Leviticus 19: 11 – The Revised English Bible

¹⁶Six things the Lord hates, seven are detestable to him: a proud eye, a false tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, ¹⁸a mind given to forging wicked schemes, feet that run swiftly to do evil, ¹⁹a false witness telling a pack of lies and one who sows strife within brothers.

Proverbs 6: 16-19 – The Revised English Bible

¹⁹Truthful speech stands firm for ever, but lies live only for a moment

Proverbs 12: 19 – The Revised English Bible

⁶’I am the way, the truth, and the life;

John 14: 6b – The Revised English Bible

³If anyone imagines himself to be somebody when he is nothing, he is deluding himself.

Galatians 6:3 – The Revised English Bible

Background for those are not familiar with this UK story

For my foreign readers, Jason Arday was found dead in his London home on 14^th August. He had been under investigation for plagiarism in his academic life, and this had resulted in him resigning as Professor of ‘Sociology of Education’ at Cambridge University, where he had been lauded as the youngest black Professor in the 817-year history of the University. His other claims that were being investigated at the time of his death were that he had been diagnosed with autism aged three and had not been able to speak until the age of 11. Despite, according to his claims, only learning to read and write when he was 18, he apparently managed to obtain two GCSEs in ‘Physical Education’ and ‘Textiles’ two years earlier, at 16.  Bypassing standard entry requirements and after studying Sport and Development at BTEC level, he went to Liverpool John Moores University (there is no record of any ‘A’ Levels) where he gained a PhD, after achieving a BA in ‘Education Studies and Physical Education’ at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, where he also completed an MA. He claimed to have been a visiting Professor at several other Universities at home and abroad, despite those centres of academia denying any knowledge of him.

This background would become tedious if it listed everything in academia that this young man claimed to have achieved, but his claims were not just academic. In addition to being autistic and non-verbal, he claimed to have survived testicular cancer; he developed epilepsy after being physically attacked; he experienced two brain tumours; he suffered a seizure and a hairline leg fracture in the process of running 30 marathons in 35 days; he once ran six hundred miles in six days; he suffered from deafness and dyslexia; he was involved in a car accident which put him into a coma; he was attacked by a masked man with a knife  and finally…….. he raised £5.5m for over 80 charities.

I really feel that I do not need to attempt to make this section even vaguely complete; the above speaks for itself. However, I must add that only a few days ago, a protest involving 30,000 people in Trafalgar Square was clamouring for the arrest of journalists who researched this man’s claims. It must be added that many, if not most, of those attending the protest accepted that Jason Arday was probably guilty of plagiarism, but somehow felt that the press should not have investigated, or revealed that there was a case to answer. That widens this issue; we must now also address whether he did, by lying and inventing wild stories, anything that was wrong or even reprehensible. For these things to be challenged turns this into one of the biggest moral issues of our day.  

How should we react to his death?

This is a Christian blogsite and before addressing the core issues, I would like to say without caveat that every death is a sad event; even more so in the case of a (probable) suicide by a young father of 41. Our hearts should go out to his family. Personally, one of the saddest aspects to me is that his children will have to live with his claims and his death, as they grow up. Suicide is so final, denying his children the opportunity of an explanation of what led to his feeling he had no way out. As Christians we believe in forgiveness; it is tragic that he must have felt that he could not be forgiven, or with peace and family support, be able to rebuild his life with meaning.

What factors contributed to Jason Arday’s death?

The crowd in Trafalgar Square was in no doubt; the press and media had hounded him to his death and there were calls even from senior politicians for legal restrictions to be put on press freedom, as a direct result of his death. This has resulted in endless articles supporting that proposal, or fiercely arguing for the opposite – the protection of journalists and press freedoms.

I’m afraid that I think they’re both missing the point. There are a number of serious questions that have not been addressed. Some of these are:

• What would happen if the public had continued to praise Jason Arday as a celebrity and role model, even after he had been found guilty of plagiarism? Although this fact remains ‘unproven’, one damning detail is that not only did he copy large sections of his PhD thesis from another academic; more worryingly, he even precisely copied her grammatical and punctuation errors, which is telling.
• Do we assume that Jason Arday would have lived the rest of his life without experiencing pangs of conscience about his fraud? Would he have had no self-doubts about the fact that he had not only lied to the world; he had also lied to his closest friends and family? Was this man without any conscience? It’s hard to think that someone who took his own life had no sense of self-awareness.
• Have we really reached a point in our social morals where we wish to promote cheating? What might the effect of such a change be? Is there not already too much ‘dissembling’ in public life, without encouraging more?

I will try to answer these questions shortly, but in the meantime, we need to look at a few ‘root causes.’

Root Causes

At the heart of Jason Arday’s studies was not just the teaching of physical education; his heavily praised ‘research’ and study was based on racism in education and on Critical Race Theory and DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion).

The meaning of the three elements of DEI have been corrupted over the last 20 years.

Diversity, which in the Oxford Dictionary is described as ‘unlikeness, variety’ and would most definitely include diversity of thought, reason and opinion, now refers only to diversity of race, colour or ethnicity.

Equity in the Dictionary is ‘Fairness’ with a longstanding use as part of English Common Law. In the last twenty years, the meaning has now shifted considerably to mean ‘Equality of Outcome’. Equality of Outcome is not just impossible, but distinctly undesirable. A few questions will suffice to underline this

• In the world of football, how would you propose to ensure that all youngsters starting out in the sport could end up playing with the skills and ability of Messi, Ronaldo or Mbappé? Can we justify everyone being skilled and able enough to become a Professor at Cambridge?
• How do you eliminate luck, so that everyone ends up equal to everyone else?
• Is a degree in Race Theory with reference to Physical Education really equivalent to a ‘Mathematical Tripos’ or ‘Theoretical Physics’ degree? Should Cambridge be teaching such subjects? Haven’t we got enough ‘dumbed -down universities to meet that fringe demand, without dragging in one of our most ancient and valued centres of higher educational achievement?
• Who might be adversely affected if equality of outcomes became the norm? If someone is adversely affected by such a policy, then surely that challenges the claim that everyone is equal?

AI tells me that many corporations interpret the commitment to ‘Diversity’ as: “Tracking and improving the presence of underrepresented groups across all job levels.”

But what does ‘underrepresented’ mean here? Those without an education? The deaf, dumb and blind? In the football analogy, those with no legs?

Inclusion. Everyone can, surely, agree that inclusion is a desirable aim? The problem is that inclusion, like tolerance, has also been corrupted. In our modern world, there are definite explanations for ‘Inclusion’ and ‘Tolerance’ and they do not embrace those who disagree with other views of the world. There is, in our world, nothing less inclusive than Inclusion as thus interpreted and nothing more intolerant than the claim of Tolerance.

So who is responsible for his death?

No-one forced Jason Arday to create a parallel life; he did this of his own free will. It would seem reasonable to assume that he was trying to create a version of himself that was a hero, made even more heroic by the barriers he had to overcome. ‘Virtue Signalling’ must also have had a part to play, in view of his claims to have raised such huge sums for charity. The term itself seems to have come to mean signalling virtues that are illusory, in order to gain more praise. This has become a very modern phenomenon. Can it be that modern generations are being taught that truth does not matter; that what matters instead is how you market yourself? We’ve had recent examples of two high-profile Cabinet Ministers who clearly did not seem to think that there was anything wrong with lying in the interests of furthering their careers (Rachel Reeves and Angela Rayner).

What follows is quite a long list, but I feel that the following bodies have some responsibility for what has happened:

Universities for pushing and encouraging Jason Arday to a point from which there was no retreat and for finding nothing wrong in awarding a Professorship for such a non-subject. They are clearly also responsible for not doing any due diligence with other Universities. In these failings, they encouraged Jason Arday to create more and more outlandish claims.

DEI supporters and promoters carry responsibility for abandoning reasonable and sensible assessment of his achievements and instead focusing on trying to polish their credentials by being seen to support a young black man with multiple disabilities. Did they have no care about the effect of their bias on candidates whose credentials were miles better, but who were overlooked in order to use ‘affirmative action’ for someone they desperately hoped would make their policies look good?   

The crowds in Trafalgar Square who were not only encouraging Jason Arday’s self-deception, but also trying to use their bias to shut down debate and handcuff the press and media.

Sections of the Media and specifically Times Higher Education for refusing to publish the research carried out by Jack Grove into Jason Arday’s wild claims, when they were threatened with legal action for defamation.

The Metropolitan Police and authorities who consistently tried to prevent any investigation into Jason Arday’s outrageous claims.

The Government and Ministers who supported the view that Jason Arday’s claims should be celebrated instead of investigated.

The selection panels who avoided even very basic checks and hence destroyed their own credibility but also encouraged Jason Arday to produce ever-wilder claims.

The Church of England for failing to defend the core values of Christianity and thus support the view that truth has no value.

Those who neither know nor care about the terrible unintended consequences of encouraging such behaviour

All of us, without exception, for tolerating what he and others did for so long.

And of course

Arday himself who backed himself into a corner and then took his own life at terrible cost to his family and friends.

Heavenly Father, gracious and loving Father, look down in mercy on those who, in encouraging and abetting all those like Jason Arday, had no idea how painful their support would turn out to be. Help us to see each other as equal in your eyes, as we always have been, and not as ‘victims’ or ‘victimisers’. Amen