Academic with historic links to extreme group hired in the same Cambridge faculty as ‘plagiarism professor’ Jason Arday
A Cambridge academic reportedly linked in the past to an extreme organisation has been appointed to the same university faculty as Jason Arday, the education professor dubbed the "plagiarism professor" after allegations about his work came to light. The appointment has raised concerns given the faculty's recent scrutiny, with critics questioning the vetting process for senior academic hires and what it signals about oversight within the department.
The report notes that Arday's own book was recently published for the US market without any reference to the plagiarism allegations or his resignation from his Cambridge role, adding to unease about accountability in the same faculty. Details of the newly hired academic's historic links to the extreme group, and the precise nature of the connection, form the core of the Daily Mail's investigation into the appointment.
- Academic with past links to extreme group joins Cambridge faculty
- Same faculty as Jason Arday, dubbed the "plagiarism professor"
- Arday's US book omits mention of plagiarism scandal, resignation
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the appointment would argue that universities should judge academics on their current scholarship, conduct and rigour, not on decades-old political associations, particularly where no criminal offence was ever alleged and the organisation in question was only proscribed later. They would stress the importance of due process and proportionality: guilt by association risks penalising people for lawful views they held before a ban, and could deter open political engagement among young Muslims or other minorities if such affiliations are treated as permanently disqualifying. Academic freedom and the principle of rehabilitation, they might add, depend on institutions not treating a person's entire career as hostage to their most contested past choice, especially absent evidence of ongoing extremist activity or unsuitability for the specific teaching or research role.
The case against
Critics would argue that universities carry a distinct duty of care and public trust, and that a documented history of supporting an organisation later proscribed for extremism raises legitimate questions about judgement, values and suitability for a position of influence over students. They would contend that reputational and safeguarding concerns are heightened when the institution has just faced scrutiny over academic integrity in the same faculty, making transparent vetting and clear public explanation from the university especially important. For this side, the issue is not necessarily that redemption is impossible, but that the public and prospective students deserve confidence that past extremist sympathies have been genuinely renounced and that appointment processes take such histories seriously rather than treating them as irrelevant.