Dignity, Grief, and the Case of Jason Arday

August 16, 2026

I have been quiet about the case of Dr. Jason Arday, who previously worked at Cambridge University and left his job following allegations of plagiarism and questions about other claims in his life story. The reason is not lack of interest in the case, but rather because my family recently lost my brother and we have been mourning.

Aaron Edward Eaton: A Brief Background on Recent Events

First, a personal statement. A couple of weeks ago the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) (Canada’s national police) issued a missing person alert for my brother. Once the RCMP released the alert on social media, the matter immediately became public. We received messages of support from around the world.

On August 3, my brother was found deceased and this was also publicly announced on social media and via a newspaper article. I won’t go into the details, but suffice to say that the phrase, ‘found deceased’ is often a euphemism for ‘died by suicide’. Society hides behind vague and passive language rather than being direct about what really happened. I’ve never been fond of circumlocutions, but society has its rules.

Although we have deeply appreciated the support, having a private family matter become public changes the experience. Emotional energy is directed into reading, replying, and also taking a step away from technology to process quietly.

In any case, my lack of response about the Arday case was not due to indifference, but rather because I was focused on family matters.

Jason Arday: ‘Found Deceased’

I did not know Jason Arday. I have no basis on which to conclude whether misconduct occurred in his academic work, and that question is not the subject of this post. News of his passing hit me in a visceral and raw way. My deepest condolences to his family and friends. As is so often the case when someone is ‘found dead’, those left behind have many questions, deep grief, and sometimes, a feeling that it didn’t have to end the way it did. I can only imagine that Dr. Arday’s family and friends are experiencing with the level of public spectacle we have seen.

So, I will not be weighing in on questions relating to misconduct allegations. What concerns me are different questions: What do we, as a society, owe a person who is being investigated for misconduct during — and after — an investigative process? A related question also hovers: How can we ensure that a person’s dignity is preserved in the process of a misconduct investigation?

A Resignation Is Not a Verdict

Dr. Arday resigned his professorship at the University of Cambridge on August 5, 2026, after weeks of public scrutiny over plagiarism allegations and questions about other claims in his life story [McArthur, 2026]. He was found dead at his home in south London nine days later. Prime Minister Andy Burnham called the death “a tragedy on so many levels”. Arday’s family said that “the campaign of misinformation was too much for Jason”.

Iryna Pavlova, writing for our Postplagiarism blog, makes a valuable observation: reading the resignation as proof of guilt and reading it as proof of persecution involve the same error, which is treating an outcome as though it settles a question not yet answered by a thorough and fair investigation. I would add a further question to Iryna’s: Why should we let public persecution stand in for fair process? (Short answer: We shouldn’t.)

What a Process Without Dignity Looks Like

Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Article 12 protects a person against arbitrary attacks on their honour and reputation.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to all persons, everywhere. Full stop.

An individual alleged to have engaged in misconduct should be investigated by professionals with the skills and training to undertake the matter in a fair and just way. Being judged in the public sphere, with dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of people chiming in as armchair judges, turns due process into a public spectacle. A misconduct investigation, carried out in a professional and dignified manner, and a public trial by social media are not the same venue. Treating them as equivalent lets institutions (and quite frankly, members of society) off the hook for their own conduct.

Comment sections do not offer due process. Let me be clear: this is not an argument for shielding scholars from scrutiny. It is an argument for insisting that scrutiny happens in a manner that does not deprive individuals of their human rights.

Call to Action

A human‑rights‑by‑design approach to misconduct policy does not soften findings of wrongdoing; it separates the question of what happened from the question of how a person is treated while questions remain open (Eaton, 2024). I have yet to find a university or college anywhere that has explicitly adopted a human-rights centred approach to misconduct policy or process. I am not talking here about due process or procedural fairness. I am talking about misconduct policies and procedures that intentionally and explicitly commit to upholding human rights as a foundation for due process. (If you know such an institution, drop me a note.)

Institutions can commit to clear and private procedures rather than adjudication by the media. When we allow public persecution to prevail, we discard dignity and human rights.

Institutional leaders can communicate with the accused promptly. No one should wait in uncertainty for weeks. Institutional leaders should provide mental health and wellbeing support throughout the process, at no extra cost to the individual. Counsellors should be available alongside the investigation, not after it. We, as members of higher education institutions and as members of society, can also exercise restraint. We can wait for a review to conclude before we comment publicly, rather than posturing and pontificating. In Arday’s case, many people did not show that restraint.

Whatever the historical record eventually shows about Arday’s scholarship, the record already shows how his case was handled while questions remained open, which has been deplorable. The way in which the matter has been handled deserves as much scrutiny as the plagiarism allegations themselves.

May Dr. Jason Arday rest in peace. May his family, friends, and those who cared about him find solace and healing.

References

Ahmed, A. (2026, August 15). Tributes paid to Jason Arday after former Cambridge professor’s death. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/15/jason-arday-tributes-paid-to-former-cambridge-professor

Eaton, S. E. (2024). Future-proofing integrity in the age of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology: prioritizing human rights, dignity, and equity. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00175-2

Hui, S. (2026, August 15). UK’s leader calls for reflection after the death of former Cambridge professor accused of plagiarism. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/britain-jason-arday-cambridge-death-burnham-b9e2463ca6b474ac90cc6196ed668238

McArthur, T. (2026, August 14). Jason Arday, ex-Cambridge professor at centre of plagiarism row, found dead. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1j1ye6n30no

Pavlova, I. (2026, August 12). Beyond “Did He Plagiarize?”: What the Jason Arday Case Reveals About Academic Integrity in a Postplagiarism Era. Postplagiarism Blog. https://postplagiarism.com/2026/08/12/beyond-did-he-plagiarize-what-the-jason-arday-case-reveals-about-academic-integrity-in-a-postplagiarism-era

Red Deer Advocate Staff. (August 4, 2026). Missing Red Deer man found deceased. Red Deer Advocate. https://reddeeradvocate.com/2026/08/04/missing-red-deer-man-found-deceased/

United Nations. (2021). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

___________

Share this post – Dignity, Grief, and the Case of Jason Arday – https://drsaraheaton.com/2026/08/16/dignity-grief-and-the-case-of-jason-arday/

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Comments Off on Dignity, Grief, and the Case of Jason Arday | academic integrity, education, plagiarisim | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.

Decriminalizing the Language of Academic Integrity

October 2, 2025

The first time I heard about decriminalizing the language and processes we use to address cases of plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct; I was riveted. It was at an academic integrity conference in Richmond, Virginia and the lead presenter was Dr. James Earl Orr, who presented together with students on how a developmental and supportive approach to academic misconduct case management can help lead students towards academic success while still holding them responsible for their behaviour.  James Earl Orr, writing together with Karita Orr, published an excellent article on using restorative practices to resolve academic integrity violations.

When I was writing the University of Calgary’s academic integrity Handbook for Academic Staff and Teaching Assistants, I took the opportunity to apply what I had learned from listening to Dr. Orr at conferences and reading his work by including a section on how to decriminalize the language we use to talk about academic misconduct.

Academic integrity violations are rarely criminal in nature and yet, much of the language we use when addressing plagiarism and academic cheating is legalistic, setting the stage for criminalizing student behaviour. One step towards taking a more learner-centred approach to misconduct is to decriminalize the language we use to talk about breaches of academic integrity.

Front cover: Student Academic Integrity Faculty Handbook
Front cover of the Student Academic Integrity Faculty Handbook, published by the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning at the University of Calgary

The following is an excerpt from the University of Calgary’s academic integrity Handbook for Academic Staff and Teaching Assistants that provides practical guidance on how to do this:

“We know that words matter and the language we use is important. A full list of terms related to academic misconduct is available in our policy. It should be noted that the terms “academic integrity” and “academic misconduct” are not interchangeable.

Academic integrity is about acting ethically in teaching, learning and research contexts. We do not report, investigate or manage cases of academic integrity. We report, investigate and manage cases of academic misconduct.

Academic misconduct is what happens when individuals do not act with integrity. This is currently the language used in our policy and procedures. When speaking and writing about academic misconduct, we can use the terms “breaches of integrity or “violations of integrity” as synonyms for academic misconduct.

At the University of Calgary we take a proactive approach to academic integrity, including in the language we use and in keeping the focus on teaching, learning and fairness to students. In our conversations with students and others, it can be helpful to use the language of integrity that focuses on education and support” (Eaton, 2022, p. 13).

See the table below, which is also an expert from our handbook (with a few minor updates):

The language of academic integrity

Preferred
language		Language
to avoid 		Explanation
Hold responsible Guilt
Guilty
The words “guilt” and “guilty” do not appear anywhere in our
polices or procedures. We do not find students guilty of academic misconduct, but instead we hold them responsible for their
behaviours.
Sanctions
Consequence
Outcome		Punish
Punishment
When disciplinary actions are taken in response to academic
misconduct, we do not use the terms “punish” or “punishment”
in our institutional documents. We opt instead for “sanctions”,
“discipline,” “consequences” or “outcome” which can include educational responses depending on the misconduct.
Hearing Trial 
The University of Calgary does not conduct trials related to
academic misconduct.
In other countries, various forms of academic misconduct can be
considered an offense under the criminal code and students may
be required to attend a criminal trial. That is not the case at the
University of Calgary or anywhere in Canada.
In the case of an appeal, a hearing might occur. In rare cases, an appeal case might escalate to an externally reviewed case in court, but these proceedings are not administered by the university itself.

When I talk about taking a postplagiarism approach to academic integrity I am talking about disrupting historically adversarial and antagonistic approaches to misconduct that pit students against their teachers. It is time to move past crime-and-punishment approaches to student misconduct where students are the villains and teachers are the heroes. When we talk about postplagiarism we talk about social justice and student success as being intertwined, and we focus on students as stewards of the future, who will be best equipped for an increasingly complex world when they understand the importance of ethical decision-making, both in theory and in practice.

Postplagiarism does not mean anything goes, and nor does it mean that we turn a blind eye to misconduct. Postplagiarism is about finding socially just ways to address misconduct include relationally, restoration, and the preservation of dignity and human rights. When we decriminalize language related to student misconduct, we are taking a step towards dignity and   student success.

Our University of Calgary’s academic integrity Handbook for Academic Staff and Teaching Assistants is an open access handbook with a Creative Commons license. This means you can share and adapt the material, providing the original work is properly attributed.

If this is helpful to you, please share this with others.

References and Further Reading

Eaton, S. E. (2022). Student Academic Integrity: A Handbook for Academic Staff and Teaching Assistants. University of Calgary, Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning Guide Series. https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/resources/student-academic-integrity-handbook

Eaton, S. E. (2023). Postplagiarism: Transdisciplinary ethics and integrity in the age of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00144-1

Eaton, S. E. (2025). Global Trends in Education: Artificial Intelligence, Postplagiarism, and Future-focused Learning for 2025 and Beyond – 2024–2025 Werklund Distinguished Research Lecture. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 21(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-025-00187-6

Orr, J. E., & Hall, J. (2018). Student-led case adjudication: Promoting student learning through peer-to-peer engagement. 25th Annual International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) Conference, Richmond, VA.

Orr, J. E., & Orr, K. (2023). Restoring honor and integrity through integrating restorative practices in academic integrity with student leaders. Journal of Academic Ethics, 21, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09437-x

Orr, J. E., & Orren, S. (2018, March 4). The Development & Implementation of a Campus Academic Integrity Education Program. 25th Annual International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) Conference, Richmond, VA.

______________

Share this post: Decriminalizing the Language of Academic Integrity – https://drsaraheaton.com/2025/10/02/decriminalizing-the-language-of-academic-integrity/

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Comments Off on Decriminalizing the Language of Academic Integrity | academic integrity, education, plagiarisim, postplagiarism, students, University of Calgary | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.

How Not to Respond: 5 Mistakes Professors Make After Misconduct Rulings

May 28, 2025

Academic misconduct cases can leave professors feeling frustrated, especially when outcomes don’t align with their expectations. These emotions are understandable and how faculty respond to disappointing rulings can impact their professional standing; relationships with colleagues and students; and future effectiveness in addressing misconduct.

Here are five common mistakes professors make when they disagree with academic misconduct decisions—and better approaches to consider.

1. Venting to Students About the Decision

The Mistake: Discussing the case details or expressing frustration about the ruling with other students, either in class or informal settings.

Why It Backfires: This behavior undermines institutional authority, creates an uncomfortable environment for students, and may violate confidentiality requirements. Students lose confidence in the system and may question whether they’ll receive fair treatment.

Better Approach: Process your concerns through appropriate channels. If you need to discuss the case, speak with department chairs, ombudspersons, or trusted colleagues who understand confidentiality requirements.

2. Making Public Complaints on Social Media or Forums

The Mistake: Posting about the case on social media, academic forums, or other public platforms, even when avoiding specific names.

Why It Backfires: Public complaints damage professional relationships and institutional reputation. Even anonymous posts can often be traced back to their authors. This approach also models poor conflict resolution for students and colleagues.

Better Approach: Use internal grievance procedures or professional development opportunities to address systemic concerns. Focus energy on improving processes rather than criticizing past decisions.

3. Refusing to Participate in Future Misconduct Proceedings

The Mistake: Declining to serve on academic integrity committees or refusing to report suspected misconduct because of disagreement with previous outcomes.

Why It Backfires: Withdrawal from the process eliminates your voice from future decisions and reduces the system’s effectiveness. This stance also shifts additional burden to colleagues who continue participating.

Better Approach: Stay engaged while working to improve the system. Use your experience to advocate for clearer guidelines, better training, or procedural improvements that address your concerns.

4. Treating the Student Differently in Future Interactions

The Mistake: Allowing disappointment about the ruling to affect how you interact with the student in subsequent courses, recommendations, or professional settings.

Why It Backfires: This behavior constitutes unprofessional conduct and potential retaliation. It undermines the educational mission and creates legal risks for both you and the institution.

Better Approach: Maintain professional boundaries and treat all students equitably. If you find it difficult to interact objectively with the student, consider recusing yourself from situations where bias might affect your judgment.

5. Bypassing Established Processes

The Mistake: Going directly to senior administrators, board members, or external parties without following institutional procedures for investigations, appeals, or grievances.

Why It Backfires: Skipping proper channels damages relationships with immediate supervisors and colleagues. It also reduces the likelihood that your concerns will receive serious consideration, as decision-makers prefer to see that established processes were followed.

Better Approach: Work through designated channels first. Document your concerns clearly and present them through official appeal mechanisms. If these prove insufficient, seek guidance from faculty governance bodies or professional organizations.

Moving Forward Constructively

Disagreement with academic misconduct decisions stems from genuine concern for educational standards and fairness. Channel this concern into productive action by focusing on prevention, process improvement, and professional development rather than relitigating past cases.

Consider these constructive alternatives: participate in policy review committees, mentor colleagues on documentation practices, advocate for faculty training on academic integrity, or contribute to scholarship on effective misconduct prevention.

The goal is not to eliminate disagreement with misconduct decisions—different perspectives strengthen academic integrity systems. The goal is to express disagreement in ways that improve outcomes for everyone involved while maintaining the professional standards that serve our educational mission.

________________________

Share this post: How Not to Respond: 5 Mistakes Professors Make After Misconduct Rulings – https://drsaraheaton.com/2025/05/28/how-not-to-respond-5-mistakes-professors-make-after-misconduct-rulings/

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Comments Off on How Not to Respond: 5 Mistakes Professors Make After Misconduct Rulings | academic integrity, education, plagiarisim | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.