The former Cambridge University academic's claims make Forrest Gump seem dull, writes GB News columnist Cristo Foufas
It is ironic to think there is a massive lesson to be learnt from the Jason Arday controversy when you consider it centres around the failure of an academic institution – in this case, one of Britain's most famous: Cambridge University.
Thankfully, it appears he has at least learnt a couple of lessons himself: if you seem to be telling ridiculously tall tales, especially by your work, then it is best to resign.
And it is probably best to cancel the book tour outlining many of those far-fetched stories featuring in your forthcoming, presumably part-fictional, autobiography for fear of looking a little foolish – something else Arday seems to have now done.
However, we must change our outlook as a society if we are ever going to live in a true meritocracy while genuinely celebrating achievements from those whose backgrounds differ.
I still believe we can live in a society where we can do both. But I also believe the way we are currently going about it could not be more backward or wrong.
For those who do not know, when Arday was hired as the youngest ever black professor at Cambridge University, he was hailed as a beacon of hope in a sea of bigotry.
His story of triumph over adversity, rags to riches, and health and social battles was just too delicious for those who think whatever minority status you come from is the most important thing about you, not to make a huge deal out of.
His status as "Youngest Black" won him plaudits, media coverage, BBC documentaries, powerful friends, and a life many can only dream of. The problem? The story he sold everyone to get there simply did not add up. Arday has denied all allegations of lying about his achievements.
I will not list every claim he has made publicly, as they have been reported on extensively. The whole saga has led to calls for all aspects of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) to be abolished. One can understand why.
And it is certainly tempting when you consider the pious way many of Arday’s supporters have acted since the allegations of his dishonesty have come to light. The same supporters who have done nothing but discuss Arday’s race continually since his appointment now have the audacity to accuse everyone else of racism.
Either Arday’s race is relevant or it is not. It is perfectly fair to ask whether a trait continually brought up by the institution that hired him was a factor when things went wrong and it was clear due diligence had failed.
Frankly, you do not get to brag about it when it is going well and ignore it when it is going badly.
Yet all this raises a different issue and lesson to be learned, which probably started with really good intentions.
I do think someone’s race, sexuality, sex, age, background, and class are all really important and interesting things about people. How boring would our lives be if we could not trade stories about our identities?
I also happen to think it is fabulous if someone gets into a great position or status if they are black, gay, neurodivergent, an immigrant, a woman, or whatever other background which might be underrepresented or different from the norm.
What is really important is... that trait is incidental. The trait is an interesting fact about that person; an additional part of their life, rather than the only thing we see or think about.
Merit comes first. Merit is foremost. Anything else? Incidental.
I have no idea when as a society we seemed to have got it completely the wrong way around. And we have attempted to engineer equality of outcome when it comes to jobs, public services, education and everything really. Based solely on whatever minority trait that might be. We are now seeing the utter mess this mindset has created.
Had merit been the only thing considered in Arday’s case, maybe someone would have joined the dots when it came to his life story, making Forrest Gump seem dull.
Because everything was apparently seen through a prism of the trait of race, nothing else was.
