The Jason Arday affair has left few standing, least of all those who think they are not only standing but standing tall. Lots of people came out of it very badly. Nathan Cofnas is one, as is Jason Arday himself as well as the media, Cambridge University and academia in general and also the Left.
Before the story broke Nathan Cofnas was even by academic standards an obscure figure. He is now a household name, not just in Britain, but globally. He describes himself as a “race realist” something the media and others are treating as something respectable or new. It is neither. Race Realism and the search to find a biological link to intelligence is not new. Biological Determinism goes back a long way and enjoyed social and even scientific support in the 19th Century through the work of Francis Galton (Darwin’s cousin), the father of eugenics who unsurprisingly had studied at Cambridge. It reached ridiculous levels assigning all sorts of nonsensical biological criteria by which to measure intelligence. Farcically at one point the size of certain bones was seen as a biological (racial) sign of intelligence: the ratio of the radius to the humerus to be precise.
This rubbish never went away and resurfaced time and again. The genetic discussion is just a modern version of it, which found its expression in The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in 1994.[1] At the time many liberal and left wing scientists demolished the arguments and Stephen Jay Gould even debated Murray, something most on the Left would be now ill-prepared to do after years of cancel culture and “winning” arguments by saying they are offended. Cofnas has added nothing new to the debate, not even from a right-wing perspective, though as Gould pointed out in his updated edition of The Mismeasure of Man, Murray too had only regurgitated old arguments with lots of charts and stats to accompany them, something Cofnas also does: style over substance. But he has exposed the shallowness of what is considered intellectually worthy in academia, both in terms of his own contributions and also Arday’s.
I am all in favour of free inquiry at universities and in life in general, but Biological Determinism or its modern synonym Race Realism is nothing short of quackery. It belongs in the same category as Flat Earth Science or even Creationism, though Cambridge actually has a Faculty of Divinity i.e. quackery. That Cambridge and Ghent took it seriously is a damning indictment of both places. All education is political, what is taught, what courses are offered, the range of opinions etc. Education is a battleground for ideas, some of which seem obscure and irrelevant but which end up shaping our society, albeit indirectly in some cases.
Given the level of moralistic hysteria doing the rounds on this topic it has been impossible to ask certain sectors to step back and take a look at the facts and then proceed on that basis. Cambridge has belatedly set up an independent review of how it handled the Arday affair and also how it came to appoint him in the first place.[2] Was racism a factor in what happened to Arday? Almost certainly. The question is to what degree; and none of that takes away from the fact the racists had the goods on him. When I say racists I mean the right wingers like Cofnas. Though I could mean the racists who hired him.
I am all in favour of free inquiry at universities and in life in general, but Biological Determinism or its modern synonym Race Realism is nothing short of quackery. It belongs in the same category as Flat Earth Science or even Creationism, though Cambridge actually has a Faculty of Divinity i.e. quackery. That Cambridge and Ghent took it seriously is a damning indictment of both places. All education is political, what is taught, what courses are offered, the range of opinions etc. Education is a battleground for ideas, some of which seem obscure and irrelevant but which end up shaping our society, albeit indirectly in some cases.
Given the level of moralistic hysteria doing the rounds on this topic it has been impossible to ask certain sectors to step back and take a look at the facts and then proceed on that basis. Cambridge has belatedly set up an independent review of how it handled the Arday affair and also how it came to appoint him in the first place.[2] Was racism a factor in what happened to Arday? Almost certainly. The question is to what degree; and none of that takes away from the fact the racists had the goods on him. When I say racists I mean the right wingers like Cofnas. Though I could mean the racists who hired him.
It is clear that Cambridge is institutionally racist. It could not be any other way given its history, current links to the arms trade, the low number of black academics etc. So they hired Arday, as a poster boy, as Jason Okundaye put it:
Arday was treated not as a scholar but as a mascot, one who was particularly expedient for an institution that had been regularly embarrassed by its historic record on race.[3]
They were saying look at what we have done. It is the academic equivalent of “I am not racist, some of my friends are black”. It is clear that Cambridge sought to deflect criticism by hiring someone regardless of whether they met the requirements. Maybe they thought this offset having “race realists” like Cofnas, or right wingers like Reform UK’s James Orr on the payroll and even inviting people like Murray to give talks at the university.
But Cofnas was not the first academic to question Arday’s record. Another academic, David Harris, whilst researching a book he was writing on race tried to raise questions the way academics do, gently, politely through the system and was accused of harassment and reported to the police by Arday. He had been told that he should read Arday’s work for his own research. He did and found some problems with it.[4] Had his questions received the consideration they deserved, the whole affair might not have played out the way it did and Arday might not have a job, or he may have received some disciplinary sanction, but he might still be alive. It was the reaction to Harris, a mild mannered academic who unlike Cofnas has no agenda in the matter, that increased the pressure in the pot and helped set the scene. There was also the police persecution of Times Higher Education journalist Jack Grove, where the police acted like a private security firm for Arday putting him under investigation for four months.[5]
As a result of the affair, other issues have come to light, or rather have gained wider traction than they otherwise would. Academia is hardly an enthralling newsworthy issue at the best of times. It has been pointed out that other white people at Cambridge had been found guilty by Cambridge itself of plagiarism and nothing happened to them, just mild disciplinary sanctions in the best of cases. One of them even plagiarised his own student! Cambridge protects its own.
But Cofnas was not the first academic to question Arday’s record. Another academic, David Harris, whilst researching a book he was writing on race tried to raise questions the way academics do, gently, politely through the system and was accused of harassment and reported to the police by Arday. He had been told that he should read Arday’s work for his own research. He did and found some problems with it.[4] Had his questions received the consideration they deserved, the whole affair might not have played out the way it did and Arday might not have a job, or he may have received some disciplinary sanction, but he might still be alive. It was the reaction to Harris, a mild mannered academic who unlike Cofnas has no agenda in the matter, that increased the pressure in the pot and helped set the scene. There was also the police persecution of Times Higher Education journalist Jack Grove, where the police acted like a private security firm for Arday putting him under investigation for four months.[5]
As a result of the affair, other issues have come to light, or rather have gained wider traction than they otherwise would. Academia is hardly an enthralling newsworthy issue at the best of times. It has been pointed out that other white people at Cambridge had been found guilty by Cambridge itself of plagiarism and nothing happened to them, just mild disciplinary sanctions in the best of cases. One of them even plagiarised his own student! Cambridge protects its own.
Arday, despite being their poster boy was not and when it came time to cut him loose they let him resign, something which seems to have genuinely shocked many on the Left. It has other problems with sexism. Coming just days before Arday’s suicide the courts found in favour of Professor Wyn Evans, a lecturer in astrophysics, who fought a long battle against Cambridge over the treatment of a female colleague, Dr Tausch-Pebody. The case revolved around a complaint made against Dr McMahon who had held up the disbursement of funding to her by 37 weeks, refusing to sign the appropriate release form and had bizarrely used her IP address and that of other colleagues. The university used its insurance funds to fight the case, and was nasty about it, with Wyn Evans saying “At one point the university’s barrister accused me of crying crocodile tears about an employee who committed suicide”[6] which is a bit rich given the howls around Arday’s suicide. Following the tribunal report, other academics posted a picture of Judas on his door, and Cambridge announced it was reviewing its HR procedures, following its bullying of this whistleblower.[7] This judgement came in the midst of the furore surrounding Arday’s appointment clearly showing that Cambridge is not the type of employer which facilitates internal criticism of its decisions.
The Left responded by defending Arday and when backed into an indefensible corner said “Well lots of people plagiarise and embellish their CV”. To be clear he didn’t embellish his CV, he fabricated it. Embellishing it would mean exaggerating accomplishments, not completely inventing them. But on the plagiarism issue they have also pointed to various academics found guilty of plagiarism who were not sacked. Yes, those academics should be sacked. Saying white upper class people got away with plagiarism is not a defence, it is an accusation levelled at the academic institution. Unwittingly they have exposed part of the corruption at the heart of academia. The Left’s proposal was that if whites can commit crimes, or falsify records the solution is to demand equal rights for everyone to do so, rather than say this should be rooted out. This is partly because the identity politics industry is not controlled by working-class blacks or Asians but by the white, black and Asian middle-class and they have no intention of upsetting the apple cart they are eating from.
However, it is disingenuous to believe that it was all about racism. Arday fell on his sword because he was not qualified for the job and his backstory was the work of a fantasist whose skills would have been better suited to writing sci-fi literature or something. If it was just racism, why did the racists not manage to force the other black academics at Cambridge out of a job. The racists had a field day with Arday, but only because the patronising racists who employed him overlooked his qualifications and backstory.
Surprisingly, Liverpool John Moore’s university that awarded Arday his PhD has fared better than can be expected, but only because it has received less attention. But at some point Cambridge will wash their hands entirely of Arday and pass the buck downstream to Liverpool John Moore’s and then perhaps they may not look so well. This may happen at some point during the review when their defence will most certainly be that Arday and Liverpool John Moore’s conned them.
The media haven’t come out of it well either. I don’t say that because of the pile on but because as I have pointed out lots of issues arose in the course of the discussion, which the media decided not to pursue, like the plagiarism of other academics, like Cofnas’ modern Flat Earth Science type of stuff on intelligence actually getting recognition. None of which was raised, nor will it be, by either the Left nor the media.
The Left also don’t come out of it well. Their response to the media coverage was to deny the facts of the case. If Arday was treated unfairly by the media, then that argument can’t be made on the basis that he did no wrong. Even some identitarians have argued this. One of the few left papers in Britain to examine the issue rationally, The Weekly Worker (CPGB) made the point:
Instead of asking for that, the Left has now proposed a law limiting media coverage of individuals. The utter stupidity of the Left never ceases to amaze me. Some of the repression of the Palestinian solidarity movement around the world is being carried out through just the type of measures the Left has called for around hate speech, personal offence etc. You would think they would learn about it coming back to bite them. But no. Right now Tommy Robinson and other right wing activists are floating in Cypriot swimming pools laughing and thinking about the Left pushing for a law they will be able to use to restrict media coverage of their pool trips and other less than savoury activities. Even the practicalities of the law have not been thought out. Would it be overall coverage? Could The Sun use up all the media quota, leaving others with no right to comment on an issue? Or will it be per media outlet? When an outlet used up its quota, could it talk about new developments? The stupidity of it all is beyond comprehension.
Though many of the Left organisations say they stand by Arday, they don’t. They stand by Cambridge, first and foremost, along with its handling of Arday’s appointment, and they are standing by academia and its identity politics tokenistic approach to inequality. Many on the Left actually earn a living from the tokenism and some of the leaders are well ensconced in academia, so they were never going to say much in any case. They are standing by the identity politics industry, academic corruption and their own grifting.
The Left responded by defending Arday and when backed into an indefensible corner said “Well lots of people plagiarise and embellish their CV”. To be clear he didn’t embellish his CV, he fabricated it. Embellishing it would mean exaggerating accomplishments, not completely inventing them. But on the plagiarism issue they have also pointed to various academics found guilty of plagiarism who were not sacked. Yes, those academics should be sacked. Saying white upper class people got away with plagiarism is not a defence, it is an accusation levelled at the academic institution. Unwittingly they have exposed part of the corruption at the heart of academia. The Left’s proposal was that if whites can commit crimes, or falsify records the solution is to demand equal rights for everyone to do so, rather than say this should be rooted out. This is partly because the identity politics industry is not controlled by working-class blacks or Asians but by the white, black and Asian middle-class and they have no intention of upsetting the apple cart they are eating from.
However, it is disingenuous to believe that it was all about racism. Arday fell on his sword because he was not qualified for the job and his backstory was the work of a fantasist whose skills would have been better suited to writing sci-fi literature or something. If it was just racism, why did the racists not manage to force the other black academics at Cambridge out of a job. The racists had a field day with Arday, but only because the patronising racists who employed him overlooked his qualifications and backstory.
Surprisingly, Liverpool John Moore’s university that awarded Arday his PhD has fared better than can be expected, but only because it has received less attention. But at some point Cambridge will wash their hands entirely of Arday and pass the buck downstream to Liverpool John Moore’s and then perhaps they may not look so well. This may happen at some point during the review when their defence will most certainly be that Arday and Liverpool John Moore’s conned them.
The media haven’t come out of it well either. I don’t say that because of the pile on but because as I have pointed out lots of issues arose in the course of the discussion, which the media decided not to pursue, like the plagiarism of other academics, like Cofnas’ modern Flat Earth Science type of stuff on intelligence actually getting recognition. None of which was raised, nor will it be, by either the Left nor the media.
The Left also don’t come out of it well. Their response to the media coverage was to deny the facts of the case. If Arday was treated unfairly by the media, then that argument can’t be made on the basis that he did no wrong. Even some identitarians have argued this. One of the few left papers in Britain to examine the issue rationally, The Weekly Worker (CPGB) made the point:
He was undoubtedly the tragic victim of an openly racist attack dog and a baying mainstream media. However, maintaining that Jason Arday was not guilty of plagiarism is worse than useless. We need the truth about him and, more importantly, the whole neoliberal university system.[8]
Instead of asking for that, the Left has now proposed a law limiting media coverage of individuals. The utter stupidity of the Left never ceases to amaze me. Some of the repression of the Palestinian solidarity movement around the world is being carried out through just the type of measures the Left has called for around hate speech, personal offence etc. You would think they would learn about it coming back to bite them. But no. Right now Tommy Robinson and other right wing activists are floating in Cypriot swimming pools laughing and thinking about the Left pushing for a law they will be able to use to restrict media coverage of their pool trips and other less than savoury activities. Even the practicalities of the law have not been thought out. Would it be overall coverage? Could The Sun use up all the media quota, leaving others with no right to comment on an issue? Or will it be per media outlet? When an outlet used up its quota, could it talk about new developments? The stupidity of it all is beyond comprehension.
Though many of the Left organisations say they stand by Arday, they don’t. They stand by Cambridge, first and foremost, along with its handling of Arday’s appointment, and they are standing by academia and its identity politics tokenistic approach to inequality. Many on the Left actually earn a living from the tokenism and some of the leaders are well ensconced in academia, so they were never going to say much in any case. They are standing by the identity politics industry, academic corruption and their own grifting.
The Arday affair has exposed academia and the Left as having little to really say about inequality or access to university for working-class people of any race, and not much to say about racism either.
Referemces
Referemces
[1] For an in-depth analysis of the history of Biological Determinism see revised edition of Gould, S.J. (1996) The Mismeasure of Man. W.W. Norton & Co. New York.
[2] University of Cambridge (04/09/2026) University of Cambridge launches independent review following the death of Professor Jason Arday.
[3] The Guardian (06/08/2026) The takedown of Jason Arday has overjoyed the right, and must be a wake-up call for the left. Jason Okundaye.
[4] See The Professor who warned Cambridge about Jason Arday.
[5] The Heartlands Tribune (06/08/2026) The Case of the Journalist, the Professor and the Police Investigation. Paul Knaggs.
[6] The Times (30/08/2026) Inside Cambridge bullying row that Judas pinned to professor’s door. George Odling & Nicola Woolcock.
[7] The Telegraph (13/08/2026) Cambridge to review all HR procedures. Albert Tait.
[8] Weekly Worker (27/08/2026) Fraudsters, great and small.
⏩ Gearóid Ó Loingsigh is a political and human rights activist with extensive experience in Latin America.
will be unveiling a monument to the Catalpa Rescue. 
