Academic integrity matters in HE. So does due process

The death of Jason Arday, the former University of Cambridge professor, has left the academic community and the wider public confronting uncomfortable questions. Arday, 41, became the youngest Black professor in Cambridge’s history when he was appointed Professor of Sociology of Education in 2023.

He resigned from Cambridge on 5 August 2026, after the university announced investigations into questions concerning his academic qualifications and career. Nine days later, he was found dead at his home in south London. Police have described his death as unexpected but not suspicious, and the circumstances remain under investigation.

It would be wrong to claim, without evidence, that the controversy caused his death. It would be equally wrong to ignore the profound questions that this tragedy raises about how universities, researchers and social media users handle allegations of academic misconduct.

The lesson should not be that academics must be protected from scrutiny. Quite the opposite: academic integrity is fundamental to universities.

Plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, misrepresentation of qualifications and other forms of academic misconduct must be investigated seriously. Universities have a responsibility to protect the integrity of scholarship and the public’s trust in academic institutions.

But investigation is not the same thing as conviction.

That distinction is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain in an age when an allegation can travel around the world within hours. A complaint submitted to a university can become a headline, a social media debate, a series of online investigations and, eventually, a public verdict – all before an independent institutional process has established what actually happened.

Why due process matters

The Arday case illustrates the danger.

Questions were raised about his 2015 doctoral thesis and other aspects of his academic record. Arday denied the allegations. Liverpool John Moores University, where he completed his PhD, had previously reviewed allegations concerning the thesis and maintained its decision to award him the doctorate.

Cambridge initially defended Arday but subsequently announced an independent investigation after receiving what it described as new information concerning his qualifications and career.

These facts demonstrate precisely why due process matters.

An allegation may be serious. Evidence may appear compelling. Journalists may uncover material that deserves investigation. Colleagues may have legitimate concerns. None of these things, individually or collectively, should eliminate the need for a fair process.

Universities should therefore ask themselves a difficult question: what happens to the person at the centre of an investigation while the investigation is taking place?

Academic institutions have sophisticated procedures for protecting research participants, students, data and institutional reputation. They should also have robust mechanisms for protecting the basic dignity of academics who become subjects of serious allegations.

There is a fundamental difference between saying that “these claims require investigation” and saying “this person is a fraud”. There is a difference between examining a thesis for possible plagiarism and subjecting an individual to sustained public humiliation. There is a difference between holding a university accountable for its appointment procedures and turning an individual academic into a symbol of institutional failure.

These distinctions matter.

They matter because academics are human beings before they are professors, researchers, authors or administrators.

The pressure can be particularly intense for academics whose careers become associated with wider social debates. Arday's appointment attracted considerable attention because of his background and because he became Cambridge's youngest Black professor. His rise was widely presented as an extraordinary story of overcoming adversity. Cambridge itself celebrated his appointment.

That public visibility can become a double-edged sword.

When an academic is celebrated as a symbol of institutional progress, the scrutiny surrounding that person can become disproportionately intense when questions later emerge. The individual risks becoming more than an academic subject to an investigation; they become a proxy for arguments about race, diversity, merit, institutional standards and social change.

That is dangerous for everyone.

Academic institutions must be able to investigate allegations without allowing the investigation to become a referendum on an individual’s identity.

Lessons for universities and the media

At the same time, universities must take responsibility for their own decisions.

If serious questions arise about an academic’s qualifications after appointment, it is insufficient simply to ask whether the academic should have been appointed. Universities must also examine their recruitment and verification procedures. How were qualifications checked? Who reviewed the candidate’s record? What evidence was considered? Were concerns raised previously? Were they properly investigated?

Cambridge has now agreed to an independent inquiry into Arday’s appointment and tenure. That investigation is therefore important not merely for determining what happened in one case but for examining how major universities verify academic credentials and respond when concerns emerge.

There is another lesson for the media.

Journalists have a legitimate and essential role in exposing wrongdoing. Investigative journalism has uncovered plagiarism, fabricated research, fraudulent qualifications and institutional failures that might otherwise have remained hidden. Universities should not be immune from scrutiny.

But responsible journalism also requires proportionality.

An allegation should be clearly identified as an allegation. A disputed claim should not quietly become a fact through repetition. Previous investigations should be acknowledged. The accused person’s response should be fairly represented. And when an investigation is incomplete, readers should be told that it is incomplete.

The same principle applies even more strongly to social media.

Social media has created an environment in which thousands of people can participate in an investigation without possessing the evidence, expertise or accountability of a formal investigative body. A person can be judged by people who have never read the disputed thesis, examined the underlying evidence or spoken to the institutions involved.

That is not justice.

It is also worth remembering that academic misconduct investigations can be complicated. Not every unattributed sentence is necessarily plagiarism in the same sense. Not every citation error constitutes research fraud.

Conversely, repeated or substantial unattributed borrowing cannot simply be dismissed as an innocent mistake. Determining the difference requires expertise, evidence and context.

That is precisely why universities need independent and transparent procedures.

The appropriate response to academic misconduct allegations should therefore be neither automatic defence nor automatic condemnation.

It should be: investigate, verify, hear, assess and then decide.

And throughout that process, the individual should retain their dignity.

Larger questions

The tragedy surrounding Jason Arday should not become another opportunity for competing camps to declare themselves right.

Nor should his death be used to settle questions that investigators and the coroner have yet to resolve. His family has described him as the victim of a prolonged campaign of misinformation and harassment; that account deserves to be heard while remaining distinct from established findings about the circumstances of his death.

The larger question is one that universities everywhere should confront.

Can we build systems in which academic integrity is defended without abandoning due process? Can universities investigate misconduct firmly without creating an environment of fear? Can journalists expose legitimate concerns without turning allegations into convictions? Can social media users resist the temptation to become judge and jury?

The answer must be yes.

Universities exist to pursue truth. But the pursuit of truth requires more than identifying wrongdoing. It requires evidence, fairness, openness to correction and respect for human dignity.

Antonia Eliene Duarte and Luiz Marivando Barros are based at the Department of Biological Sciences, Regional University of Cariri, Brazil, and Elizangila Beneval Bento is based at Educação em Ciências, The Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.