. . . 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..
ReplyDeleteBarry - I understand what some people associate with the terms neurodiverse and neurodivergent. But I think there are errors here. One could easily say there are clear neuropsychological and cognitive differences between everyone.
DeleteHere is a quote that I found interesting:
"There's a word that lot's of people are familiar with called neurodiversity. The idea that all of our brains develop differently, in some sense, we are all neurodiverse, because we are all individuals".
The person then speaks briefly about the differences in development of "autistic" people. Here I think there are more problems, because saying "autistic people" is simply too vague.
They go on to say:
"When I think about neurodiversity, I'm thinking both about disability, but also about difference. So, sometimes the differences that we see, they add up to challenges that the person has, where we would perhaps make a diagnosis of a disability as a stepping stone into getting support. But for many people, including many autistic people, they are just differences, and maybe part of the message of neurodiversity is respect for difference, and acceptance of difference. So we've moved right away from the old view that there's a thing called the normal brain and a thing called the abnormal brain, all the stigmatising and pathologizing language, towards this idea that there are just lots of different types of brains".
The person I am quoting is Professor Simon Baron-Cohen of Cambridge Autism Research Centre fame.
Respect and acceptance for neurological diversity is something I would champion. However, the idea of there being "neurotypical" seems more to me like a social construct.
Interesting how the same people who said nothing re. Ann Widdlecomb's murder and went to great lengths to say that we shouldn't use Henry Novak's killing as a political football are now doing just that, with calls for restriction of the press.
ReplyDeleteTurkeys voting for Christmas.
Walk into the spotlight, there's no point complaining when it shines on you.
DeleteFootballers get huge scrutiny - every move is examined, stats from every game are served up, they are subject to massive criticism.
Arday got it rough for sure but it goes with the turf. He wasn't robust enough to withstand it. But that is no reason to curb media interest. I'm old enough to remember the ridicule David Icke took, much more intense than what Arday got. People are just built differently.
AM,
DeleteAlthough I really shouldn't be, I am gobsmacked at how people like James O'Brien have no shame: from defending Arday, then throwing him under the bus and now eulogising him while rewriting the story altogether. It is unbelievable. It's a warped mix of Diana, George Floyd and Justin Fashanu.
I recently heard a clip from a podcast with the Jonas Brothers on as guests. Joe Jonas revealed that he started to go to therapy at the age of 21. Why was this? Because his solo album hadn't sold as well as expected.
Barry, I agree there are questions to be asked of those in the higher echelons of academic circles about due diligence, and particularly in this case. An enquiry is called for.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, existential realities need to be acknowledged:
Life is not always fair, never has been, and is unlikely ever to be so.
Special category status, despite justification, is not always awarded.
Death walks constantly amongst us. There are killers all around, even within us. Some kill others, some kill themselves, and some do both.
Some among us will refuse to face these realities. Rather than go though these challenges they attempt to avoid such existential challenges. They take several alternative routes, among them but not limited to, the addictive path, the idealists path, the bon-homme approach, or sometimes, God help us, even the spiritual bypass.
Henry Joy - Obviously that's not an exhaustive list, and it is right to draw attention to the importance of acknowledging certain realities.
DeleteHowever, I would say that the idealist path (in a social sense), or indeed the spiritual path (in some sense) are not necessarily an avoidance of reality, or easy paths to take. They can certainly prove challenging, and I have no problem here as long as there is still the acknowledgment of, rather than ignorance of the realities you have in mind.
I would guess that what you are alluding to is more certain forms of escapism that lead to ignorance, or at least attempts of such. I think problems arise when one retreats into fantasy and has an expectation of others to indulge these fantasies, or even becomes accustomed to such indulgence.
I think being driven by idealism is not necessarily wrong in itself. If someone has no legs, I don't think we should suffer them to crawl just because they can. I think society should, for example, strive to provide wheelchair access where it is practical to do so. However, should it transpire by chance that one becomes accustomed to being carried in a litter, reality has a way of bringing them back down to earth. Being ignorant or ill-prepared for such a reality will determine how one is likely to cope in such a situation.
As you say, "life is not always fair...Special category status, despite justification, is not always awarded". Although we can, and should attempt to make it as fair as possible, that is all we can do, no fairer. We must certainly also be cautious and aware that some attempts could possibly have the opposite affect to intended.
I largely agree with you Matt, society ought support the disadvantaged. However a distinction between empowerment and disempowerment needs to be factored in. Firm boundaries from those in the caring professions are important if learned helplessness is not to emerge? A bit of tough love is useful by times.
DeleteHenry - Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but I would say an adaptive/flexible approach is more suitable than a firm boundary. Let's say we take something like soft parenting for example; I'm sure there would be at least one child where this works fine. I would say there would also be at least one child where this doesn't work at all. Without being flexible and adapting to what works and what does not for any particular individual, the outcome would be rigidity without progress. I suppose if the firm boundary you mentioned is strictly that which avoids learned helplessness, then yes it's very important.
DeleteI would also extend learned helplessness and include learned behaviours that can result in the likes of Malingering, Munchausen syndrome and even Iatrogenesis.
In relation to my earlier comment of championing diversity, there are some behaviours that are just unacceptable. The law may provide for establishing whether capacity or responsibility is diminished, but it does not force society to accept or tolerate certain behaviours. A "get out of jail free card" would be a very extreme rarity.
Society can be respectful, it can try to help and accommodate, but it won't bend over backwards. There must be an account for responsibility and agency. We can try to warn about the presence of nuts in food, but ultimately a certain responsibility lies with the person or their carer to avoid consuming nuts.
Once again we're largely in agreement Matt, with only slight differences in emphasis or interpretation.
DeleteReflect back on your best teachers or bosses and most likely you'll find that those who stand out were the men and women whom you considered firm and fair?
Firmness tempered with fairness, then wrapped in consistency seems to me, to be the best way to proceed.
Henry - Yes, I too think we are by in large on the same page. I think firm and fair is reasonable.
DeleteWhat I mean by adaptive/flexible—consider another example:
If we take away some levels of complexity and talk about let's say, training a dog.
You will find at least one dog that responds well to carrot, there is no need for the stick. However, you will find at least one dog when the carrot does not work. I would not advocate for the stick when the carrot works, nor would I advocate for the carrot when the stick is needed. I think this is important to point out for those that would try to argue either carrot or stick always works—I couldn't agree with that.
I think an approach that couples observation, and identifies whether a method is yielding the desired outcome is the adaptive/flexibility I mean. But that can often include the tough love you speak of. There are times when one has to be as firm as the situation warrants, as I think this is the only way of being fair, especially long term.
And hopefully I shouldn't have to clarify for any other reader that I am not advocating abuse.
Regards to best teachers—I may not be the best case study for this haha.
When I reflect back, the teachers I liked the most were the ones that showed empathy. In this case I tried hard for them because I liked them, I respected them, I felt they liked me and respected me, and I wanted to do well for them, to not disappoint them. With that said, there were also teachers I most certainly did not like, and they certainly didn't like me—yet their no-nonsense approach still yielded very good results. I had a different type of respect for them, even if I didn't like them. I think for me, respect was the key. If I had no respect for the teacher, I was a nightmare.
Perhaps it's that sweet spot we have to identify which works for any particular individual. Of course with there being much higher levels of complexity, identifying that sweet spot is not always easy. And of course with these complexities, it evolves far beyond the oversimplification of the carrot and stick.
Matt your position is understandable. However, reverting to the substantive and the case of Jason Arday, it's clear to me that porous boundaries contributed to all that has unfolded.
DeleteSociety in it's own interest, as well as in the interest of each and every individual that make up that collective, will have hopes, aspirations and desires. The collective will favour cooperation and good order. To that end societies then create rules, guidelines, and laws to maintain order and minimise chaos.
Disapproval, censure, laws and penalties are exercised so that order triumphs over chaos.
So, sometimes hard boundaries need to be enforced, and regrettably, dangerous dogs need to be put down.
Henry - I still think we're largely in agreeance. I'm on board with attempts at structure to maintain law and order, minimise chaos and society's need for such. Hard boundaries here are understandable in many circumstances. That's the no "get out of jail free card" I mentioned.
DeleteFrom the point of view of tailoring care for an individual, or creating structures and methods that contribute to for example, their care, support, education, independence etc; in many cases it appears to me that rigid boundaries contribute to difficulties. I would refer back to the soft parenting or dog owner example. If the parent is rigid in this idea, yet does not observe closely then adapt if it is not working, it's rigidity without progress, so too the other way round.
I couldn't possibly make medical assumptions on Arday and his needs, I simply do not know enough about him. If you are saying the boundary that prevents learned helplessness was porous, I think I can see and understand how you reached this conclusion, however I'm still reluctant to comment specifically about Arday in this regard. But, I have agreed this would be an important boundary to have.
"The law may provide for establishing whether capacity or responsibility is diminished, but it does not force society to accept or tolerate certain behaviours."
I tend to think in most cases, if a dog is dangerous enough to be put down, someone somewhere failed the dog, probably by not recognising a lack of stick, or far too much of it. I find it hard to envisage a world without any dangerous dogs, but I think we can try at least to have one less.
'And Goldilocks sat into Papa Bear's chair and thought this chair is too hard' etc, etc.
DeleteFinding the chair that's just right isn't as simple as it is in the fairy tale. The Woke position has revealed itself as the chair that's too soft. My position is that we dispose of it.
The greater good requires an end to exceptionalism.
Here in Ireland, and in the UK we drive on the left. We can't, at least not sensibly, allow for the preferences of those whi want to drive on the right!
Henry - Yes of course. I acknowledged that given the levels of complexity it can certainly be a challenge to find that sweet spot. We could say that the "woke" position tends to be rigid to it's own ideals instead of recognising and adapting when it's not working.
DeleteMy position would be to get rid of the soft chair if and when we recognise it's not working for any particular individual. If for another individual it is working, keep the chair. This would apply in tailoring for someone that needs special care. In somewhere like a school, we need to recognise the difference between those that need a soft chair and those that covet it simply out of preference.
Which side of the road a car can drive on diminishes the levels of complexity, similar to either carrot or stick. But, if we increase the levels of complexity, we still have that hard boundary to avoid helplessness in oncoming traffic, but we also add more lanes. I think the telephones on the side of the road are also a good touch, I would keep them.
Matt, I'm generally in favour of additional supports for those with special needs and yet I believe each individual has to play the hand he/she or it has been dealt. Each of us have to do our own growing, regardless of how tall our grandfather was!
DeleteMy lean is towards resilience and empowerment. The pen is mightier than the sword. Patience, Encouragement and Nurturance are essentials for drawing out resilience but the supply of ink is not limitless.
Barry, I accept that you are posing questions rather than simply blaming investigative journalists, and I agree that Cambridge's due diligence and duty of care are legitimate matters for inquiry.
ReplyDeleteThis is a free inquiry weblog after all.
My point is that the same principle of free inquiry has to work in every direction. We shouldn't reason backwards from Arday's death and assume that institutional failure, media pressure or a hostile environment caused it unless the evidence establishes that connection.
There is another possibility: that legitimate scrutiny exposed serious deception, the consequences became overwhelming for Arday, and he couldn't cope with them. I don't claim to know that this is what happened either. For all we presently know, his death may have had some other cause entirely.
That's precisely my point. Establish what Arday did, what Cambridge did, what the press did and, crucially, the circumstances and cause of his death. Then allocate responsibility. Until the coroner establishes the cause of death and the evidence establishes any causal connection, all of these explanations remain hypotheses.
You also say that there is a degree of overdiagnosis of neurodivergent conditions. If that's the case, what objective criteria are you using to distinguish a sound diagnosis from an overdiagnosis? And do we actually know enough about Arday's individual diagnosis and needs to make the neuropsychological inferences being made about him here?
Presumably the same evidential standard should apply to anyone's diagnosis, including your own.