Cambridge's moment of self-introspection

Vishal Sharma

Jason Arday's death is in the forefront of debate in the UK media these days. Who is Jason Arday? Well, he was the youngest black academic ever to become a professor in Cambridge University. A professorial position in Cambridge is highly regarded as only those who go through proper academic rigour and earn their spurs in academia go on to become a part of faculty in the varsity.

Why is there debate about him and his death? Arday was reported to have lacked the necessary credentials to hold the position that he was offered at Cambridge. It was alleged that he invented parts of his cv and was a massive liar. A few of his lies were reportedly outlandish: He claimed to have run 600 miles in 6 days. The evidence of him having done so was never reportedly found. He also claimed a long list of visiting professorship of many universities. All the universities referred reportedly denied his claim.

At the time of his appointment, the debate in the academia was that Cambridge had offered him a professorial position when he hardly deserved it.

Some felt that Cambridge used him as a poster boy for its DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) programme at the huge expense of its reputation. A reputation that has been centuries in the making.

Arday, trumpeted by Cambridge as a brightest ever DEI star, was accused of plagiarism too that left him weakened and vulnerable. The accusation of plagiarism, is akin to a nuclear attack on an academician.

But his woes did not stop here. His students alleged that he would walk into a four hour seminar only to teach for one hour. And that most of the time he would tell things in the class which had no relation to the subject he was contracted to teach. Some students even alleged that he could not mark papers properly for he lacked the necessary understanding of the subject.

When confronted, students are said to have stated that Arday responded with: 'You are saying so because of your white privilege.'

When UK media began probing the issue, it discovered that Cambridge had blundered big time in Arday's case. Media's attack on Cambridge was trenchant and questions posed to the varsity were pertinent: Was Cambridge more worried about DEI or its credibility ? Didn't it ill-behove the varsity to let an individual who was not fit for purpose walk through its portals as a faculty ?

Media also picked Arday for particularly scathing attack. It shone light on his credentials and all things academic and the rest of it he had either written up in his cv or tom-tomed about to foster a debate on his merits. It did not take it much time to conclude that Cambridge had used Arday to burnish its DEI credentials and Arday in turn had used his race to seek a coveted position at the varsity.

As so often happens when a story goes big in the media especially of the kind that this one was, the self imposed restraints are no longer honoured. Unsurprisingly, media attacks became obnoxiously personal and led to a feeding frenzy. Some commentators alleged that media hounded him like wolves hunt their quarry. This feeding frenzy is understood to have forced Arday to take his life as he could no longer bear the attacks from the media and some of his own colleagues.

Upon his death, the debate has understandably switched. People of his colour have hit out at the media for hounding him to death. Some have even called for a public inquiry into his death and fixation of responsibility of the media. Media on its part is divided in the UK. Some sections of media have held those who demeaned Arday when he was alive as responsible for his death. Where's media's self- introspection in this case?, they argue. If an inquiry was ongoing in Cambridge into allegations made against Arday, it was for that inquiry to make a determination of his wrongdoings and media should have at the very least waited for the inquiry to return the findings, say some journos while talking about their colleagues in the media who have been strident in their criticism of Arday.

On the other end of the spectrum is a section of media which believes that Arday's death is not their fault. It is him who should have thought about his family and friends before taking his life. In murdering himself, they argue, he only thought about himself and not his family and friends.

The more fundamental questions that Arday's story have raised are : Should media not have held him to the scrutiny which is generally reserved for people in such high places? Wasn't it media's duty to let people know how things operate in Cambridge, especially as he got a job in the varsity on grounds other than merits?

It's media's remit to expose failings of an institution if it stumbles upon it. If it would not, who would? However, media is a truth seeker and not an activist. This thin line between the two needs to be forever honoured. Its campaign should at all times be informed by a sense of proportion. That's the only caveat it has to work under.

There is another lesson in this for those listening or reading. DEI is ok if the intended outcome of such an endeavour is secured. But that hardly is the case in all cases. Policy planners wrongfully look for equality of outcomes without ensuring that they have provided equality of opportunities. If equal opportunities are provided and the beneficiaries of those opportunities go through a fair competition, it is a given that those from unprivileged backgrounds if they clear the elite exams- without the crutches of any affirmative action- will be as good as those coming from the opposite backgrounds. Were this to happen, this will ensure equality of outcomes.

In many countries, those, who like Arday can't make it past the finish line unaided, are given an easy passage to the finish line truncating the rigorous requirements of the process. But that does justice neither to Arday nor speak well of those who are its backers.

For those who back it have hopelessly abdicated their responsibility of creating equal opportunities for everyone. They have failed to level the field. And why they have failed? Because leveling the field requires investing in education of those who can't afford it; creating infrastructure for such like students to avail it to improve their skills and learning; giving them the tools to fight it out in the amphitheatre of life like true gladiators. This involves doing hard yards. And they have taken an easy way out. Give the DEI candidates an easy passage and later hold them up as poster boys of the programme.

It's not good for candidates like Arday too for special offering never commands legit respect amongst their rivals and peers as we discovered in the case of Arday himself.

Media scrutiny is not behind Arday's death. It's DEI. Cambridge needs to self introspect and look for a proper fix.