DEI-obsessed Cambridge prof accused of plagiarism claimed racists sent severed pig’s head to his family home ⁠69%

By Ben Tumulty⁠79%

8/3/2026, 5:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Burden of Proof as the most egregious example at 42.3% saturation with 187 hits. Analysis detected 1,416 faulty-reasoning hits from 442 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠69% (10,156 of 31,966 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.20% of the article peer group.

Cambridge professor Jason Arday is facing fresh scrutiny after police contradicted his claim that officers investigated the alleged delivery of a severed pig's head to his family home, while the University of Glasgow has also rejected a claim contained in his official Cambridge biography. 
The latest revelations deepen a growing controversy surrounding the sociology of education professor, who is already embroiled in an international plagiarism scandal after analysis of his PhD thesis allegedly identified more than 180 identical or near-identical passages matching another student's work. 
Professor Arday previously claimed in newspaper interviews that a severed pig's head had been delivered to his parents' home in south London as part of a campaign of racist intimidation following his appointment as the University of Cambridge's youngest Black professor in 2023. 
He reportedly said he intercepted the package before later informing police, who he claimed investigated the incident and even traced the purchase of a whole pig from a local butcher. 
However, the Metropolitan Police has now confirmed it has no record of any report involving a pig's head, no record of any investigation and no evidence that officers visited butcher shops in connection with the allegation. 
The butcher identified by Professor Arday also reportedly told journalists that police had never visited the premises, saying it was the sort of incident staff would have remembered. 
According to reports, Professor Arday was unable to produce photographs of the alleged package or messages discussing the incident with family, friends or police. 
Further questions have also emerged over claims that he was twice confronted inside his Cambridge faculty building by a masked man, including one alleged incident in which the intruder reportedly threatened him with a knife if he did not resign. 
The incidents were reportedly never reported to police at the time, colleagues were not informed, and no suspicious individual was captured on CCTV. 
When questioned about the allegations, Professor Arday reportedly responded: "To be honest with you, I thought you'd just believe me. 
Why would I lie? 
I can't make people believe me. 
Nobody lives their life having a receipt for every single thing they say or they've done." 
Meanwhile, a further discrepancy has emerged involving Professor Arday's official academic biography. 
The Herald reported that the University of Glasgow denied he had ever held a visiting professorship there, directly contradicting a claim previously contained on his University of Cambridge profile. 
Cambridge University has declined to comment on the specific allegations but has continued to back Professor Arday, describing him as the victim of a "vile campaign to undermine his credibility." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 28.1%Ben Tumulty: 5.1%Human Events: 4.1%Confirmation Bias28.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.9%Human Events: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Ben Tumulty: 4.4%Human Events: 3.9%Availability Heuristic9.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.6%Human Events: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.4%Human Events: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.5%Human Events: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Ben Tumulty: 13.3%Human Events: 9.7%Framing Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.2%Human Events: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 9.7%Ben Tumulty: 1.1%Human Events: 0.7%Status Quo Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.2%Human Events: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.6%Human Events: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 1.9%Human Events: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 38.2%Ben Tumulty: 17.3%Human Events: 12.4%Negativity Bias38.2%This article: 14.9%Ben Tumulty: 2.0%Human Events: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias14.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.6%Human Events: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.5%Human Events: 0.5%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 1.6%Human Events: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 2.8%Human Events: 3.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Ben Tumulty: 1.3%Human Events: 1.2%Halo Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 1.0%Human Events: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.0%Human Events: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 19.0%Ben Tumulty: 3.1%Human Events: 1.8%Recency Bias19.0%This article: 3.6%Ben Tumulty: 0.5%Human Events: 0.6%Primacy Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.0%Human Events: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Ben Tumulty: 2.9%Human Events: 1.8%Ad Hominem3.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.2%Human Events: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.3%Ben Tumulty: 2.3%Human Events: 2.5%Appeal to Authority13.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 1.5%Human Events: 2.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 2.2%Human Events: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.0%Human Events: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 27.4%Ben Tumulty: 7.5%Human Events: 7.7%Hasty Generalization27.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 1.1%Human Events: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.5%Human Events: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 22.4%Ben Tumulty: 8.7%Human Events: 7.6%Appeal to Emotion22.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 1.1%Human Events: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 2.5%Human Events: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.5%Human Events: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 42.3%Ben Tumulty: 2.2%Human Events: 1.1%Burden of Proof42.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.2%Human Events: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.3%Human Events: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 15.4%Ben Tumulty: 2.6%Human Events: 2.8%Anecdotal15.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.4%Human Events: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 22.6%Ben Tumulty: 1.1%Human Events: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)22.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.0%Human Events: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.1%Human Events: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.0%Human Events: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.3%Human Events: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.2%Human Events: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.3%Ben Tumulty: 3.0%Human Events: 2.9%Unattributed Quote14.3%This article: 3.6%Ben Tumulty: 2.2%Human Events: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection3.6%This article: 12.7%Ben Tumulty: 7.1%Human Events: 5.7%Biased Writer Voice12.7%This article: 6.8%Ben Tumulty: 2.0%Human Events: 1.7%Indoctrination6.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.1%Human Events: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 6.0%Human Events: 6.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.7%Human Events: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

442 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers48%attributed speech228writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words14% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%University of Cambridge: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-24.6 ptsWriter: 24.6%University of Cambridge: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%University of Cambridge: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.