A mere nine days after Jason Arday resigned over allegations of plagiarism that have since been cleared by Liverpool John Moores University, the academic was found dead in his home. A week later, Nathan Cofnas, the academic responsible for the accusations, was suspended within 4 days from University of Ghent. Since then, 700 academics have signed an open letter calling for Cofnas’ protection, among them University of Manchester (UoM) Emeritus professor Norman Strong.
Cofnas first accused Jason Arday of plagiarism in a Substack article titled DEI Fraud and Cover-Up at Cambridge, which was published on the 21st July. A media frenzy ensued, including the publication of 188 articles by UK outlets in less than 2 weeks, from both sides of the press. Less than a week later, Jason Arday was dead.
Hundreds of academics from around the world jumped at the opportunity to defend “academic ethics” – a term that they claim is at stake through Cofnas’ suspension, despite the nature of the suspension still being debated. This hasn’t perturbed Duke University professor Timur Kuran. Kuran immediately declared on X that Cofnas, who is a self-described “race realist” and posits that genes play a “non-trivial role” in intelligence differences between racial groups, had “controversial ideas [that were] irrelevant” in relation to his suspension. Academics, Kuran argued, “must not be punished for exposing academic fraud or incompetence.”
In another Substack post, Cofnas theorises that, under a “colourblind” system, the percentage of black pupils and professors among elite universities would “approach 0%”. The open letter calling for Cofnas’ resignation back in March of 2026 states that his academic work “not reality. It is racism.” 45 philosophers at Ghent University signed the open letter accusing him of “promoting racist pseudoscience”, the Brussels Times reported. Academics have been calling for Cofnas’s resignation long before there was any speculation about Arday.
Cofnas and his supporters have repeatedly claimed that his allegations against Arday were nothing more than an exposure of fraud. But in a video interview with David Starkey a week after Arday’s resignation, the pair seem to relish the academic’s downfall. Starkey explains that “the reason we’re both grinning is good, honest, straightforward, un-Christian vengeance”. The stark, exuberant joy the two academics take in the destruction of Arday’s career is almost Machiavellian. Crucially, it does not support the claim that Cofnas was upholding academic rigour; instead, it supports the growing belief that this was a targeted campaign against Arday.
Cofnas himself was dismissed by Cambridge in 2024 after his controversial Substack post. Another petition calling for his suspension acquired over 1000 signatures, as reported in the Observer. The letter of dismissal was leaked to student media outlets like Varsity, who reported that University of Cambridge’s Emmanuel College had found the words in Cofnas’ blog posts had “represented a challenge to the College’s core values and mission.” Cofnas has repeatedly been found to be perpetuating damaging and destructive views by the institutions he worked for.
While the pro-Cofnas open letter diagnoses him as a victim of being scapegoated by the university, rector Petra De Stutter defends Ghent’s position to the news agency Belga, “claiming that we ourselves are restricting academic freedom is entirely incorrect.” A counter letter has also been created, in which almost 2000 academics have supported the new suspension of Cofnas and, in the words of the letter, “resist the framing of this investigation as a punishment for “whistleblowing”. The letter cites Ghent’s code of ethics where it very clearly states that “freedom of expression is not unlimited: you do not incite discrimination, hatred, violence, or segregation against others”, thus Cofnas’ work may be seen as a violation of these codes.
There is a gap in the information surrounding the suspension of Cofnas that cannot be ignored: the suspension is temporary, while Ghent University conducts a preliminary investigation. So, signing a letter before knowing all the information seems premature. Why, then, has UoM professor Norman Strong signed the open letter? It’s a decision that calls into question UoM’s own code of ethics.
This is not a rhetorical question – UoM suspended and banned Professor Peter Pormann from the University campus after he used the n word in a meeting just months earlier. The slur was not used against anyone and was said in a disciplinary meeting for a colleague who had come under pressure for using the word “bitch” in a lecture. Right-wing outlets like GB News and the Spectator reported on this case, arguing that UoM’s actions endangered freedom of speech.
UoM’s Policy on Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom, explain the University’s treatment of Pormann: clause 4.2 states that “freedom of speech is a ‘qualified’ right, and there may be circumstances in which it is legitimate and proportionate for the University to restrict or regulate lawful speech.” Like Ghent, UoM have signalled that free speech is not unlimited; it cannot exist at the expense of others’ rights and protections. This raises serious questions in regards to Strong’s signing of the open letter defending Cofnas – if the decision to ban Pormann was in line with the policy, so is the decision to suspend Cofnas.
When asked for comment, a University of Manchester spokesperson said: “We were deeply saddened by the death of Professor Jason Arday. Our thoughts are with Jason’s family, friends and colleagues. We will continue to support our community while reflecting carefully on the issues that have emerged during this difficult period. Freedom of speech and academic freedom are fundamental to the purpose of a university. We are committed to securing and promoting these principles within the law. We are not able to comment on individual cases.”
Cofnas and his defenders, however, did not flock to the defence of Pormann. No equivalent letter has surfaced. Free speech, it’s clear, is not a principle that its advocates can consistently defend and is, in fact, only wielded as a weapon of destruction, like in the tragic case of Arday.
What these cases of academic ethics prove is that free speech is not a reliably defended principle and that it only includes those who require it as a political shield for their ideas. Cofnas was likely not suspended by Ghent for his accusations against Arday, but over his extremist and “racist pseudoscience”, which he has been challenged on and criticised for his entire career, and yet the same racist agenda that drove the plagiarism claims against Arday, are now calling on the principle to try to protect Cofnas.
