The Scandal Over Cambridge’s DEI Professor Is Even Worse Than You Think (Part 2)
One of the reasons this kind of propaganda can be effective is that, if you're a normal person who doesn’t have time to follow all the details of the case, then you might take their word for it. After all, how could so many people be so wrong about the basic facts of a major story? Well, of course, that happens all the time, and we saw something similar with the Michael Brown case, to give just one example of many. Tens of millions of Americans thought he said,” Hands up, don’t shoot” before getting shot in the back. It’s a lie that persists to this day. The average observer will hear a narrative like that, they’ll assume it’s true because they hear it everywhere, and then it becomes very difficult to change their mind. By the time you're explaining to them that Michael Brown was a thug who attacked a shop clerk and then beat a cop while trying to take his gun, and that all the forensics bore this out, and that this was the finding even of Obama’s own DOJ, it’s too late.
So it’s important to highlight, as directly as possible, the sheer absurdity of the mob’s position in this particular case. And instead of showing you how Jason Arday plagiarized most of his academic work, or how he lied about pig’s heads getting left on his porch, or masked men chasing him around campus, or whatever, I’m gonna do something a little unorthodox - I’m going to turn the floor over to Jason Arday himself.
And before we get to his lecture, we’ll start with the abstract of one of Arday’s published papers - this was flagged by Drew Pavlou.

And here’s how it reads, I’m gonna read exactly what it says. This is Jason Arday: “Replete with espoused discourses of equality, diversity and inclusion within public bodies is the UK, wherein lauded initiatives reward its universities’ commitments to increasing the access and positioning of ‘women’ in higher education.”
Now this is, of course, horrendous, ugly, clunky writing with all the grace of a washing machine falling down the stairs. It’s also exactly what you’d expect from a “sociology” professor, by the way; sociology is a pseudoscience where academics just make up a bunch of gibberish and try to compensate for the lack of substance by using big, important-sounding words. Also note the hideous clashing mixture of modern bureaucratic jargon, on one hand, and these archaic formalities, on the other hand, like “wherein.” Another hallmark of halfwits who have nothing to say but, you know, will spend 10,000 words saying it anyway - a very reliable general rule that many people have noticed is this: Smart people make complicated subjects seem simple. Pretentious morons, like Jason Arday, make SIMPLE subjects seem complicated. And academia, especially sociology, is OVERRUN by the latter group.
Or, you know, to put this in words that sociology professors would understand, you know, rather than just saying that Arday’s writing is ugly and bad, which is all that needs to be said, I will only say that the aforementioned syntactic assemblage revealed itself to be an aesthetically deficient and stylistically ungainly construction, one whose profound paucity of substantive intellectual content left it entirely bereft of any meaningful conceptual profundity or discursive rigor, and moreover, its compositional architecture was marked by an utterly gratuitous proliferation of ornamental rhetorical flourishes and elaborations whose sole effect was to amplify an already excessive prolixity, thereby transforming what might otherwise have been a simple utterance into an exercise in wholly superfluous and baroquely inflated verbosity.
See, I can use a thesaurus, also. Took a a while, but, you know. Someone give ME a PhD, I mean, I can do this too.
So let’s take a look now at the title page of Arday’s dissertation, next to the title page of the dissertation that he plagiarized. And this was first noticed by Hans Mank. This is pretty incredible, also.
So notice that the apostrophe after the word “teachers” appears in both titles. Well, the problem is—you know, I’m not an English major—but the apostrophe makes sense only in that other dissertation. Doesn’t make ANY sense in Arday’s. So, you see, when you say “teachers” with an apostrophe, you’re saying that something belongs to the teachers. And in the original dissertation, the author is talking about a “reflective practice” that belongs to the teachers. But Arday’s title, which he copied, reads simply, quote, “an exploration of peer mentoring among student teachers.” And then he adds the apostrophe for no reason.
You know, it’s astonishing to think about - he plagiarized everything from this other dissertation, even the title. But he couldn’t even do that right! He includes a glaring typo in the title of the most important document of his academic career. But it's not really a typo at all, he simply carried over the apostrophe from the original document, without looking at it. And nobody at Cambridge, that prestigious university, noticed this! The odds are extremely high that none of these people read the dissertation, or any other dissertation.
But things get even worse for Arday when you put yourself in the position of one of his students and actually listen to what he has to say. So this is from one of his recent lectures, entitled “Engaging pedagogically with race and racism.” We’re gonna watch some footage of the master at work, so we can judge whether or not he actually deserved to be a full professor at Cambridge (which is the most prestigious level they have).
And we’ll give the mob the benefit of the doubt - you know, we’ll forget about all the plagiarism and all the dishonesty and narcissism, and we’ll just kind of listen to the man speak to see if he deserved to have the position he did.
We’ll start with the beginning of Arday’s lecture, where he discusses the sinister nature of whiteness. And now, before we go any further, you should make a mental note about the fact that this particular DEI hire (like every other DEI hire) is only capable of talking about how we need even more DEI hires. That is the extent of Jason Arday’s contribution to academia. Now, your expectations were probably already pretty low, given that he was a “professor of sociology”, but the reality of this guy’s drivel is even worse than you might think.
He never makes a single original or interesting argument about anything. He just makes more demands and more complaints. And the arguments don’t even make sense. So behold, the beginning of Jason Arday’s lecture - which you can watch without being a student at the highly prestigious Cambridge University, if you can imagine it. Bask in you good fortune, as we all absorb the wisdom of Jason Arday, watch:
“You know, whiteness, there’s the centrality of whiteness, it’s all-encompassing, and it very much still defines a lot of what we do in our learning, teaching, and university spaces. I think the monopoly and the proliferation of kind of dominant white European canons, it compromises all our curriculum, you know, if we think through kind of STEM, if we think through kind of things around English literature, if we think through things around, um, engaging in social sciences, human sciences, a lot of it is centered around kind of dominant white philosophies. And I think one of the things that becomes really important is this idea of, where do black, Asian, and minority ethnic learners in the classroom space, how do they then conceptualize other people that have contributed to the canon, how do they develop that knowledge that, in essence, is supposed to equip them to undertake their place in the world of work?”
Well, we’re off to a great start here; “The centrality of whiteness is all-encompassing,” he says - which seems like a contradiction because something in the “center” cannot be “all-encompassing.” By definition, if you’re in the center, then you’re not everywhere else - you’re just in the center. Centrality indicates a focal point within the larger thing, all-encompassing indicates that it IS the larger thing. So a thing cannot be within the larger thing and also be the larger thing at the same time - and this might seem like a semantic point, but, as you’ll see, it’s a recurring theme with Jason Arday and DEI activists in general. They say things (and write things and copy-paste things) that make no sense and are meant to sound a whole lot smarter than they really are, it’s all just gibberish.
Then you get to Arday’s really interesting and original take, which is that “the proliferation of dominant white European canons compromises all of our curriculum.” Now, far be it from me, a lowly Redditor with only a high school diploma, to critique the grammar and vocabulary of an esteemed Cambridge professor, but in context it seems that the word he wants here is “comprise,” not “compromise.” Like, he seems to be trying to say that “dominant white European canons” make up—encompass—when he says that, the curriculum. Which would mean “comprise,” not “compromise,” you know, that’d the correct word.
And he specifically says that STEM—which is short for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—is, quote, “centered around kind of dominant white philosophies.” Of course, he never explains what he means by that, which is another recurring theme in his fake scholarship. He just throws it out there - STEM is “compromised” by “dominant white philosophies.” And we’re led to believe that this is a bad thing, because black and Asian students will struggle to “conceptualize other people that have contributed to the canon.” And somehow this will hurt them when they leave college and enter “the world of work.”
None of this makes even the slightest amount of sense, no matter how long you spend thinking about it, which you shouldn’t spend any time. It sounds like he’s complaining about the fact that Europe was the birthplace of the Scientific Revolution, that he wishes Copernicus and Bacon and Galileo and Newton had been morbidly obese black women instead.
Which, you know, there’s really nothing we can do about that, at this point, the ship has sailed. Newton was who he was. The reality is that the people who contributed the most to the advancement of civilization in the 17th and 18th centuries (and before that), forming the basis for modern-day STEM, were white men. In fact, nearly EVERYONE who contributed to those advancements during that time were white men.
The non-white male contributors were the rare exceptions. That is an inconvenient fact for DEI activists, to be sure. It might lead people to wonder why exactly Africa lagged so far behind, what was going on there. But it still doesn’t explain what Jason Arday wants to do about it. It is what it is. It was what it was.
There’s also the fact that inventions like algebra and Arabic numerals are obviously a part of mathematics education, even though white Europeans did not come up with those. It’s almost as if, when you’re learning about biology or calculus or the laws of thermodynamics, it doesn’t matter who “contributed to the canon.” You’re learning objective facts, where quote-unquote “lived experience” and political ideology and skin color are irrelevant, so what is he talking about, exactly? Instead of explaining himself, he moves right along to discuss another meaningless string of woke clichés.
“So one of the things that I think is really important is this idea of kind of systemic racism and stereotypes against ethnic minority groups - I think when you don’t have, pedagogically speaking, people, uuuummm, who ARE from those backgrounds, in those spaces, I do think that there is license to misconstrue particular dynamics and concepts. So, for example, I may talk about gender inequality, but actually, as a black male that now resides in a privileged position, there are a lot of things that I'm not going to be able to relate to. So I may be able to speak about them, but unless I declare absolute modesty, which I always do when I talk about issues that I’m not, you know, I understand them, but I’ve not experienced them. There is license to get things wrong, there is license to miscommunicate, there is license to kind of pick up different discourses that may not be actually 1,000% accurate. And I think when you’re doing this, of course you can’t be absolutely accurate, but you need to be able to speak to a lived experience and understand it, if anything else.”
Well, one thing we’ve learned is that this guy absolutely loves the word “pedagogically.” He obviously just heard that word before he went to go give this talk, and he’s like, that’s a great word. Which I get it, you know, sometimes you hear a word and just, you like the word, you gotta kinda like, rope it into conversation. And it is a fun word. I once used “pedagog”—G-O-G at the end, which I think is a valid spelling—I used it in Scrabble, and it was the greatest board game-related achievement of my life. Almost as impressive as running 300 miles in 3 days, but, you know, we can’t all be Jason Arday.
Anyway, he says he’s willing to speak about issues he doesn’t have personal experience with - which is good, because his personal experiences are all fake. But he says that, when he does so, he will “declare absolute modesty.” So, presumably, this is like when Michael Scott declared bankruptcy in The Office; he’ll stand in front of the lecture hall and scream, “I DECLARE ABSOLUTE MODESTY!” A thoughtful gesture, I suppose, but a bit paradoxical. I mean, how does one “declare” something modestly? How does a modest person claim “absolute” modesty? Like, by definition, if you’re modest, the very last thing you would ever do is declare yourself to be so, much less claim to be perfectly so! To declare your modesty is to negate the claim, just by making it.
Now, he says that, unless you have the right “lived experience,” then there is, quote, “a license to get things wrong, a license to miscommunicate, and a license to ‘pick up different discourses that might not be 1000% accurate … Of course, you can’t be absolutely accurate, but you need to be able to speak to a lived experience, and understand it, if anything else.”
Now, I won’t even get into, like, someone who’s an academic and pretends to be really smart and uses all this, like, complex language, then using the term “1000%.” I won’t even get into it, we’ll let that one slide. I think by “license” he means “tendency.” But it’s still a completely incoherent statement, all things considered. There’s a contradiction in every other sentence. We’re not even gonna dwell on the fact that “lived experience” is redundant. Every experience is “lived” by definition. If you didn’t live it, it’s not an experience. And if you experienced it, you must have lived it. You can’t experience something you didn’t live! Can you have an UNLIVED experience!? Now, he also says you don’t need to be absolutely accurate, but at the same time, it’s a bad thing if you’re not 1000% accurate - well, which is it?
And while we’re at it, why exactly do you need to have direct, firsthand experience with a particular issue in order to teach it? Wouldn’t that exclude every living person from teaching, like, every subject ever? How are you gonna find a professor with “lived experience” about the Crusades, exactly? Never mind the fact that black academics like Arday are constantly going on and on about “whiteness,” despite having no “lived experience” with being white.
These are questions that, if Jason Arday was an actual academic, maybe he’d have some answers for it - he’d offer ideas that withstand some degree of scrutiny. Instead, we get word salad, again and again.
So here’s one more clip from this lecture; to understand what he’s saying here—to the extent that it’s even possible—you need a quick primer on wokespeak - so “BAME” means Black and Asian students. And “Tariffs” refer to test scores that UK students earn before going to college - so in this clip, he’s making the point that black students have the same high grades as white students in high school, but when they get to college, the black students perform much worse - which, he states, is CLEARLY the result of racism. What else could it possibly be?
“But I think one of the things that’s kind of really important is these ideas around kind of the disparities in attainment. Why is it happening? Um, yes, the obvious comparison to draw is between BAME and white students at UCL. But, in terms of the disparency, one of the things that’s kind of really important to acknowledge is that a lot of these BAME students come into UCL with high tariffs in the first place, because UCL asked for high tariffs in terms of being able to study here. So if they’re coming out of here, and they're not achieving what they should be achieving, the go-to is always that it’s because the students are not capable. Those BAME students are not as capable as those white students, they’re coming on the same tariff. So there’s something institutionally that’s happened, or happening, in our institutions across the sector—not singling out UCL—that needs to change to… to mobilize those students to fulfill their full potential.”
Did he say “disparency”? Like, “disparate,” but “disparency”? I might’ve misheard that one, you never know. Because that’s not real word, but I might’ve misheard it.
Common sense tells you that he must be leaving out a few variables here. It doesn’t make sense, on its face, that black students would get the same grades as white students in high school and then suddenly perform much worse when they get to a university due to racism.
For one thing, we all know that these colleges go out of their way to appease black students, and so do high schools and every other kind of school. It makes a lot more sense to conclude that university-level coursework is much more challenging as compared to whatever the “tariffs” are measuring.
Now, I’m not from the UK, obviously, thank God - I’ve never spent any amount of time there, I have no interest in it. I have no “lived experience” with it. But even with 5 seconds of research, I identified the problem. See, it turns out that “tariffs” can refer to exam-based tests that are academic in nature - or it can refer to vocational coursework, like classes on plumbing and heating. So a black student can have high “tariffs” (or test scores) in, say, plumbing, something vocational, while a white student has high “tariffs” in science, math, and those subjects.
You know, it wouldn’t be remotely surprising if, when these two students arrive in college, the white student outclasses the black one, on academic subjects. That’s not racism. It’s a problem in how you’re admitting students because they’re black, even though they’re not cut out for college. And like Jason Arday, when these black students are put in an environment that’s out of their league, they quickly fall apart.
So where does this go from here? Well, based on that vigil and the statements of black activists in the UK—who have the support of the prime minister—we can expect a new crackdown on free speech. This is from a woman with the “Good Law Project,” which I mentioned earlier.
“In light of the tragic death of Jason Arday yesterday, first of all, I’d like to say rest in peace and my deepest, deepest condolences to his family and friends - I can’t even begin to imagine what they're going through right now. But they’re not alone. We have written a collective letter, open letter to the Prime Minister. That letter has been signed by several individuals, many of whom are black, prominent individuals who have experienced the level of targeting and harassment—racially motivated harassment—from the UK media. It’s not something that we’re gonna continue to tolerate. We do believe now, enough is enough, and the UK media have to be held responsible for their conduct. So we have written to the Prime Minister. There is a collective approach to this, which is very, very important from the black community. And if you feel as strongly as we do about the accountability and the responsibility of the UK media, please reshare the letter and the post, and would really appreciate your collective support.”
Well, the goal here is to make it a crime in the UK to notice anything that’s inconvenient to black activists. You see, they’re allowed to lie with impunity without any government intervention, but if you tell the truth about what they’re doing, you should go to prison.
As I understand it, “Good Law Project” is a nonprofit in the UK, and they were heavily involved in spreading lies to defend Arday, so if anything, as Andy Ngo put it, quote, “A public inquiry is needed into the Good Law Project for misleading the public with claims that Arday’s academic research was ethical and sound.”
Will that happen - well, of course not. We all saw the state of academia in the UK when Charlie Kirk went to Oxford, where he debated the president of the Oxford Union - their famous debate society.
And, you know, the president, whose name was “George Abaraonye,” was some foreigner wearing sweatpants and a t-shirt, looking like he was high out of his mind. And shortly afterwards, when Charlie Kirk was assassinated, this same guy celebrated the news. He wrote, quote, “Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s f***ing go.”
So that’s the endgame for these degenerate black activists. And we can’t forget it. This is not merely a story about one fraudster and the white liberal women who enabled him. It’s about that, but also, if you stand in the way of their ideological takeover—if you have the wrong skin color—these people want you dead. They’re not upset that Jason Arday took his own life. They’re upset that a white person like Nathan Cofnas wasn’t killed instead.
They would’ve preferred to see Cofnas gutted like Henry Nowak on the sidewalk. And they’re infuriated that he’s still alive, while the highest-profile DEI hire in the entire country—the fraudster they expended so much energy to defend, the guy who could supposedly run 300 miles in three days—is not.
This is an unusual position for these Leftists, you know, they’re so used to killing their political opposition that they genuinely can’t process the fact that they’ve lost one of their most prominent pieces on the chessboard. But it’s happened. Because in their quest to place a DEI hire at Cambridge, they overlooked his obvious psychosis and mental instability, and even now—when the evidence of their immorality and corruption is laid so bare that a blind man could see it—they’re refusing to engage in an ounce of introspection. They’d much rather resort to violence. As Jason Arday himself used to say, and I quote, “Yeah, I’m chillin’ on a dirt road Laid back swervin’ like I’m George Jones // Ain’t it funny how rumors spread // Man that talk is getting old // Ya better mind your business, man, watch your mouth // Before I have to knock that loud mouth out.”
Actually, just a correction — that’s Jason Aldean, not Arday, my mistake, but in the spirit of the late Jason Arday, we’ll just pretend he said it. And the point is, never forget these scenes in Trafalgar Square. Do not forget the lies they will tell and the atrocities they will commit to defend their bankrupt ideology, especially now that it’s been exposed so publicly.
I saw somebody observe that this wasn’t really a “vigil” in Trafalgar Square - it was more like a last stand, it was the last gasp of an ideology that’s on the verge of defeat. And if you’re the optimistic type, then one way to read the sheer incoherence and depravity that was on display is just that, you know?
It was a stark reminder of what these demons are capable of - and how we must commit ourselves, especially with some very important elections coming up, to ensure that they never again hold power in our own country.
Posted Sep 13, 2026, 1:36 AM UTC