. . . of the death of Jason Arday, whose resignation from his academic post at Cambridge University had dominated the national conversation for the last week, I was struck by a blancmange of competing emotion not least because I had contributed to the conversation with my most recent article for TPQ.
I guess many others were as well. There was the instant shock and horror at firstly the premature death of someone who had occupied such a prominent place in the public eye and at the likely cause of it as suicide. Secondly there was a feeling of guilt, no matter how fleeting and transient, for having been critical of a black public figure who had been the recipient of such a vicious pile on from the right-wing media and activists due to the background to Jason Arday’s professorial appointment in Sociology of Education.
The reactions of the prominent black academic Kehinde Andrews and Labour MP Bell-Ribeiro Addy who were personal friends on BBC2’s Newsnight accusing his detractors of hounding him to his death acted as further guilt triggers before the usual leftoid suspects inevitably got into the act with their robotic and performative outrage. But there was also the feeling of needing to reinforce the rational thinking side of our cerebral organs by at least holding our thoughts until the moment of reflection as called for by new Prime Minister Andy Burnham had passed.
So now that a full weekend has passed amid the acres of newsprint and social media clicks devoted to feasting upon the metaphorical carcass of this appalling affair, so cooler heads and wiser counsels can prevail. And among the lessons to be learned and reinforced is that multiple things can be right at the same time. The euphemistically termed ‘race realist’ background of Jason’s prime accuser; the nakedly “anti-woke”, read false meritocratic and colour blind agenda of the coverage of the controversy by the Daily Mail and Telegraph and the much cited plagiarism misdeeds of prominent white academics by Jason’s supporters does not negate the case for judicious inquiry into the circumstances of his appointment by Cambridge including his academic bona fides and the truth of his voluntary and charitable works. Indeed such a reckoning is of particular import for the tackling of structural racism within academe and to protect the scholarly integrity of BMAE academics who have felt the impact on their employment and personal security by the fall out of the Jason Arday tragedy. Indeed, the toxic consequences of DEI corporate woke and BLM lite culture which led to an appointment of a feel-good figurehead and poster boy for diversity who may well have been promoted beyond his capabilities has been laid bare by many commentators. Such US administrative culture imports merely blackwash the institutions that deploy them and are a tool for the maintenance for continuing race and class inequalities in the corporate world.
Yet another layer to the Jason Arday tragedy is his neurodiversity; he was diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum. His friend and erstwhile Cambridge colleague Professor Simon Baron-Cohen of Cambridge Autism Research Centre fame has questioned whether the appropriate support mechanisms were put in place by his employer. If Cambridge University knew of his autistic spectrum condition at the time of his appointment, then surely under the Autism Act 2009 and the Equalities Act 2010 (which subsumed all previous disability discrimination legislation) they were under a legal duty to provide the reasonable adjustments at work to accommodate his neurodiverse (or neurodivergent) traits such as Access to Work, assistive technology or appropriate environmental or ergonomic facilities. If they did not, they are, in my opinion, guilty of criminal negligence or at least callously setting him up to fail. From personal experience, I know what being appointed to supervisory and resource management roles without the relevant experience can lead to – fear of exposure and failure leading to depression and then to possible suicidal ideation. It is for the promised inquiry by the Cambridge authorities to determine what type of mental health and workplace support was in place for Jason Arday; if his relatives and the wider court of public opinion find shortcomings in this regard then there is a case for a public inquiry with the power to make the appropriate statutory recommendations.
Alternatively was Jason Arday’s working life made so difficult in the full knowledge of his neurodivergence (ND) that he was forced out with the sweetener of a compromise agreement offering him a lump sum of money in return for no words or action by him regarding his employer? It is an experience that I went through; the most adverse effect was the provision of a bland reference which proved to be a major obstacle in getting even volunteer posts in the counselling/charity sector and which, in the long term, has scuppered my counselling career ambitions. My guess is probably not but we shall wait for the inquiry to give an answer.
At what stage of his life, did Jason receive his ND diagnosis (es)? What provisions were in place during his transition periods in life (primary to secondary education, teenage to adulthood and from higher education to the world of work? Were aspects of his personality such as fondness of jokes and playing the classroom fool as noted by his contemporaries which are often camouflages or coping strategies used by NDs to avoid being “found out” not factored into any diagnostic outcomes? Could he therefore have been saved from himself and not set up for last Friday’s dreadful denouement?
For now, let Jason Arday rest in peace. He undoubtedly brought pleasure and happiness to his students and colleagues on the sports field and in the various charitable ventures he was involved in as well as to his parents, siblings, and wider family circle. He had his faults and foibles as all humans. Whether through predisposition or happenstance, he became trapped in a vector of a false and malevolent DEI corporate window dressing culture; targeted hostility from equally malevolent hue and cry media and woke hunters; the pressure of being a beacon of heroic black achievement destined to crash to earth and the absence of proper signposting to negotiate an unforgiving neurotypical world.
For now, let Jason Arday rest in peace. He undoubtedly brought pleasure and happiness to his students and colleagues on the sports field and in the various charitable ventures he was involved in as well as to his parents, siblings, and wider family circle. He had his faults and foibles as all humans. Whether through predisposition or happenstance, he became trapped in a vector of a false and malevolent DEI corporate window dressing culture; targeted hostility from equally malevolent hue and cry media and woke hunters; the pressure of being a beacon of heroic black achievement destined to crash to earth and the absence of proper signposting to negotiate an unforgiving neurotypical world.
⏩Barry Gilheany is a freelance writer, qualified counsellor and aspirant artist resident in Colchester where he took his PhD at the University of Essex. He is also a lifelong Leeds United supporter.
It would be very wrong of me to make any assumptions of Arday in relation to what conditions he may or may not have. This extends to any reference of a person being on the Autistic Spectrum, as this alone is not enough to tell us anything about a person's condition and therefore their needs.
ReplyDeleteWhen we speak of neurodiversity, and indeed neurodivergence, it is all inclusive. There is no such thing as neurotypical.
Masking is another contentious subject. That's not to say masking doesn't exist, but it is another feature that occurs generally and not specifically. There is also the problem of falsifiability.
Arday died → therefore the pressure must have been unbearable → therefore the coverage caused that pressure → therefore the coverage was excessive → therefore journalists bear responsibility.
ReplyDeleteThat's a chain of assumptions, not evidence. Establish what Arday did, establish what the press did, establish the circumstances of his death, and only then start allocating responsibility.
Or maybe he was simply another con man, who got exposed and couldn't take it. That's another possibility. But that needs evidence too.
Frankie, I am not blaming proper the investigative journalism into Arday:s career and ultimate demise. I am posing questions about his appointment and whether Cambridge did the appropriate due diligence and discharged appropriate duty if care. This is a free inquiry weblog after all
DeleteMatt, there are clear neuropsychological and cognitive differences between ND persons and the neurotypical world NDs often have jagged IQ profiles in which they may score high on verbal capacity and low on practical abilities or vice versa or may be dyslexic or have dyscalcula NDs have different sensory and information processing experience s to neurotypicals. That said, there is more than degree of over diagnosis of ND conditions with little after support..
ReplyDelete