More Than One Thing Can Be True at a Single Time

Reflections on the spiraling of Dr. Arday, Cambridge, and my take based my own experience in the Faculty of Education

After my summer hiatus, I am back at it. Welcome back to you too! I’ve had an incredible summer with family, visiting old and new places, as well as thinking and planning the future. I know it is bright so I’m thrilled to be back here and writing to you.

Recently, there have been some eyebrow raising allegations of plagiarism followed by the sudden and tragic death of Dr. Jason Arday. I’ve been paying especially close attention to this unfolding because Dr. Arday worked in the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge – my old faculty where I studied my PhD. I know people who’ve been quoted in newspaper articles and I have my own experience there.

First and foremost, the entire situation is tragic, and it saddens me deeply. I will not try to pretend that I know any more that what has been reported and I will not pretend that my experience in the Faculty of Education gives me authority. It only gives me an experienced perspective.

What I want to say is this…more than one thing can be true at a single time. I think we’re entering the period after his death when people will back into corners, silo themselves, and steadfastly hold a single position.

First of all, the fact that someone’s life ended so suddenly after experiencing media and public scrutiny of not just one’s work, but of one’s life, is horrific. Period.

A human being is worth more than his mistakes. Dr. Arday’s life mattered and it sadly came to an end too soon. To me, that fact should outweigh anything else that is discussed.

And yet I keep thinking about this tragedy in the larger context…

What can also be true is that someone (and likely he is not the first) either exaggerated or blatantly lied about their life story. And someone appears to have plagiarized in professional academic work (from what I’ve seen reported). If one lies at work, it’s fair to lose a job, but no lie at work (like the ones alleged) are so terrible that a human being should feel empty of dignity that the life is lost entirely.

There is a reality, especially in social science research, that to be rigorous research, it also must be reliable and valid. In my research master’s at Oxford, what we learned on day one was that research must be public, systematic, and verifiable. It must be open to evaluation and critique. As a social scientist working with qualitative data, it is essential that you bring credibility to your work by ensuring it is systematic, public, and verifiable.

If we table AI for a moment (as it was not widely available when Dr. Arday and I completed our PhDs), this is what I know. If anyone came to question my research, critique whether or not someone said something or even questioned if I did the work in the first place, I have evidence in multiple methods of data collection (including audios of most of my research, witnesses and data triangulation to create confidence in the validity of my findings. A supportive doctoral programme that cares about rigor would ensure that supervisors are properly supervising. I think that means supporting your doctoral student in reviewing audios, checking transcription etc. Turnitin.com has been around long before AI, how come the work wasn’t checked? This is a real concern.

And in applying for positions or reviewing a book, how come the life story was not questioned, critiqued? I’m talking about both publishing and academic reals. I heard someone say, I’m not sure who, that Dr. Arday was treated more as a mascot for a university agenda than as a scholar. If his work had been critiqued in a scholarly way, neither Cambridge nor other universities would have accepted what is mounting up to be a pattern of, at best exaggeration, and at worst, outright lies. No one with that history should have gotten the professorship. And yet, let’s not forget that his “crimes” were not worth more than his life.

And another thing, The New York Times reported yesterday, that there were “three more senior scholars, including two women of color” who were up for the same position. Let’s be clear. There are loads of excellent scholars who are people of color. I’ve seen them. I know them. And oftentimes, they have backgrounds and life histories that challenge norms in centuries-old institutions and force everyone and every institution to broaden perspectives and improve. There is no shortage of people from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds who are qualified to work at Cambridge. And good for Cambridge in explicitly stating that they want to expand access and increase profiles of these very worthy scholars. But if there were more senior candidates in this particular case, frankly, how come they did not get the position?

Again, maybe the key is that Dr. Arday was treated more as a mascot than as an academic. I say this lightly and as a suggestion. I know people involved in this. And there are good, honest people of integrity who I know who I know had only the best intentions in their involvement in hiring or day-to-day life in the Faculty of Education. This institution is far from perfect but it is not to say there are good people in circles of involvement around this tragedy. But instead of pointing fingers as is so easy to do on social media and behind the screen, each person should evaluate for one’s self. And institutionally, can Cambridge and every other university out there learn a lesson, improve its processes to ensure that scholars are critiqued and evaluated as scholars and not treated as mascots?

All this is to say, there are real academic concerns, especially in qualitative research to ensure that research is public, systematic, and verifiable. Cambridge was warned but the system has shown that it did not work in this case. It’s fair to question what is broken and needing of repair? And here is no simple answer here. Cambridge and many other large universities are complex structures with unique hierarchies of authority. It is up to Cambridge to look inward and learn from this. I have confidence that it can based on who is in university leadership positions. I actually know these people and believe in their integrity and think this is an opportunity to fix something that is likely systemic and not excuse this tragedy as a one-off mishap that can be hidden under the rug.

And if Cambridge can lead in moving forward from this point in a way that is both empathetic to the devastatingly tragic loss of life and the questions of academic integrity, then it can be a model for other institutions to follow suit. This is paramount considering that we live in the era of “fake news” and universities must do all they can to ensure that there are still reliable sources of credible information. We all need Cambridge and other institutions to be promoters of verified and critiqued information.

And after all of this, we must not let any of this table or diminish the tragedy of Dr. Arday. I wonder what supports he had or lacked personally and professionally. I wonder what kind of community he kept. I know firsthand that higher education can be lonely, isolating, and even dark. And in my lowest moments in Cambridge, I had strong friendships and care from colleagues in my cohort to help me through. What kind of community did he have not just in Cambridge but in his entire life, in every chapter, in every new place?

So, I think there are many things that can be true at a single time.

Dr. Arday’s life and humanity are more important than his mistakes. At worst, he lied. He should still be here with us.

Higher education has real concerns in how it evaluates and verifies research.

Higher education has real concerns in how it hires and supports academics.

A broken clock is correct two times a day. Remember that Nathan Cofnas is a racist promoting this story because he believes that, according to The New York Times, “Black people were genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than white people.” And even though this is despicable, what the TIE investigation and other scholars identified were concerns with academic integrity and honesty. Allowing room for an honest critique of higher education processes does not make you racist. Using this one example to promote an ideology of hatred is racist.

Higher education is lonely and it’s even lonelier for people who are isolated for a variety of reasons that have to do with who they are or what life experience they have. Universities must be better at tackling isolation, avoid the temptation to treat academics as mascots, and build communities of belonging. Academics of minority backgrounds do get critiqued and harassed for their work.

It is all a tragedy. There is no way to take back the tragedy this spiraled into. But I hope that the tragedy does not create an excuse for higher education to take seriously the concerns that have been brought to light.

I have a family member that has told after a bad day or a big mistake at work, “Relax, no one died on the operating table. In this situation, the mistakes were not big enough for someone to die on the metaphorical operating table, and yet one person did. What a tragedy indeed.