A group of academics has launched a rival inquiry into the appointment of Jason Arday at the University of Cambridge, accusing the institution of diluting its own investigation into the matter. The new inquiry, commissioned by the Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF), aims to assess whether Arday’s appointment complied with standards of academic excellence, merit, integrity, and procedural fairness.
Founded in 2023 by philosopher Edward Skidelsky of the University of Exeter, CAF identifies itself as non-partisan but opposes initiatives related to equality, diversity, inclusion, and gender-identity policies. The group cited growing unease among academics over Cambridge’s handling of the case, alleging a campus culture that discourages open discussion of concerns.
Jason Arday was Cambridge’s youngest black professor and faced allegations of plagiarism and challenges to his biographical claims, which he denied. He resigned his position on August 5, 2026. On the same day, Cambridge announced an investigation into new information about his credentials. A week later, Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice described Arday’s appointment as an “aberration” and announced that an independent review would be based on “the highest standards of academic excellence” to guide future senior appointments. Arday was found dead on August 14, and an inquest has since been opened.
Cambridge has divided its internal investigation into two parts. The first, a three-month inquiry led by former chief crown prosecutor Nazir Afzal, focuses on the support and protections provided to Arday, who was autistic, black, and subjected to sustained public criticism. Afzal emphasized the need to address all these factors in assessing the university’s duty of care. The second phase, expected to be completed within six months, will examine Arday’s time at Cambridge more broadly, reviewing senior academic recruitment, institutional oversight, responses to research misconduct allegations, and support mechanisms for academics facing public scrutiny.
CAF, however, contends that Cambridge shifted the emphasis of its investigation from academic standards to welfare concerns between August and September. The group argues this pivot was intended to avoid difficult questions about academic merit. In contrast, Cambridge cited the intense external criticism Arday endured and questioned whether more could have been done by the institution.
The panel assembled by CAF will be chaired by Lord Singh of Solihull, a psychiatry professor at the University of Warwick and Conservative life peer. It includes notable members such as Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker, University College London sociology professor Alice Sullivan, Cambridge emeritus professor Robert Tombs, and Labour Peer Lord Glasman. Investigative journalist Nick Wallis, known for his role in uncovering the Post Office Horizon scandal, will lead the evidence-gathering process.
Wallis acknowledged his previous public criticism of Arday and the institutions supporting him but described Arday’s death at 41 as a tragedy. He stated that opinions diverge on whether Arday was the subject of a racist campaign or whether Cambridge failed to properly vet his record. Wallis said he would examine the evidence impartially to reach conclusions supported by the full weight of the available facts.
CAF’s inquiry intends to evaluate contested details about Arday’s personal history and academic contributions, including the originality, significance, and rigor of his published work. It will also investigate whether considerations related to equality, diversity, or representation influenced his appointment. The group plans to publish its findings, which will be non-statutory, early next year.
Skidelsky said the initiative was motivated in part by concerns from Cambridge academics who fear the university’s inquiry may avoid addressing systemic institutional issues. He emphasized that the new review would proceed without any predetermined conclusions regarding Arday, Cambridge, or those who questioned his work.
The University of Cambridge was contacted for comment but has not provided a detailed response to the rival inquiry as of this time.