Police investigated journalist after he questioned Cambridge ‘DEI champion’ professor Jason Arday’s claims 47%

By Ben Tumulty79%

8/4/2026, 5:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 21.5% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 649 faulty-reasoning hits from 452 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.2% and a BS Rank of 47% (17,086 of 31,979 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 53.40% of the article peer group.

A journalist investigating claims surrounding Cambridge's scandal-hit professor - their self-described 'champion of DEI' - was left stunned after police launched a harassment inquiry into his reporting. 
Times Higher Education reporter Jack Grove told The Telegraph that officers contacted him after a complaint was made over emails he sent to Professor Jason Arday asking questions about his academic record. 
The journalist claims police told him not to contact the professor again because his questions had affected Prof Arday’s “mental health”. 
Mr Grove said he was shocked to discover he had been investigated. 
“I was just doing my job,” he said. 
“Journalists should be free to ask questions of anyone, even star professors.” 
The Metropolitan Police investigated the complaint for four months before closing the case in February. 
Officers did not interview Mr Grove. 
The row began after Mr Grove received information from academics who raised concerns about apparent similarities between parts of Arday’s work and another student’s PhD. 
"Police investigated a journalist who tried to expose a Cambridge professor. 
This is outrageous. 
The police officer who ordered the investigation must be sacked," news presenter Julia Hartley-Brewer said. 
The reporter contacted Arday, Cambridge University and Liverpool John Moores University, where Arday received his doctorate, seeking answers. 
Questions were also raised about claims relating to fundraising achievements and ultra-distance running challenges. 
The investigation prompted legal involvement from the law firm Carter-Ruck, which sent a letter to Times Higher Education suggesting the criticism of Prof Arday “may be” racially motivated. 
Arday has denied wrongdoing and has attributed apparent plagiarism issues to his autism, saying he absorbs information through mimicry. 
He has also acknowledged that some previous claims about his achievements were inaccurate, including a claim that he ran 600 miles in six days for charity. 
Questions have also been raised over claims regarding his charitable fundraising, with Prof Arday previously implying he personally raised £5.5 million alone, which was later proven as false. 
Further controversy emerged after claims were debunked that he had been a visiting professor at Ohio State University, and was threatened by receiving a severed pigs head in what he called a 'racially motivated' attack - also proven false. 
A university spokesperson said there was no record of an employee by that name, while Prof Arday’s profile had listed him as a visiting professor connected with the institution’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion. 
Cambridge University said it did not make any complaint to police against Mr Grove and was not aware of any such complaint being made. 
The Metropolitan Police confirmed it received an allegation of harassment in November 2025 and that the case was closed several months later. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.6%Ben Tumulty: 5.1%Human Events: 4.1%Confirmation Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.9%Human Events: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Ben Tumulty: 4.4%Human Events: 3.9%Availability Heuristic5.5%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: 5.3%Ben Tumulty: 13.3%Human Events: 9.7%Framing Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.2%Human Events: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.7%Ben Tumulty: 1.1%Human Events: 0.7%Status Quo Bias2.7%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: 5.8%Ben Tumulty: 1.9%Human Events: 1.7%Pessimism Bias5.8%This article: 21.5%Ben Tumulty: 17.3%Human Events: 12.4%Negativity Bias21.5%This article: 6.0%Ben Tumulty: 2.0%Human Events: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias6.0%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: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 1.3%Human Events: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%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: 8.6%Ben Tumulty: 3.1%Human Events: 1.8%Recency Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.5%Human Events: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.0%Human Events: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 2.9%Human Events: 1.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.2%Human Events: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 2.3%Human Events: 2.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%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: 15.0%Ben Tumulty: 7.5%Human Events: 7.7%Hasty Generalization15.0%This article: 11.7%Ben Tumulty: 1.1%Human Events: 0.5%Red Herring11.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.5%Human Events: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.4%Ben Tumulty: 8.7%Human Events: 7.6%Appeal to Emotion14.4%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: 2.7%Ben Tumulty: 2.2%Human Events: 1.1%Burden of Proof2.7%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: 2.4%Ben Tumulty: 2.6%Human Events: 2.8%Anecdotal2.4%This article: 5.8%Ben Tumulty: 0.4%Human Events: 0.2%No True Scotsman5.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 1.1%Human Events: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 4.2%Ben Tumulty: 0.3%Human Events: 0.3%Special Pleading4.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Tumulty: 0.2%Human Events: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.6%Ben Tumulty: 3.0%Human Events: 2.9%Unattributed Quote4.6%This article: 2.4%Ben Tumulty: 2.2%Human Events: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 15.7%Ben Tumulty: 7.1%Human Events: 5.7%Biased Writer Voice15.7%This article: 2.7%Ben Tumulty: 2.0%Human Events: 1.7%Indoctrination2.7%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%

452 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers61%attributed speech175writer words
Selected voice

Julia Hartley-Brewer

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words6.5% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.2 ptsWriter: 22.9%Julia Hartley-Brewer: 16.7%16.7%Quote-first Misdirection-6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Julia Hartley-Brewer: 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.