DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: Jason Arday’s Final Self-Delusion.
Some lies are so preposterous that intelligent people who believe them bear some responsibility for being taken in. And they are outright guilty for repeating the lies and urging others to believe them. This is obviously so in Arday’s case. The lies depended on willful credulity, as well as amplification by other professors, including Cambridge’s Hilary Cremin, who went on the BBC and told Arday that “you are the best in the world, in terms of the research that you do.” Reviewers gushed over his books and pronounced them moving, “brave,” and “insightful.” Defenders did begin to distance themselves when the lies became even more lurid and inexplicable, as with the claims that a masked man invisible to security cameras had menaced Arday with a knife and that someone had sent him the head of a pig, which he disposed of rather than preserved as evidence. The trajectory of his deception seems to have been from tragedy (a man carried away with lies and too compulsive to stop telling them) to farce (once the lies became ridiculous enough that only a complicit person could believe them) and finally back to tragedy on Friday. Arday’s colleagues, his editors, and the people who knew he was a fraud but said nothing have absorbed some ridicule for their role in hiring and publishing him. But to date, I have seen no evidence that they have considered their complicity, let alone repaired the damage to their institutions by explaining their error or, better yet, just resigning.
They elevated Arday, a fragile and disturbed person, into a position where his fragility would be tested and he would be shattered. Even if the Cambridge Faculty of Education’s standards were so low that his inadequacies would remain unremarked there, he was a fellow of a Cambridge college with real scholars who would eventually be indignant upon realizing that their new colleague’s scholarship consisted of copy-paste jobs, semiliterate nonsense, and fan notes on his favorite 1990s Brit-pop. Did Arday’s allies think no one would notice? That those who noticed would be forever intimidated into polite silence? That drinking sherry in the common room of Jesus College would be a pleasant experience for Arday himself as he waited to be found out? Those who placed Arday in that situation were cruel and heartless. They may as well have taken a skin-and-bones Make-A-Wish kid, told him that he could fly, and shot him out of a cannon. The journalists were not the ones who stuffed Arday into the cannon and lit the fuse. They were gravity.
“The media didn’t kill Jason Arday,” Brendan O’Neill adds:
Then there was the supposed vigil for Arday in London’s Trafalgar Square last night. A vigil for the late Arday is a fine idea: his death is a tragedy and his friends and followers are cut up about it. Yet that gathering felt more like a mass screech of rage against the “vicious” media than a quiet tribute to a late professor. Attendees mauled the gutter press and its “relentless campaign” against a black man.
Journalists need to stand up to this crusade of defamation. Editors too. The media did what it is meant to do: found a fascinating story and it told it. I know some of the journalists who wrote about Arday. The idea that they thought to themselves “Look, a black man at Cambridge, let’s take him down” is preposterous beyond belief. It is a slur far more vile and truthless than anything the media said about Arday.
The stakes are high. The very liberty to utter is on the line. There are now cries for a public inquiry into the media coverage of Arday, and even for new legislation to “cap news coverage of any individual within a set time frame”. They’re calling it Arday’s Law.
Let us be clear: this would be an intolerable assault on the freedom of the press. Nobody – not the state, not the “moral majority” and certainly not noisy mobs of ideological crusaders – has the right to tell the press what it can cover and for how long. Our forbears did not fight and die for the sacred liberty to speak only for silver-spoon leftists to trash it now on the back of a tragic death. Such exploitative despotism must not stand.
I’m sure no one could ever abuse such a well intentioned law, right?
UPDATE: