Jason Arday was a serial liar, thug, narcissist, criminal, and plagiarist who quickly rose to the rank of full professor at Cambridge — one of the most prestigious and sought-after jobs in all of academia.
Arday was awarded his job as a “Professor of Sociology of Education” not because of his talent or scholarship, but because he was a black activist. He told liberal white women what they wanted to hear.
Arday fabricated elaborate, obviously fraudulent narratives about how racists had oppressed him throughout his life. He also concocted bizarre stories about how masked men with knives were chasing him around campus, and how he supposedly discovered a pig’s head on the porch of his family home.
Despite clear evidence that Arday was delusional, the leaders of Cambridge — mostly white liberal women — fell in love with him on the spot. They passed over thousands of other more qualified applicants, many of them white, to sell a story to the public about the virtues of DEI. Cambridge promoted Arday as a shining example of a strong black man who had overcome tremendous adversity — he claimed he couldn’t even read or write until he was 18 years old — to become the youngest black professor in the university’s history.
And then, when it all came crashing down — when Arday was exposed as the complete fraud he was — he apparently took his own life. Faced with some actual adversity for once in his life, Arday immediately opted for the coward’s way out. He left his two children behind, rather than face the consequences of his own lifelong deception.
And through it all, Cambridge — and many other race hustlers, including the UK’s new prime minister — have stood by Arday. Many mainstream media outlets in this country have run sympathetic stories on him as well, where they suggest that his critics are responsible for his death. Jason Arday chose to lie and plagiarize, and then he chose to end his life, and the only person not responsible for any of Jason Arday’s disastrous decisions, we are told, is Jason Arday himself.
Watch:
So he didn’t plagiarize. There were just “mistakes in his work” that were due to a “lack of supervision.” He didn’t lift whole passages from other authors on purpose. It was an accident. He tripped, fell, and accidentally copied and pasted other people’s work without attribution. It happens to the best of us.
CNN also tells us that “questions” were “raised” about Arday’s other alleged achievements, but we don’t get any further information from CNN on that front. This is drive-by news coverage that’s designed to convince people that Arday was smeared by white supremacists.
But the true story of Arday’s fall is much bigger than the sordid collapse of one phony academic at a failing school in the UK. This is also a story about why, whenever they seek to find the most qualified black candidates for high-level jobs — whether they’re looking for a justice on the Supreme Court, or a president of Harvard University, or a White House press secretary, or a vice president of the United States, or a full professor at Cambridge — white liberals inevitably select imbeciles who are as morally stunted as they are intellectually stunted, and obviously unqualified for the job.
You would think, with unlimited resources to find the most qualified black candidates available, they’d come up with someone worthwhile. You’d think that would happen, at least occasionally. But it’s not happening. And we need to talk about why.
We also need to discuss the backlash against Nathan Cofnas, a former fellow at Cambridge who lost his job because he told the truth about anti-white discrimination in universities all over the world.
Cofnas — with the help of other academics and outlets, most notably “Retraction Watch” — exposed Arday’s fraud over the summer. And for that, Cofnas has been subjected to a smear campaign by Cambridge University, as well as various left-wing academics and activists. The very thing they accuse Cofnas of provoking against Arday — an unfair, vengeful, politically motivated smear campaign — is precisely what they’re doing to him.
In fact, it’s not just Cofnas they’re going after. The Left is demonizing anyone who reports the truth about Arday, including mainstream outlets like the Telegraph, the Guardian, and even The New York Times. The reaction has been nothing short of psychotic. There is an all-out effort to intimidate and harass critics of the serial fabulist — in part because they realize that, if people keep digging, they’re going to find out that he was not an aberration.
The vast majority of liberal arts scholarships at every university (including Cambridge), as well as the entire DEI industry, are all just as fraudulent as Arday was. And right now, all of these scammers are terrified that they’re going to be exposed as well.
That would include a woman named Hilary Cremin, who serves as “Head of Faculty & Professor of Education” at Cambridge. She’s one of the faculty members who hired Arday in 2023. The BBC was on the scene to cover this momentous development, in a puff piece that has not aged particularly well. Cremin is the white woman at the end of the following segment.
Watch:
There’s nothing quite like being forced to watch the sexual tension in the Cambridge sociology department, between a man who looks like a long-lost member of Milli Vanilli and a woman who looks and acts like she should be starring in a PSA about the dangers of brain parasites from cats.
Hilary Cremin is living the fantasy of every white liberal female on the planet. This is the equivalent of a BTS concert for millions of adult women. She gets the opportunity to fawn over a black guy, to apologize to him on behalf of white people, and to present herself as this exceedingly wise, introspective academic who’s willing to “do the work.” And to really sell the message, there’s even the dramatic close-up of the interracial handshake, like it’s a modern-day Renaissance painting.
So let’s get specific about what exactly Arday was guilty of — and how obvious it was. On July 21st, Nathan Cofnas published an article on his Substack called “DEI Fraud and Cover-Up at Cambridge.” In the article, he describes running Arday’s 2015 PhD dissertation through plagiarism-detection software. And he found that, on several occasions, Arday stole the wording (with minimal changes) from a 2009 dissertation written by a student in London.
But it’s important to understand that Arday’s plagiarism extended well beyond his dissertation. Several of his published papers were plagiarized as well. Unfortunately for Arday, a retired professor named Dave Harris came across one of these published papers, entitled “Attempting to Break the Chain: Reimagining Inclusive Pedagogy and Decolonising the Curriculum within the Academy.” And Harris noticed some apparent plagiarism. Why you would even need to plagiarize nonsense about “decolonizing the curriculum,” when it’s all made-up drivel anyway, is beyond me. That’s maybe the worst thing about the Arday scandal. Not only was he a plagiarist, but he was plagiarizing gibberish. It’s like copying a preschooler’s chalk drawing of a tree and trying to pass it off as your own.
Anyway, Harris wrote an email to Arday seeking an explanation. It was a polite email that simply asked Arday to explain the “puzzling similarities” between his work and previously published materials. In response, a week later, Arday wrote that it was “disappointing that you have imposed yourself on me in the manner you have, i.e. without any reflexivity or humility whatsoever.” Arday added:
You will likely know, from your literature reviews not from experience, that the academy is a hostile place for Black scholars. There are very few of us that become professors, and even fewer in the fortunate but precarious position I am in, which is having the platform to represent and uplift other people of color even beyond academia. As a Black, autistic man with global developmental delay and severe dyslexia, the odds are even less likely; my hope has always been that people like me feel inspired to pursue academia, and that people like you can make space for this. … Instead of spending your time trying to dismantle racism and ableism, you have spent what I assume is hours combing through my work looking for mistakes.
Arday concluded, “Please do not email me again. Should you have the time to spare, I invite you to direct your resources elsewhere. Anything further from you will be considered bullying and harassment.”
Then, Arday contacted the Metropolitan Police, who referred the matter to the Devon and Cornwall Police for investigation. So to be clear, Arday reported a professor to the police and claimed that he was the victim of a fake crime (harassment) to shut down a legitimate inquiry into his fraudulent work.
Rather than denying the accusation and providing context to clear his name, he started rambling about how he’s black and autistic. That is as close to an admission of guilt as you’ll get. The police declined to pursue the case after investigating it. But they should’ve put Arday in handcuffs at this point, and he should’ve been fired immediately. There is no place in a university for a professor who tries to have his critics arrested. Filing a phony complaint with the police is a crime, and Arday should’ve gone to jail for it. He’s a criminal, in addition to everything else.
Arday resorted to intimidation because it usually worked for him. Most notably, in September of 2025, Arday received an email from Times Higher Education, which was about to report on his extensive plagiarism. Arday responded by bringing in the top defamation law firm in the UK, Carter-Ruck, to send a cease-and-desist to the newspaper (It’s unclear whether Arday was paying the firm’s bills or Cambridge was).
In the cease-and-desist, the law firm said the paper was relying on a source who did not understand the “academic process.” The law firm also accused the newspaper of harassment and mocked the idea that there was actually a story here. In the end, it worked. The Times Higher Education caved. They never ran the story.
But Cofnas didn’t give up. He went through all of Arday’s prominent published papers, including the one flagged by Harris, and found even more plagiarism.
There may be cases of plagiarists who are clever enough to cover up their theft, or obscure it to a large degree. Jason Arday was not clever. And we can assume that there are even more examples that haven’t been found yet. Again, other than Cofnas and a few professors, no one with any resources had been looking into this guy.
But when you zoom out, things get even worse for Arday. Here’s the most important image from Cofnas’ Substack article. It’s a summary of his findings after investigating all 10 of Arday’s most prominent publications.
As you can see, at least four of the 10 articles involve some amount of plagiarism, with extensive plagiarism in at least two of the articles. But that’s not even the most important takeaway here. The really important takeaway is that, if you eliminate the plagiarized papers, then Arday has not produced any actual scholarship. You’re only left with “interviews” he’s supposedly conducted about racist white people. So there’s nothing to indicate that Arday has any academic qualifications whatsoever.
When these concerns were raised with Cambridge, the university said it didn’t care because the plagiarism took place before he was hired at Cambridge. They said, “In this instance the research that your concerns relate to was carried out before Professor Arday joined the university and it would normally be for the institution at which the work was done to consider any research integrity concerns with a particular paper published in their name. As such, we do not consider it within our remit to investigate the paper to which you refer.” In other words, they hired him because of his research, but they don’t care if the research is fake.
Meanwhile, the journals that published Arday’s articles took them offline and allowed him to make edits before they went back online. The journals all stated that the edits were relatively minor, and merely involved “making it clear where ideas were adapted from past research.”
But in truth, as Retraction Watch found, the edits were actually extensive. To give just one example, Arday’s article in the journal “Social Sciences” originally stated that he had analyzed interview transcripts with “an iterative coding scheme using N-Vivo qualitative data analysis software,” before having a researcher code data to “enhance the validity of emerging themes and claims.”
So it sounds like he did some actual work in the original version. But in the revised version of the article, Arday merely says that he recorded the interviews, transcribed them, and analyzed them by using “review and reflection.”
Additionally, Retraction Watch also found that Arday had plagiarized some of these interviews from other sources, so he wasn’t even conducting them himself. In other words, this guy was not simply a plagiarist. He was actively fabricating data to push a certain narrative. He was engaging in deliberate deception in multiple different ways.
So this is institutional corruption, at every level. Cambridge refused to punish the black guy they hired as a token, and the “peer-reviewed” scientific journals allowed Arday to cover his tracks with stealth edits, even after his plagiarism was brought to their attention. And on top of that, even before all of this plagiarism was uncovered, Arday was lying about every aspect of his life, in a very pathological and transparent fashion.
First of all, he claimed that he ran 30 marathons in 35 days — even after suffering a leg fracture around the 21st marathon. No one who’s looked into this rather extraordinary claim has been able to verify it. There’s a news article where he tells a reporter he ran 30 marathons, but it’s based solely on his own claims. And there’s nothing in the article about a leg fracture.
Then there’s the claim that Arday couldn’t read or write until he was 18, even though on its face, it’s absurd to think that someone illiterate at 18 could start publishing academic papers so quickly. But then again, since he copied all the papers, and his whole field of study is made up of gibberish anyway, maybe that claim isn’t actually so implausible.
And yet Arday graduated from high school with a certificate that requires literacy, which seems incompatible with the idea that he couldn’t read. Additionally, The New York Times just spoke with several of Arday’s classmates as well as a speech professional who worked with him when he was a child. They all said he could speak English, and did so often. So the idea that he couldn’t speak at all until the age of 11, as he claimed, is absurd. There’s no way a child goes from being unable to speak English to being fluent overnight. But he kept making this claim, again and again. Cambridge sent Arday out on a press tour to illustrate how inclusive it is.
Watch:
We can categorically confirm from Arday’s own words he couldn’t have been diagnosed with Aspergers or global developmental delay in 1988
Asperger’s was first used in the NHS in 1992.
Global developmental delay – NHS first used in 2003
Did he fabricate autism altogether? https://t.co/PUO7RhofX4
— HC ▪️ (@banbadmen) August 16, 2026
As a few people have pointed out, when Arday was three years old, neither Asperger’s nor “global developmental delay” were formally diagnosed by the UK’s National Health Service. Global Development Delay was first used around 2003, while Asperger’s became a diagnosis in 1992 — four years after Arday was three years old. So there are a lot of reasons to doubt what he’s saying, and none of it received any mainstream pushback whatsoever.
There are also some more questionable claims in Arday’s memoir, as Sarah Ditum points out on her Substack. Arday claims he had several tumors — including one in his brain and one in his testicle. He claimed he developed epilepsy after being beaten by four people. He says he was comatose after being hit by a car. Some of these claims are from his memoir itself. Others are from the book proposal.
The claims are all risible and absurd to the point of being laughably implausible when taken together. And by the way, while we’re at it, Simon & Schuster published Arday’s memoir, which they clearly didn’t fact-check in any way. That’s yet another institution that totally folded, in the name of DEI and racial equity. It used to be that, when you bought a non-fiction book, an editor and fact-checker had looked at it. But that wasn’t the case here. He lied about everything, from his autism to his athletic accomplishments, and nobody at any point in the editing process flagged it because, apparently, there wasn’t any editing process.
For my money, the most extraordinary fairy tales from Arday were exposed by The Guardian, of all places. This is where it becomes evident that this guy is a fabricator on the level of Jussie Smollett. This is where he throws away all of his credibility, what infinitesimal amount of it he had, without realizing it. It’s from an open letter that Arday wrote last summer to a minister in the government, outlining the alleged racism he experienced.
Arday claimed to have been confronted at his faculty building on two separate occasions by a masked man threatening to harm him if he did not resign, and evading detection both times. On the second occasion Arday said the intruder produced a knife and threatened him with it. … The intruder was not picked up by CCTV on either occasion and no one in the faculty reported seeing anyone suspicious. Arday did not report either intrusion at the time, telling the Guardian that after the second incident he continued his working day, and even conducted a PhD [oral examination] for a student less than two hours later. He did not inform colleagues that a masked man with a knife was in the faculty building.
This is one of those lies that’s so bad, and so poorly thought out, that it actually stops being beneficial to the liar. It’s a fake story that somehow manages to make him look worse. If it’s true, then your colleagues (and the PHD students) are going to wonder why you didn’t find the time to mention the masked homicidal maniac with a knife who’s roaming campus and making threats to murder people. That’s one of those things that, in most circumstances, you might want to mention to someone, with a certain amount of urgency. But according to Arday’s own version of events, he kept this information to himself. He went about his day, as if nothing had happened.
Of course, the story is not remotely true. But Cambridge pretended to take the lie seriously. And so the lies kept coming. In his open letter, Arday also claimed that “mutilated animals” had been sent to his parents’ home, and that “bananas and bullets” had been mailed to him.
Arday confirmed in an interview with the Guardian that the “mutilated animals sent to his family home” mentioned in the open letter was a severed pig’s head, delivered in a large cardboard box to his parents’ home address in south London. He claimed to have intercepted the package and immediately thrown it away, only telling the police several months later. In a subsequent interview he claimed the police investigated, checking with butchers in south London if they had sold a pig, eventually finding one that had sold a “whole hog” on the morning the head was left outside the family home. When the Guardian checked those details with the local butchers Arday named, they said no police officer had come in to ask them about a pig. When asked if they were sure, the butcher said “that’s the kind of thing we’d remember.” When the details Arday gave about the pig’s head investigation were checked by London’s Metropolitan police, the Guardian was told they were “categorically” incorrect and no investigation had taken place.
So Arday had fantasized a scenario where he was being tormented like someone who had gotten on the wrong side of Don Corleone. Of course, some of the most tender and flavorful cuts of pork are the cheeks and jowls, so it seems possible that this white supremacist was just trying to send him a delicious meal. At least that would be a plausible theory if the white supremacist existed, which he doesn’t.
As you’d expect, there’s also no evidence of the bananas or bullets that were supposedly sent to him. Arday never took any photographs of these items when they were mailed to his house, nor did he mention them to anyone at the time. That’s the strange thing about these race hustlers. They’re desperate to claim racism wherever they can find it, and then one day a white supremacist sends them a box full of bananas and bullets, and they don’t even think to snap a picture. Strange. When The Guardian asked him about all of these issues, he replied, “To be honest with you, I thought you’d just believe me. Why would I lie?”
So in this case we’re dealing with someone so narcissistic, and so profoundly stupid, that he simply thought he could make up whatever he wanted, and no one would question him or his motivations. And the really shameful and pathetic thing is that, actually, he was right — at least for a while.
But here’s the really amazing thing — even if Arday hadn’t plagiarized anything, and even if he’d never lied about his life story, there would still be no reason to hire him at Cambridge or anywhere else. Everything we’ve discussed, up to this point, relates to unethical and/or criminal conduct that should have disqualified him from employment at any university, regardless of how talented he was, and regardless of how much research he was doing. But even if you forget about everything I’ve said, his credentials are still non-existent. This is from The New York Times:
When Cambridge University interviewed Jason Arday for one of the most prestigious sociology positions in the world, he was an early career scholar and underqualified, by the school’s own standards. Cambridge’s requirements, reviewed by The New York Times, called for “an outstanding research record of international stature” and a “proven successful track record” supervising Ph.D. students. Dr. Arday had a modest publication record and had bounced from one university to the next — not staying long enough to oversee a full three-year-or-more doctorate. Cambridge hired him anyway in 2023.
This is one of the key points that needs to be made here: The plagiarism isn’t the biggest issue. It’s extremely unethical, and everyone involved should be terminated, sure. But the bigger problem is that all of academia is totally fraudulent. They have no actual standards for anything. It’s all a ruse. The average Cambridge faculty member is no more worthwhile than Jason Arday. They give themselves awards and titles, but there are no objective standards, particularly when it comes to non-white candidates.
As the evidence of Arday’s plagiarism and fabricated stories began to circulate, his former students came forward to describe him as a terrible teacher, on top of everything else. This is from one of Arday’s former students at another school, the University of Roehampton:
In the end, Arday gave me 70 percent for my essay. … Particularly as Arday had given my work no feedback, I asked for a meeting. At Roehampton, marking is blind, so he wouldn’t have known who’d written which essay. In our meeting, I explained that 70 percent was a low mark for me and asked him to provide feedback. Suddenly, his friendly, confident demeanour changed. I now saw a side of him I’d never seen before: angry, but also scared. Arday implied that I was racist and said that the only reason I wasn’t happy with 70 percent was due to my “white privilege.” He was clearly upset at being questioned and I ended the meeting as quickly as possible.
The Times of London said they verified the student’s identity, but it’s pretty remarkable that they can’t simply come out in public, with their own name on the op-ed. Even now, after Arday has clearly been exposed as a fraud, it’s still career suicide to speak out against him. Cambridge has put out multiple statements denouncing the “vile campaign” against Arday.
And indeed, now that Arday has taken his own life, as predicted, black activists are claiming that white racists are responsible. Here’s one such analysis, from someone calling herself “Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu.”
Watch:
This is a public execution. You hounded Jason Arday to death. You murdered him. You killed him. I warned you. I knew this is exactly what you all wanted with your ‘racism’ masked as accountability. Your white supremacist blood thirsty lust to destroy DEI masked as public… pic.twitter.com/BAk8fBUYr3
— Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu (@SholaMos1) August 14, 2026
“Are you happy now? Are you happy now?” Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ll say that no, I’m not happy. No part of this story makes me happy. But I also feel no pity for this man at all, especially now that he’s dead. Of all the selfish, evil, pathetic things this man did — and his was a life filled with selfish, evil, pathetic things — the manner of his death surpasses all of it.
If you’re looking for an explanation as to the psychology behind why Jason Arday took the coward’s way out, here’s your answer. He was a committed pathological narcissist to the very end. He decided that, rather than live with the consequences of his actions, he wanted to go out as a victim — as a kind of perverse hero for the swarms of black activists who are always looking for a reason to attack whites. And that’s exactly what he’s become.
There’s even going to be a march on Monday in Trafalgar Square, entitled, “Vigil for Jason Arday: Stand Against Racist Witch Hunts.” Because, you see, when you report on black fraudsters, the only conceivable reason for doing so is that you hate black people. The implication is that this would never happen to a white guy in academia.
Not to be outdone, the grandmaster of racial grifting himself, Ibram X. Kendi, whose real name is Henry Rogers, has decided to weigh in.
They’re both fraudsters. Henry Rogers’ “anti-racism center” at Boston University was shut down after burning through tens of millions of dollars, which no one can trace. Beyond telling black people that they should be racist against whites, Rogers struggled to articulate any coherent thoughts whatsoever.
And now, this same Henry Rogers, aka Ibram X. Kendi, is declaring that, despite what it looks like, Jason Arday was in fact murdered. Henry just wrote a piece entitled, “The Media Lynched Jason Arday.” Here’s how he introduced it:
The death of Jason Arday hit so close to home that I had no words yesterday. But I woke up with words. To be a prominent antiracist Black scholar is to know you are a target, almost totally surrounded by resentments. You know that at any point, the attacks can come like a lynch mob. And if you die from all the attacks, the media still calls the attacks on you ‘accusations’ to wash their hands of the blood. Your lynchers announce your death as if they had no role in your lynching.
Well, Henry, the reason this “hits so close to home” is that you’re a fraud, too. You have every incentive to accuse Arday’s critics of murder right now, because you’re desperate to avoid scrutiny yourself. You are an “anti-racist expert” who cannot even define the word “racism.” It’s like a veterinarian who doesn’t know what an animal is. This is from the so-called Aspen Ideas Festival. Other than watching “Am I Racist?” it’s the best possible way to sum up the fraud that is Henry Rogers, as well as the entire DEI grift.
Watch:
So racism is when you’re racist. Anti-racism is when you’re not racist. Any questions?
I guess the one thing you can say in defense of Henry Rogers is that he probably didn’t plagiarize any of this. If he was going to copy someone else’s work, it would’ve at least made sense. Instead, Henry Rogers’ alleged “scholarship” is so idiotic that it could only come from the mind of the single dumbest person in the DEI industry: Henry Rogers himself.
In the article defending Arday, Rogers states:
The attacks are wielded by racist propagandists, resenting you for shining a light on anti-Black racism. They hope everyone finally picks up their baseless claims. They know that to dim your light is to dim the light on their anti-Blackness. … In 2023, only the Financial Times covered extensively that William O’Reilly, a White Cambridge professor, was found guilty of plagiarism. All told, a Black Cambridge professor endured 249 times more media coverage for an accusation of plagiarism by a known racist.
I went and looked this story up. First of all, William O’Reilly was not presented by Cambridge as the leader in his field. They didn’t send him out to every mainstream media outlet to do a puff piece on his appointment. Nor did he lie about every single aspect of his biography to an absurd degree.
And Cambridge didn’t suspend all of their alleged “standards” in order to hire William O’Reilly, nor did they give him any kind of preferential treatment because of his skin color. So it shouldn’t be surprising that there’s more media attention on Arday, someone Cambridge deliberately chose to turn into a star, solely on the basis of his skin color. When an institution like Cambridge decides to discriminate against more qualified applicants in such a flagrant manner, on the basis of race, that’s a much bigger story than one random professor plagiarizing a couple of paragraphs.
Most importantly, from what I can tell, there was only a single paper that O’Reilly plagiarized from his own student’s work. A tribunal determined that his plagiarism was negligent rather than deliberate. And while that’s still bad, and he should be fired for it, there’s been no finding that he plagiarized every important academic paper he ever wrote. The scale of the plagiarism is nowhere close to Jason Arday’s.
One of the main tactics that Arday’s defenders are using is to minimize all of these details. They don’t want to talk about what Arday actually did. Instead, they want to speak in very general terms, to convince people that he was lynched somehow. Here’s PBS anchor and NBC contributor Geoff Bennett, for instance, taking issue with The New York Times’ reporting on Arday’s fraud:
A man dies at 41 after weeks of relentless public scrutiny. The New York Times, the next day, [says] he was underqualified for his job. Whatever the merits of the underlying questions, publishing this now is ghoulish.
First of all, spare me the whining about “public scrutiny.” I’ve faced “public scrutiny” plenty of times. It comes with the territory in any prominent position these days. You can’t run around doing media interviews, trying to get your face on camera as much as possible, doing and saying things and making claims clearly designed to attract attention, and then cry like a baby when the public scrutiny comes. You literally asked for it. Stand up like a man and take it. But Jason Arday was no man at all.
Just based on this tweet alone, this Geoff guy should be fired from PBS and whatever other news organization he works for. You can’t have anyone working for a news organization who’s willing to misrepresent basic facts like this. No, the Times didn’t just say he was “underqualified.” They also said he was a serial liar and plagiarist. And no, Arday wasn’t just a random “man.” He was a professor at a major university that collects taxpayer money — a university that has an international reputation. He’s emblematic of a much larger DEI regime that operates in the vast majority of universities and workplaces all over the world. If a “journalist” is going to ignore all of this, then he should quit and go work in communications for the NAACP or something. It’s disgraceful.
Here’s another take along these lines, from the podcast of one “Kehinde Andrews.”
Watch:
“Jason Arday was being lynched and many were asking ‘should we support him?’ You stop the lynching and deal with the rest after.” There’s plenty shame to go around from the mob, to Cambridge and many who should have known better. New @makeitplainorg pod: https://t.co/rTIdb59ifo pic.twitter.com/eL6i9HU7jY
— Kehinde Andrews (@kehinde_andrews) August 16, 2026
The effect of clips like this should be to make you go back and take another look at the reports of “lynchings” that you learned about in high school. These black activists are describing legitimate, lawful criticism as a “lynching.” They’re saying that if you challenge a fraudulent black academic by pointing out he’s a liar and a fraud, then you’re “lynching” him.
And if that’s the case, we should revisit every single alleged “lynching” that we’re told took place during this country’s history. Maybe they were just “light criticisms.” Maybe they were justified responses to heinous crimes. You’re not crazy for coming to that conclusion, based on how these people lie to your face all the time — particularly about “lynchings.” Every single time they try to claim someone was “lynched,” it turns out to be a completely fake story. So they don’t get to talk about “lynching” anymore. And if they don’t like it — tough. This is what happens when you devalue the meaning of words, which is what the Left does incessantly.
There’s even a petition — with tens of thousands of signatures, including faculty members at Cambridge and members of the British government — demanding a government investigation into the media, because “Self-regulation of the press has comprehensively failed.” They’re begging for media censorship, because the media reported the truth about a black fraudster. “We respectfully ask you to commission an immediate public inquiry into how to ensure a responsible press given its contribution to Dr Arday’s tragic death.”
Consider how far the West has fallen, in order for tens of thousands of people in a Western country to demand government action to silence people for telling the truth about anything — much less DEI (which is another word for anti-white discrimination). It’s easy to criticize the United States, but we’re the only Western country that still respects the freedom of speech, by and large. It’s extraordinary how far everyone else has fallen.
To be clear, these unhinged tirades are not simply being directed at vague targets like “the media” or “white supremacy.” Some of the most vicious attacks have been leveled personally at Nathan Cofnas, the former Cambridge academic who exposed Arday’s fraud.
“we are going to Charlie Kirk your ass”
“Curious how the family is doing”@nathancofnas, the American academic who wrote the story on Substack breaking the news about then-@Cambridge_Uni DEI star Jason Arday’s plagiarism, has been receiving nonstop violent threats since Arday… pic.twitter.com/QPVzyggPmF— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) August 16, 2026
You can see a few of the threats he’s received in that tweet. He’s getting hundreds of explicit death threats solely for reporting accurate information that led to the downfall of a scam artist. By the way, there’s a great rundown of Nathan Cofnas’ academic achievements that was published in Quillette the other day. He was a kind of rockstar at Cambridge, and he was on the fast track to much bigger things.
Then he made the argument that “genes play a non-trivial role in average race differences in traits such as intelligence.” It’s a belief that, according to anonymous surveys, more than 80 percent of experts in the field agree with. It’s also obviously true. But even at a university — a place supposedly dedicated to exploring and debating controversial ideas — this was an intolerable thing to say out loud. So they showed Cofnas the door. And then — as if to prove his point — Cambridge turned around and promoted incompetent, unqualified, unintelligent black fraudsters like Jason Arday.
I need to emphasize that last point because it doesn’t get stated nearly enough. If you’re interested in disproving the idea that genetics and race and intelligence could possibly be linked, then the absolute worst thing you can do is silence any debate on the subject, while simultaneously practicing DEI.
It’s as if Cambridge is secretly run by white supremacists. On the one hand, you have Nathan Cofnas, an early-career academic who’s making an argument based on decades of peer-reviewed research. He’s echoing the position of James Watson (who co-discovered the DNA double-helix structure). He’s taking an enormous personal risk to say something he believes is true.
On the other side, instead of debating with Nathan Cofnas in any way, you have absolute clowns who silence him, while promoting degenerate losers like Jason Arday — all while claiming he’s the single best black scholar you could’ve possibly found. That’s not how you win the argument. It’s not how you maintain any kind of legitimacy. Instead, it’s how you concede Nathan Cofnas’ point. You’re making his argument for him.
Despite what Cambridge, Henry Rogers, and other black activists are trying to say about Jason Arday, the truth is, most people probably aren’t falling for it. DEI was always bound to lead to increasingly bizarre and humiliating outcomes because, by its very nature, it only selects for candidates who are both unqualified and shameless. After all, you have to be totally shameless to accept accolades that you clearly don’t deserve.
And as DEI’s reputation circles the drain, an even greater degree of shamelessness is required to participate in the sham. So we’ll continue to get more and more stories like Jason Arday’s, except somehow they’ll be even more absurd and unbelievable. The insanity will have to ratchet up even further.
This is what the death throes of DEI look like. Just a few years ago, when we produced “Am I Racist?” this moment seemed many years off — maybe even decades. But with the comically preposterous rise and fall of Jason Arday, and the subsequent freakout by deranged black activists, it’s fair to say that the fall of DEI could already be upon us.
Or as Jason Arday might have said, if he were still with us, observing the public humiliation of a once-great university because of his own rampant dishonesty: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of DEI.” And people would say, wait, Jason, are you quoting Oppenheimer? Hindu Scripture? And he’d respond that “no,” he was being completely original — he totally thought of the line himself that morning when he was brushing his teeth.
And somewhere in a faculty lounge deep in the bowels of Cambridge University, a white liberal woman would break down into tears at the sheer originality of Jason Arday, the premier Cambridge academic, the exemplar of everything academia stands for — taken from us far too soon.
.png)
.png)
