When a pile on is not a pile on, and when it is - why the arbiters of academic standards cannot be a self-selecting sample

In the aftermath of Prof Arday’s treatment, we see the double standards of academia as 400 “academics” sign a letter defending Hereditarian Nathan Cofnas

When I heard of Prof. Jason Arday’s death, I was sickened to my stomach, but I was not surprised. The British press had written 249 critical articles containing mainly unsubstantiated accusations concerning his character over a 22 day period - many after his resignation due to the unrelenting press coverage. But few if any of those articles clearly referenced the original source of the allegations against Prof Arday, as Dr. Nathan Cofnas. Dr. Cofnas is a self proclaimed Race Realist/proponent of Hereditarianism, who openly claims that non-white people as a group, have inferior intelligence (a scientifically baseless claim) and would “hold few high-profile positions in a meritocracy”. Dr. Cofnas had been sacked (terminated its research affiliation) by Emmanuel College, Cambridge University in 2024, because his views on race challenged the colleges core values. Dr. Cofnas has just been suspended by the University of Ghent and is likely to be removed from his office. News media once so gleeful at Prof Arday’s fall from grace, are now mostly silent, after his death. The Telegraph, Daily Mail, and even the Guardian have moderated their tone on the matter, without openly apologising or publicly regretting their excesses, during the open season on Prof Arday’s professional life, his sporting claims and his charity work. Many of Prof Arday’s claims have subsequently been supported, if not completely confirmed, by charities he worked with and in press reports made at the time. As for his plagiarism - that was investigated years ago by Liverpool John Moores University, and no evidence was found that undermined his academic achievements. Yet this isn’t the end of the matter because the real story is far bigger and more disturbing. It’s the story of a movement of academics who share core values, working together under the banner of Free Speech to marginalise areas of study that they do not like and to reframe their own speculative social science work as mainstream and unquestionable. Just as the Brexit adjutants declaimed established experts as urban elites, so these academic outriders wish to overpower those they see as challenging their own political ultra conservative worldview. What has infuriated me about the manner in which our press has handled this is their two-siding of the “dispute” while completely discounting the organised nature of the right’s wider assault on societal equality. And by right, I mean the ultra socially conservative right. The right that denies racism operates in today’s culture, and the right that claims there are only two sexes, pressing for trans identity to be invalidated and framing liberal democracy as a failing political system at best, and a descent into madness at worst.

So when I read that a letter had been circulated by free speech activist Dr. John Armstrong - known for attacking women’s equality in academia, accusing Ghent University of “retaliation” against Dr. Cofnas, for “publicising academic misconduct”, and that this letter had attracted the support of 400 academics, I was inspired to look more closely. As an Engineer with seven years in industrial research, I understand the academic publishing process and I’ve worked with leading academics. I have a natural respect for academic works, once they have been fully peer reviewed. At the same time, I understand that academics are also people. And people with PhDs have political beliefs and prejudices, just like the rest of us. But unlike most reporters on newspapers, and presenters on news shows, not to mention the many keyboard warriors now uncritically circulating this letter online, I am going to move beyond the simple fact of 400 academics supporting a letter, to ask: who are these people and why are they inspired to make this public statement?

But first the letter itself.

The letter’s framing encourages a layperson reader to infer that it represents the views of a broad section of academia, including signatories from diverse disciplines such as: sociology, psychology, mathematics, philosophy, and chemistry. So it would be easy to consider this as a cross section of all academics. However, that’s absolutely not the case, as we will see shortly. It accuses Ghent University, and particularly its Rector, Professor Petra De Sutter, of “retaliation” against Dr. Cofnas, for “publicising academic misconduct”, in reference to Prof Arday. However, what Nathan Cofnas has admitted to doing, is putting Prof Arday’s Doctoral thesis through a software program designed to spot copied phrases, of which some were found. While the resulting attacks on Prof Arday ranged from how many days of rest he took while running consecutive marathons, to whether he was completely non-verbal as a child. This wasn’t limited to his academic work, in fact, little to nothing was said about Prof Arday’s 33 published research papers, collecting over 1,500 citations. The letter goes on to, in a final irony, complain that Ghent University is failing in its duty to protect Nathan Cofnas from external attacks. Who are these free speech advocates? Surely, when assessing the significance and cogency of this letter, signed by 400 academics, we need to know who these signatories are, and what might have inspired them to lend their academic reputation to this defence of such a highly controversial figure - about to be sacked for the second time for his deficiencies in academic life. So far I don’t see in our press, any meaningful effort to do so. As a result, I’ve taken it on myself to work my way through at least 50 of the 400 signatories. Looking into their research, their main messages on race and other issues of equality, along with their attitudes to free speech and where they originate. My investigation is just half complete, but already there are clear patterns emerging. Many of the signatories have been called out by students for their views, and or have taken controversial positions in public debates, or written controversial articles or posts on social media. Whether it is trans rights, Critical Race Theory, Brexit, and even the war in Ukraine, they have each taken controversial stances, which might be collected loosely under the phrases, anti-woke, anti-liberal consensus. These are not simply academics fighting for free speech. Many of these academics seem to be engaged in culture war activities, while maintaining academic alter egos operating at senior levels in well known Universities.

The idea that their signing a public letter that accuses Ghent University of discrimination against Nathan Cofnas, a man who promotes a view of white racial supremacy unsupported by evidence, using the same smoke and mirrors techniques as were used by Dr. Cofnas on Prof Arday at least demonstrates a modicum of consistency in their approach. By presenting these 400 academics, many of whom have an axe to grind in the “fight against woke”, as simply working academics with a concern for academic freedom, is as bogus as the Guardian’s presenting the musing’s of a emeritus Professor previously stripped of his title for writing a work critical of Critical Race Theory. This is not a coincidence. His views are almost certanly coloured by his politics. His work speaks for him. This is not an academic with concerns over academic standards. This is a man with a political view on positive action to address societal prejudice and exclusion based on skin colour. Why did the Guardian not mention this?

Unmasking the signatories

Let’s look at the first 10 signatories in detail:

1. Prof Michael Biggs, Sociology, Oxford: The BMJ refused to publish his rapid response comment because they considered his views were transphobic

2. Prof Abhishek Sala, Mathematics, University of London: published a paper critical of positive action on race in academia

3. Dr. Lawrence Patihis, Psychology, University of Portsmouth: Posted on X “The idea that there are identity groups without agency is the mind virus of our age”

4. Prof Michael Sharpe, Psychiatry, Oxford: Blamed George Monbiot for “spreading Long Covid”  and wrote a paper claiming that ME is a mental illness

5. Prof Michael Ben-Gad, Economics, University of London: Was branded a “terrorist” and “war criminal” by students for his service in the Israeli Defence Force IDF

6. Prof Alex Byrne, Philosophy, MIT: His book on sex and gender was dropped by Oxford University Press because they said it did not address the subject of gender in a “sufficiently serious or respectful way”

7. Dr Prakash Shah, Law, University of London: Published on X a response to Kehinde Andrews’ criticism of a racist cess pit in academia, which can only be interpreted as ironic, “praising” Prof Arday’s “uncanny ability to attribute ills of society to racism”. Shah has claimed that a “Hindu-phobic lobby is targeting British Hindus”

8. Prof Lee Jones, Economics, London University: Has expressed his pro-Brexit views extensively and his dislike of what he calls the “remainer establishment”

9. Prof Joel Pust, Philosophy, University of Delaware: chaired a debate questioning the existence of trans sexual identity

10. Prof Klaas, Wynne, Chemistry, Glasgow University: gained funding from the Leverhulme Trust, as did Nathan Cofnas

Follow the Race Spies on Threads, where we will reveal the potential motivations of each of the signatories, one at a time follow Racespy2000

So this isn't simply a random collection of academics who are concerned about free speech and academic standards. These are individuals, in the main, with axes to grind on free speech and who are active in the culture wars, making statements and producing work that counters widely held beliefs that lie at the heart of our multicultural, pluralistic socially liberal, democratic society. This letter is not a value-free call for fairness, for academic freedom, for the rights to pluralistic debate. No. It’s another loosely organised attack on an academic institution that is taking action to maintain academic and moral standards against a tide of politically motivated invective by individuals who carry personal experiences of being sanctioned for their leftfield views antithetical to the hard won societal norms of historically marginalised groups. The right to point out the systemic nature of racism and its implications for progress in academic institutions. The right to live a trans life without questions of authenticity. These are rights worth fighting for. In conclusion

Many of us have watched in dismay as the media has been weaponised to present a personal vendetta by a pseudo intellectual - now about to be sacked for the second time for his lack of intellectual rigour and integrity - dressed up as a fight against an imagined liberal conspiracy to place non white academics into positions of power and influence in leading universities in UK and USA at the expense of white candidates. Very much in step with the equally bonkers “white replacement theory” that has captured so many lesser minds in recent years. Our media is clearly not up to the task. Obsessed with clicks and beholden to the authority of establishment figures, they have crumbled in the face of politically smart manipulation by a section of academia with highly entwined political obsessions. This is simply one aspect of a culture war, imported from the USA, financed by organisations that either share the objective of undermining liberal democracies or simply don’t understand the difference between objective academic inquiry and politicised academic astroturfing. Please, let’s not get taken in by this latest gambit. These 400 academics are not simply protecting standards, nor are they really interested in free speech. They are a mainly self selecting group of culture war activists. Politically motivated to protect what they recognise as “one of their own”.

Let’s leave the last words to Nathan Cofnas himself: in his version of meritocracy, there would be “close to zero” black professors at Harvard.

Is this what we want?

Follow the Race Spies on Threads, where we will reveal the potential motivations of each of the signatories, one at a time follow Racespy2000

About the author

In 1998 I spent 4 months in Leeds equipped with a hidden camera recording incidents of racial prejudice for the BBC Panorama miniseries Black and White. Read my dramatised account of filming the series, alongside my co-investigator Kevin Jones, and how we fought to get the full story on the nation's TV screens. Buy a first edition here