Comical DEI Academic Resigned — But “Diversity” Is Still Killing the West

Jason Arday was fêted and celebrated when he joined Cambridge University’s faculty in 2023. At 37, he was the prestigious institution’s youngest black professor, and no one wanted to look at him critically. The skids were so well greased that Cambridge turned a blind eye even when evidence piled up that Arday was George Santos, Walter Mitty, and Baron Munchausen all wrapped up into one. But then the allegations finally reached critical mass. The professor resigned Wednesday night, and Cambridge’s blind eye turned into a black one. Now the university’s faculty are calling for an “inquiry” into his appointment. But will anything really change without also firing his enablers?

The main problem, after all, isn’t individual corruption. It’s institutional corruption.

I wrote about Arday August 1, and his is the most outrageous diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) case I’ve seen. (And I’ve seen a lot.) He’s not only apparently a serial plagiarist, but a fabulist of the grandest proportions. Shorter version: Arday had a stroke right after having a brain tumor removed and right before successfully defending his doctoral thesis via an arduous oral presentation — while hardly sleeping and despite memory loss. He’d also run 30 marathons in 35 days and 300 miles in three days.

Oh, and wait until you hear about his truly amazing feats.

Yet, though impressive Arday’s phantasmic claims may be, they’re exceeded by another.

That is, the tall tale the West has told itself about how “our strength lies in our diversity.” More on that later.

Cambridge’s Callow Concerns

Reporting on the intellectual rot that visited Arday on Cambridge, The Telegraph wrote Thursday:

Hilary Cremin, the head of Cambridge University’s Faculty of Education, could not stop smiling as she welcomed Jason Arday to her department as a professor. “We are so lucky to have you,” she beamed. “You are the best in the world in terms of the research that you do.”

Those words have come back to haunt Prof Cremin after Mr Arday resigned on Wednesday night following weeks of damaging revelations….

Now Prof Cremin is among the senior Cambridge staff facing serious questions about the appointment of Mr Arday, their defence of him in the face of mounting evidence of academic fakery, and their high-minded dismissal of questions about his record.

Put simply, did Cambridge University lower its own standards to hire a man of questionable merit simply because of his skin colour? And having done so, did one of the cornerstones of Britain’s world-renowned education system prioritise its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) credentials over its hard-earned reputation?

Anyone not viewing these questions as rhetorical has probably been asleep longer than Rip Van Winkle. But The Telegraph wonders if anybody will lose his job over this fiasco, and someone should. After all, protecting fools perpetuates folly.

This said, Cremin might’ve been the front woman for this DEI folly, but she merely reflects larger institutional priorities. In fact, she reflects academia not just in Britain, but in the United States, Canada, and beyond.

As to those institutional priorities, an investigation The Telegraph conducted revealed precisely what you’d expect. A source with firsthand knowledge of the Arday affair told the paper that Cambridge only “went through the motions” with other applicants. The university was applying a quota system and had already resolved to take on the fantasist.

Speaking of which, the panel that hired Arday was replete with diversity fantasists. As The Telegraph also informs, six of its nine members

have expressed support for DEI initiatives, with some adopting more radical positions.

Anoop Nayak, a professor of social & cultural geography from Newcastle University, previously criticised the “neoliberal whiteness of Anglo-American universities”, and said charging overseas students higher fees could be “tantamount to institutional racism”. He also praised Black Lives Matter, Rhodes Must Fall and pro-Gaza student encampments for helping “decolonise the curriculum from the ground up”.

Another panel member, Michalinos Zembylas, professor of educational theory at the Open University of Cyprus, has argued that education should teach students to “disrupt, refuse, and displace liberal democratic principles” and create a “new moral order” that challenges Western democracy.

Root and Branch

Of course, this is nothing new. Just ask radio giant-turned-podcaster Michael Savage, who’s now in his 80s. He attained a PhD in epidemiology and nutritional ethnomedicine and believed it would be a ticket into academia. Then he learned the harsh truth: He was told, as he put it, “White men need not apply.”

The reality is that the Gramscian “march through the institutions” has been remarkably successful. Academia is now saturated with woke (un)thought and willing social engineers. Can it be reformed? It likely would have to be torn up root and branch.

A prerequisite for eliminating DEI, however, is revealing it for the lie it is. Doing just that in 2009, most comedically, was pundit Ann Coulter. Far from being a “strength,” diversity is actually “a difficulty to be overcome,” she pointed out. The notion “Our strength lies in our diversity” is completely unproven, accepted on blind faith. It’s as valid as saying “Chocolate pudding is dramatic irony,” wrote Coulter, or “Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine.”

“Before you know it, liberals will react to news of a mass murder by muttering, ‘Well, you know what they say: Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine,’ while everyone nods in agreement,” Coulter continued.

The point was humorously delivered, but it’s also airtight: The diversity mantra reflects the Big Lie technique. Where’s the proof of its benefit?

Strength Lies in Homogeneity?

Japan, one of the most homogeneous nations, has the world’s fourth-largest economy by nominal GDP. It has, in fact, been called an East Asian model. China also rejects diversity and is a burgeoning power perhaps poised for hegemon status. This doesn’t mean diverse countries can’t be and aren’t often economically vibrant. It does mean that their success likely has nothing to do with their diversity.

Then there’s the common assertion that diversity leads to greater knowledge. This is related to the other popular notion that it strengthens us. Yet this seemingly implies that certain groups possess strengths others don’t, that they’re superior in some respects. Asserting such in different contexts, however, can bring bigotry charges. For another leftist dogma has been that all groups are equal in worldly abilities. So which is it?

The answer is that academia changes its tune with the priorities of the moment and whatever feels right. And this means that in the aggregate, it’s not any more intellectual or genuine than Jason Arday is. They are a perfect match.