Michael Higgins: Lessons for Canada from the U.K.’s DEI plagiarism scandal

A disgraced black professor accused of being a fabulist, and the shaming of formerly world-renowned Cambridge University proves the toxic, divisive and destructive power of the much-loved progressive practice of diversity, equity and inclusion.

Jason Arday, once the darling of academia, resigned as a professor of sociology of education at Cambridge on Wednesday after a week of being pummeled in the press in an ever-increasing escalation of exposés.

Arday, who at 37 became the youngest ever black professor at Cambridge in 2023, was feted for overcoming immense hardship and poverty in his early life. Autism and global development delay meant he didn’t speak until he was 11 and was unable to read or write until he was 18.

But in late July, Arday faced plagiarism accusations after The Telegraph newspaper reported that 100 passages of his PhD were remarkably similar to another thesis published six years ago.

Doubts have also been raised about some of Arday’s previous claims including running 30 marathons in 35 days; running 600 miles on a treadmill in six days; raising £5 million ($9.4 million) for charity; being the target of knife-wielding intruders; being sent a pig’s head as a threat; playing snooker and soccer to a professional level and publishing a book called Being Young, Black and Male: Challenging the Dominant Discourse.

Of the plagiarism, Arday said his autism made him rely on mimicry to make sense of information and citation errors were the result of inadequate supervision. He has also defended his running records (although he said the 600 miles was actually run over 12 days), said the charity money was raised with others and claimed that reports of him having a professional sports career were the erroneous transcription of an interview he gave.

He told The Times newspaper that he was not a liar or fantasist and that he was subjected to a “dark arts” campaign at Cambridge that was “racially motivated” while also being a “lightning rod” for those who denounced diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices.

John Moores University in Liverpool, where Arday was awarded his PhD, said it conducted a “confidential procedure” last year and cleared the professor after concerns were raised. Cambridge University originally told the Telegraph that Arday was the subject of a “vile campaign,” but on Wednesday it announced it was launching an investigation “following new information about Professor Arday’s academic qualifications and honorary appointments.”

There are lessons for Canada amidst this ugly and divisive scandal. One, is that hiring people based on DEI factors is not good for business and can be extremely harmful to reputations. And yet, our institutions and public sector are rife with this woke nonsense.

A prime example is the advert for a director of business planning put out by British Columbia’s Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA).

Under qualifications, it says applicants must demonstrate “knowledge of the historic and ongoing impacts of settler colonialism on Indigenous Peoples in social and health contexts.” It goes on, “Additionally, it involves embedding Indigenous Cultural Safety and Humility, and an advanced expertise and unwavering dedication to engaging with diversity, centering equity, and advancing inclusion (DEI).”

Putting aside what it means to embed “Indigenous Cultural Safety and Humility,” why should a director of business planning, or anyone, have to pledge “unwavering dedication” to what amounts to a Marxist ideology?

The PHSA adds, “We invite applications and enquiries from all people, particularly those belonging to the historically, systemically, and/or persistently excluded groups identified under the B.C. Human Rights Code.”

The PHSA doesn’t appear to want the best or the brightest, but merely the ideologically aligned. It seems less concerned with whether a person has a sound financial background than they are a member of the DEI cult.

Another lesson in the Arday case is the power police are giving themselves to investigate complaints that aren’t even criminal.

London’s Metropolitan Police investigated a journalist for four months after a claim that he harassed Arday by emailing him questions about plagiarism. Police decided not to act, but told the journalist not to contact the professor because his mental health had been affected.

In a letter to the force, Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, said, “None of this was any of the police’s business.”

Only recently, has the U.K. abandoned investigating non-hate crime incidents (NHCI) because officers were increasingly being used to police social media posts.

Unfortunately, Edmonton Police have now taken on the role of monitoring people’s language. In a social media post that has since been deleted, Edmonton Police urged people to anonymously report speech that “hurts” people.

The force has created an online snitch line and says, “All Hate Motivated Incidents filed using the Online Reporting System will be reviewed by Hate Crime Investigators.”

“Hate motivated” incidents are defined as non-criminal actions committed against a person or property motivated by hate bias or prejudice. The force gave examples including offensive jokes, name-calling and verbal insults.

As Toby Young would say, “None of this is any of the police’s business,” a point equally made by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Justice Minister Mike Ellis.

Smith posted on X, “In Alberta we believe in free speech. Full stop.”

And Ellis posted, “Alberta’s government does not condone hate speech or violence, but we believe law enforcement should be focused on stopping violent crime, not policing opinions or ‘hurt feelings.’”

The Arday case has made fools out of a lot of people. Edmonton Police and the PHSA should take note.

National Post