JUSTICE FOR PROFESSOR JASON ARDAY
We call upon the police and Crown Prosecution Service to investigate Nathan Cofnas and determine whether criminal charges should be brought in connection with his sustained campaign against Professor Jason Arday.

Professor Jason Arday is dead at just 41 years old.

His family has described the period preceding his death as a “sustained campaign of abuse and harassment” and said that the pressure upon him had become unbearable.

At the centre of the campaign which brought Professor Arday's reputation, career and personal life under extraordinary public attack was Nathan Cofnas, a former Cambridge academic whose writings on race had already made him one of the University's most controversial figures.

In 2024, Emmanuel College, Cambridge terminated Nathan Cofnas's research affiliation after determining that his published position amounted, or could reasonably be construed as amounting, to a rejection of its Diversity, Equality and Inclusion policies and was incompatible with the College's core values and mission.

He subsequently launched legal action against Emmanuel College and has continued publicly attacking Cambridge and its approach to race, DEI and academic institutions.  He publicly describes himself as a “race realist” and hereditarian. He argues that genetic differences contribute to racial differences in intelligence. He has called for a “hereditarian revolution”, argued against what he calls the racial “equality thesis”, and has repeatedly presented Diversity, Equality and Inclusion as an ideological enemy that must be defeated.

These are positions he has publicly articulated himself.

It is against this documented background that his subsequent campaign against Professor Jason Arday must now be investigated.

Why Professor Arday?
He was Cambridge University's youngest ever Black professor, appointed Professor of Sociology of Education with a particular academic focus on racial inequality, education and social justice.

He therefore represented precisely the kind of academic and institutional development against which Cofnas's political and racial writings had repeatedly been directed.

• Cofnas publicly pursued multiple allegations that were refuted.
• He published material portraying Arday as a product of DEI.
• He publicly accused Cambridge of protecting him.
• He characterised the matter as “DEI Fraud and Cover-Up at Cambridge.”
• He repeatedly publicised allegations against Arday to a mass audience.

 

Trial by Public Opinion
Those allegations were subsequently amplified through social media and the national press, transforming questions about academic work into an extraordinary public examination of virtually every aspect of Professor Arday's professional and personal history.

Professor Arday eventually resigned.

Days later, he was unfortunately found dead.

We call for Nathan Cofnas's conduct to be investigated

There is now sufficient public evidence to justify asking whether Cofnas's sustained conduct towards Professor Arday crossed the boundary from criticism into criminal behaviour.

There are several potential offences which investigators and the CPS should consider.

1. Harassment — Protection from Harassment Act 1997
The Protection from Harassment Act makes it a criminal offence to pursue a course of conduct amounting to harassment where the person knows, or ought to know, that their conduct amounts to harassment involving his non-stop repeated communications and publications.

The relevant question therefore cannot be answered by taking each individual article, allegation, social-media post, interview or communication in isolation.

The entire course of conduct must be examined.

Investigators should establish:

how long Cofnas pursued Professor Arday;
how frequently he published or communicated allegations concerning him;
which individuals and organisations Cofnas contacted about Arday;
whether allegations were repeated after they had been rejected, disputed or addressed by relevant institutions;
what Cofnas knew about the impact the campaign was having upon Arday;
whether he continued after becoming aware of serious distress;
and whether his conduct, taken cumulatively, amounted to criminal harassment.
The fact that a campaign is conducted through academic complaints, blogs, journalists and social media should not automatically place it beyond the reach of harassment law.

We want the police to determine whether that line was crossed.

2. Serious harassment or stalking
Investigators should also consider whether the persistence and nature of the conduct could engage the more serious offences contained within the Protection from Harassment Act.

This is particularly important if evidence demonstrates fixation upon Professor Arday, repeated monitoring or publication concerning him, attempts to involve third parties, or conduct causing serious alarm or distress with a substantial effect upon Professor Arday's ordinary life.

The authorities should establish exactly what Professor Arday was experiencing during this period and what Cofnas knew about the consequences of the campaign he was pursuing.

3. False or malicious communications
The authorities should examine every relevant communication made by Cofnas concerning Professor Arday and establish whether any applicable communications offences were committed.

In particular, investigators should determine whether allegations were communicated which Cofnas knew to be false, whether material facts or previous institutional findings were knowingly misrepresented, and whether the necessary criminal intent can be established.  In particular his persistent presentation of plagiarism claims that had been adjudicated to be defunct being presented in MULTIPLE online interviews as legitimate.

The evidence is widely available in his relentless media campaigning.  In addition:

Emails, messages, correspondence with journalists, communications with academic institutions, unpublished material and the chronology of previous complaints may provide answers unavailable from public statements alone.

This evidence is largely in the public domain, and all else can and should be obtained and investigated.

4. Motive must be investigated
The question of why Professor Arday was pursued with such determination cannot be separated from this investigation.

Cofnas has created an extensive public record documenting his beliefs about race, intelligence, heredity, Black representation, DEI and the supposed corruption of academic institutions by equality initiatives.

Professor Arday was a Black professor specialising in racial and educational inequality whose historic Cambridge appointment received enormous attention.

Cofnas subsequently portrayed Arday publicly as a “DEI star” and his appointment as part of a wider story about alleged DEI corruption at Cambridge.

Investigators should therefore examine whether Cofnas's documented ideological beliefs, his hostility towards Cambridge's DEI policies, his own dispute with Cambridge institutions, and his treatment of Professor Arday provide evidence of motive.

Investigators should also establish whether Cofnas demonstrated comparable determination towards allegations of plagiarism or academic misconduct involving other Cambridge academics.

If Professor Arday received markedly different treatment, the authorities should establish why.  It is known that during Mr Cofnas’ pursuit of Professor Arday, there were similar parallel cases of plagiarism that Mr Cofnas seemed to have no interest in.  Interestingly, these cases involved white males.

This matters because the investigation should determine whether this was simply an academic investigation into plagiarism — or whether Professor Arday became the target of a wider personal or ideological campaign.

5. Unlawful-act manslaughter
This is perhaps the most serious question requiring investigation.

Should the official investigation into Professor Arday's death establish suicide, the authorities must determine whether any unlawful conduct committed against him contributed in law to his death.

English law does not automatically treat suicide as breaking the chain of criminal causation.

CPS homicide guidance expressly recognises that murder or manslaughter may be an appropriate charge where suicide follows an unlawful act or acts by another person.

That makes the question of harassment critically important.

If investigators establish that:

Nathan Cofnas pursued an unlawful course of conduct against Professor Arday

• that conduct caused serious psychological harm
• Cofnas knew, or ought to have known, the effect his conduct was having
• the conduct nevertheless continued
• and that psychological harm materially contributed to Professor Arday taking his own life

It is a question serious enough to require a criminal investigation.

 

Nathan Cofnas’ troubling ideological background
Nathan Cofnas's beliefs are relevant because he himself has made race and DEI central to his public political project.

He has called for a “hereditarian revolution.”

He has argued that racial disparities partly reflect innate differences.

He has described the belief that racial groups possess the same innate distribution of socially relevant traits as an “equality thesis” which he says is false.

He has argued that defeating what he calls “wokism” requires overturning this belief.

He has publicly fought Cambridge institutions over their response to those views.

And when he turned his attention towards Professor Arday, he explicitly placed Arday within that same ideological framework.  He openly described him as a “DEI star” and presenting his allegations under the title “DEI Fraud and Cover-Up at Cambridge.”

That context should form part of the evidence examined when investigators consider motive, intention and the nature of Cofnas's conduct towards Professor Arday.

Establish the full chronology
The police should now reconstruct the complete history of this campaign.

That investigation should obtain Cofnas's relevant public and private communications; communications with journalists and media organisations; correspondence with Cambridge and other universities; communications with publishers; social-media posts; previous complaints concerning Professor Arday; institutional responses to those complaints; and evidence establishing what Cofnas knew at each stage.

Investigators should then compare that chronology with evidence concerning Professor Arday's deteriorating circumstances, his communications with family and colleagues, his resignation and the period immediately preceding his death.

The central question is simple:

Did Nathan Cofnas's conduct towards Professor Jason Arday remain within the law, or did a sustained campaign cross the threshold into criminal harassment or other offences — and, if so, did that unlawful conduct contribute to Professor Arday's death?
Only a proper investigation can answer that question.

We demand an investigation
Professor Jason Arday endured an extraordinary campaign of public scrutiny before his death.

His family has described it as a sustained campaign of misinformation, abuse and harassment.

The man at the centre of the allegations against him has an extensive, documented history of campaigning against DEI and racial equality doctrines; was removed from his affiliation with Emmanuel College following controversy surrounding those views; subsequently fought that decision; and explicitly presented his attack upon Arday as part of a wider alleged “DEI Fraud and Cover-Up at Cambridge.”

These circumstances demand scrutiny by the proper authorities.

We therefore call upon the Metropolitan Police to investigate Nathan Cofnas's conduct towards Professor Jason Arday and upon the Crown Prosecution Service to consider, according to the evidence uncovered, whether charges should be brought including:
• Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

• Serious harassment or stalking offences where the evidential requirements are satisfied

• Applicable false or malicious communications offences

• Unlawful-act manslaughter, should the evidence concerning Professor Arday's death, an underlying criminal offence and legal causation support such a charge

• Any other criminal offence disclosed during the investigation

Professor Arday cannot speak for himself now.

His family deserves answers.

His community and the wider public deserves answers and protection from such unjust outcomes in the future.

And if an investigation establishes that criminal offences were committed against Professor Jason Arday, those responsible must be held accountable.

Investigate Nathan Cofnas.
Establish the facts.
Determine whether crimes were committed.
Justice for Professor Jason Arday.