The systemic EDI obsession at Cambridge University

This fully explains the deference to Jason Arday

The incredible story of Cambridge University’s youngest ever black professor Jason Arday has exploded across even mainstream media. It exposes the failings of Britain’s elite universities. My own article in today’s Daily Sceptic addresses the story. Allegations of plagiarism, an embellished personal narrative and institutional deference to Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) dominate the narrative. But it is the systemic lack of scrutiny that has prompted many people to ask how universities that supposedly pride themselves on rigorous scholarship and critical inquiry could apparently become so reluctant to ask obvious questions.

The story emerged just as my new book, The Capture of Academia: How Universities Shape Power, Silence Dissent and Influence Society, was published. Anybody wishing to find out how and why a story like Arday’s could happen will find it all explained in the book.

The overbearing EDI governance within universities is a recurring them in the book. And, of course especially relevant to the Arday case is the EDI governance at Cambridge University. Here is a section of the book that covers this:

Section 4.7 Cambridge University: EDI gatekeeping mechanism

The University of Cambridge has formalised the infiltration of EDI ideology into recruitment and promotion through its centrally mandated Behavioural Attributes Framework (BAF). Issued by the HR department and referenced in job advertisements and promotion criteria across the institution, the framework is neither optional nor advisory. It functions as what I regard as an institutionalised mechanism through which ideological conformity is assessed, enforced, and rewarded^.

The framework defines behavioural attributes as measurable characteristics that “differentiate effective and ineffective performance” and claims predictive power about job success. Although this appears benign, in practice it represents a radical distortion of academic priorities by elevating ideological compliance, particularly on EDI, above demonstrable scholarly achievement.

The framework’s stated purpose is to identify what separates “best practice from the rest” and which qualities enable individuals to advance the University’s “organisational or institutional goals”. The critical question, therefore, is what Cambridge now understands those goals to be. The answer becomes clear once the attributes are examined in detail.

Most attributes, such as Achieving Results, Communication, Innovation and Change, or Strategic Focus, are graded across multiple levels (A–D), reflecting differences in role, responsibility, and seniority. This is sensible.

That logic collapses entirely for the attribute labelled Valuing Diversity. Unlike all others, it has only a single permissible level, A. There is no gradation, no role-specific relevance, and no scope for professional discretion. Either the applicant fully satisfies the prescribed ideological standard, or they fail.

The sole level A reads:

Considers and respects the ideas, circumstances and feelings of others. Treats everyone with fairness and respect, adhering to the principles of diversity and inclusion.

While superficially this sounds unobjectionable, the accompanying indicators, reveal something that I believe is rather sinister. Applicants are expected to promote an “inclusive environment”, “challenge or report attitudes deemed inappropriate”, and affirm a “broad range of social and cultural customs, beliefs and values”. This is not about basic professionalism, already governed by law, but about active participation in EDI enforcement.

Crucially, Cambridge job advertisements now require applicants to provide written evidence demonstrating compliance with these attributes. Failure to satisfy selection panels trained in EDI orthodoxy is enough to block appointment or promotion, irrespective of academic merit.

The weighting makes the priorities unmistakable. In every advertisement found while writing this chapter, Valuing Diversity was required at its (only) level A, while core academic attributes were required only at lower levels (C or D):

Here is an extract from a job advertisement:

“This section summarises the behavioural attributes (or competencies) that we expect the role holder to be able to demonstrate, at what level and whether this is an essential or desirable requirement. Full definitions are at:

www.hr.admin.cam.ac.uk/policies-procedures/behavioural-attributes

Please reflect on these and provide specific examples in your application of how you have demonstrated these attributes in your work, education or other experience. It will assist your application if you explain the situation, what you did and what the outcomes were.”

This makes it unambiguous that ideological alignment on EDI is considered more essential at a university where people likely assume the opposite would be true; that excellence, productivity, leadership, or strategic vision would count above all else.

Applicants sceptical of EDI doctrine, committed to merit-based assessment, or unwilling to engage in performative activism are disadvantaged, while the expectation to “challenge or report” others fosters surveillance and self-censorship.

By making “Valuing Diversity” non-negotiable while downgrading academic results, I believe Cambridge has institutionalised a system in which conformity outweighs competence.

---