The University of Bergen in Norway a few years ago produced a short but witty video for students on the perils of plagiarism, titled ‘A plagiarism carol’. At one point the seemingly obvious question is asked, ‘What if I don’t get caught?’ The protagonist, based on the Charles Dickens character, the Ghost of Christmas Past, responds with a line from Clint Eastwood’s Inspector ‘Dirty’ Harry Callahan: ‘You’ve got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?’

This seems to be the theme in the biggest plagiarism scandals in recent years that have afflicted two of the world’s most prestigious universities, Harvard and Cambridge. Those involved thought they could get away with it, and did whatever they could to ensure that was the case, since, it seems, the end justified the means, given it was all done in the name of ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’.

Professor Claudine Gay probably felt lucky, especially when she became the first black President of Harvard in July 2023 after the shortest search for that position in the university’s history. Prior to that, Gay was Dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, during which time she outlined ‘anti-racism and increasing racial diversity on campus’ as priorities. Indeed, Gay appointed the faculty’s first Associate Dean of ‘Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging’.

However, a few short months after Gay’s appointment as Harvard President, her luck started to run out. Gay came under fire for her testimony before the House of Representatives Education Committee after the 7 October Hamas attacks in which she declared chants calling for the genocide of the Jewish people may be a violation of the campus code of conduct ‘depending on the context’.

Not long after this, accusations of plagiarism against Gay emerged, published principally by the New York Post, thus calling into question the merits upon which she was appointed Harvard President, as well as her scholarly reputation generally. Harvard, it seems, tried to thwart the New York Post’s investigation and the accusations of plagiarism against Gay were described as having ‘racist roots’. In the end, Harvard had no choice but to order an investigation into these allegations, concluding that Gay’s scholarship contained multiple instances where quotation marks or authors’ names needed to be added, in violation of Harvard’s plagiarism policy. Thus, Gay requested several corrections to her PhD thesis and journal articles to ensure citations were properly attributed, following which she resigned her position.

However, this scandal arguably pales into comparison with that which has over the last couple of weeks engulfed Cambridge University, and its erstwhile Professor Jason Arday, since it is a demonstration of just how much standards of academic rigour and integrity have been sacrificed on the altar of DEI.

Jason Arday was appointed a professor in sociology and education by Cambridge in May 2023, described at the time by his boss, Professor Hilary Cremin, as ‘the best in the world’ as far as his research was concerned. Arday’s story was trumpeted as that of a kid who overcame great adversity to get a professorial chair at one of the world’s leading universities at the age of 37. We are told that he was diagnosed with autism as a child, he did not speak until he was 11 and could not read and write until he was 18.

Shortly after his appointment, concerns were raised about the research integrity of his work by fellow academics. Professor Cremin, in a recurring theme, defended Arday by playing the racism card. ‘Arday spoke movingly about his ongoing experiences of direct and indirect racism. At this time, he was early career and living away from home whilst dealing with significant health issues.’

As revealed by the UK Telegraph, analysis of Arday’s thesis found 188 passages that were identical or very similar to those in another student’s 2009 thesis. Arday attributed this to his autism and that his method of learning relies on mimicry. He also described having a brain tumour removed two weeks before his PhD defence, a three-hour oral exam where Arday had to justify his thesis. This claim led Harry Howard, the Telegraph’s associate comment editor, write movingly about his own experience of having two brain tumours removed, the first when he was just 17. As Howard wrote, ‘I had stopped growing, developed thunderous headaches and had to empty my full-to-bursting bladder three or four times every night. That is the thing with brain tumours, they have quite the impact. My own experience is, of course, unique to me, so I cannot speak to Arday’s own alleged struggle. But I can, I think, at least raise an eyebrow at his declaration of ultimate triumph over seemingly insurmountable adversity.’

Much has been written about Arday’s other numerous claims, which include running 30 marathons in 35 days, an appearance on the TV show Seven Up (even though it aired two decades before he was born) and personally raising £5.5 million for charity. All this is on top of the Telegraph’s revelations that Arday repeatedly claimed to have published a book called Being Young, Black and Male: Challenging the Dominant Discourse, when there was no evidence the book was written or published.

Moreover, when queries were raised about Arday’s academic work, these were dismissed as ‘racist’ or ‘ableist’ and indeed the Metropolitan Police launched an investigation into Jack Grove, a journalist for the Times, seeking to expose Arday’s plagiarism.

Arday could have been a beacon of hope for those who have overcome autism to achieve things in life against the odds. But the real blame arguably rests not with Arday, who has resigned his position, but those who promoted him and his image in the name of DEI, the effect of which, as pointed out by Alex Edmans, has been to abolish meritocracy and intellectual freedom by suppressing differing views. It seems that, while Arday tried his luck, others with their own agendas used him precisely to support those agendas, in a similar way to how Greta Thunberg has been used.

As Dominic Green wrote in the New York Post, ‘Top academics supervised Arday’s research and his thesis. They wrote his references and hired him. They applauded his talks and published him. They should be punished too for failing to do even a modicum of due diligence.’

Universities once prided themselves on intellectual inquiry. Now, in the name of DEI, they have sacrificed their credibility.