18 August 2026
To: The Vice-Chancellor and Senior Leadership of the University of Cambridge
Cc: Relevant disability, equality, staff wellbeing and higher education bodies
Dear Cambridge University
The Commonwealth Disabled Peoples Forum (CDPF) extends its deepest condolences to the family,
friends, colleagues and communities of Professor Jason Arday, an autistic academic and former Professor
of Sociology of Education at the University of Cambridge, following his tragic death.
Professor Arday was an accomplished scholar whose work contributed significantly to conversations
concerning race, inequality, higher education, social justice and inclusion.
His death has nevertheless raised profound questions about the treatment, support and protection of
autistic, neurodivergent and disabled people within higher education settings.
The CDPF writes not to prejudge the circumstances surrounding Professor Arday’s death, nor to attribute
legal responsibility to any individual or Institution. Rather, we believe his death requires serious and
transparent reflection on whether institutions are adequately protecting the dignity, wellbeing, equality and
human rights of autistic and neurodivergent staff.
A Human Rights Issue
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) establishes that
disability rights are human rights.
Several provisions are particularly relevant to the treatment of disabled and neurodivergent people in higher
education.
Article 5 establishes equality and non-discrimination and recognises the importance of reasonable
accommodation.
Article 8 calls for action to combat stereotypes, prejudices and harmful practices relating to persons with
disabilities.
Article 16 recognises the right of persons with disabilities to freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse.
Article 27 recognises the right of persons with disabilities to work on an equal basis with others, including
the right to just and favourable conditions of work, protection from harassment and access to reasonable
accommodation.
These rights must apply throughout a person’s working life, including during periods of conflict, professional
scrutiny, disciplinary processes, public criticism or personal crisis.
Racism, Autism and Intersectional Discrimination
Professor Arday’s experience cannot be understood solely through the lens of autism or disability.
Professor Arday was also a Black academic, and the CDPF believes that the potential intersection between
racism, ableism, neurodivergence and professional power must be explicitly recognised.
There has been significant public concern about the racial dimensions of the scrutiny directed towards
Professor Arday. These concerns should not be dismissed or considered separately from questions about
disability and neurodivergence.
Autistic and neurodivergent scholars from Black and other Global Majority backgrounds may experience
multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination, stereotyping and disadvantage.
The CDPF therefore believes that any meaningful review must consider whether racialised scrutiny, racial
stereotypes and the intersection of race and neurodivergence contributed to the intensity or nature of the
professional and public attention Professor Arday experienced.
Institutions must understand that a person’s experience of discrimination cannot always be separated
neatly into individual categories. Race, disability, neurodivergence and other forms of inequality can
intersect and compound one another.
Media Scrutiny and Psychological Harm
The CDPF fully recognises the fundamental importance of freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
Journalists have a legitimate role in investigating institutions and holding individuals and organisations
accountable. However, freedom of expression must coexist with responsibility.
In the digital age, an individual can become the focus of an extraordinary cycle of reporting, commentary,
speculation, social-media amplification and public condemnation. The cumulative impact can be profoundly
different from any single article, post or comment. This raises an important question:
When does legitimate public-interest scrutiny become sustained humiliation, harassment or psychological
harm?
The CDPF is not suggesting that legitimate journalism should be restricted, nor is it making a finding that
media coverage caused Professor Arday’s death. Rather, we believe society must be willing to examine the
potential consequences of sustained public scrutiny, particularly when the individual concerned is disabled,
neurodivergent or otherwise vulnerable to disproportionate social and professional pressures.
Accountability and humanity must coexist.
The Responsibility of Cambridge University
Universities are workplaces, educational institutions and communities. Their responsibilities towards
disabled and neurodivergent staff must therefore extend beyond recruitment.
Meaningful inclusion requires accessible communication, reasonable accommodation, appropriate
workload considerations, protection from discrimination and harassment, psychologically safe working
environments and trusted mechanisms through which staff can seek assistance. Support should not only
become available once an individual reaches a crisis point.
Prevention must be part of inclusion.
The responsibility to protect staff does not end at the university’s physical or digital workplace.
Where an employee becomes the subject of extraordinary and sustained public and media scrutiny,
particularly where that employee is disabled or neurodivergent, the University should have mechanisms to
assess the potential impact on that individual’s wellbeing and to provide appropriate support and protection.
Cambridge could not control what journalists or members of the public chose to publish. However, the
University had a responsibility to consider whether Professor Arday was experiencing an exceptional level
of pressure and whether additional measures, reasonable accommodations, welfare support or other
protections were necessary.
An employer’s responsibility to support a disabled employee does not disappear when the source of the
pressure comes from outside the institution.
The CDPF believes universities must have clear procedures for responding when external media attention,
online harassment or public scrutiny creates a significant risk to the wellbeing of a disabled or
neurodivergent member of staff.
This is particularly relevant to Article 16 of the UNCRPD, concerning protection from exploitation, violence
and abuse, and Article 27, concerning the right to work in just and favourable conditions and to be
protected from harassment.
The question for Cambridge is therefore not whether it could have prevented the media from reporting on
Professor Arday.
The question is whether everything reasonably possible was done to protect and support an autistic
member of its academic community who was experiencing extraordinary public pressure.
For autistic academics in particular, institutional systems should recognise that communication, sensory
environments, workplace expectations and crises may create barriers that are not experienced in the same
way by non-autistic colleagues.
The responsibility cannot rest entirely on the individual to repeatedly disclose, explain and advocate for
their needs.
The CDPF’s Call to the University of Cambridge
The Commonwealth Disabled Peoples Forum respectfully calls upon the University of Cambridge to
consider an independent and transparent review of the systems available to autistic, neurodivergent and
disabled staff.
Such a review should examine:
- Whether reasonable accommodations are accessible, effective and consistently implemented.
- Whether autistic and neurodivergent staff have access to appropriate wellbeing and crisis support.
- Whether staff have safe and confidential mechanisms through which to raise concerns.
- How the University responds when a disabled or neurodivergent staff member becomes subject to
extraordinary media or online scrutiny. - Whether existing policies adequately address discrimination, harassment and psychological safety.
- Whether institutional procedures are accessible to autistic and neurodivergent staff.
- Whether the University’s policies and practices reflect the principles of Articles 5, 8, 16 and 27 of the
UNCRPD. - Whether autistic and neurodivergent staff -particularly those from Global Majority backgrounds are
meaningfully involved in developing the policies and support systems that affect them. - Whether stronger independent mechanisms are required to support disabled staff when institutional
processes themselves become a source of significant distress.
A Wider Commonwealth Responsibility
This issue extends beyond Cambridge. Universities throughout the Commonwealth employ thousands of
disabled and neurodivergent academics and professional staff. The CDPF therefore believes that Professor
Arday’s death should encourage universities, governments and other institutions to examine whether their
policies genuinely uphold the principles of the UNCRPD.
We should not wait for another tragedy before asking whether our systems are working.
We should not require an autistic academic to reach breaking point before meaningful support becomes available. And inclusion should not be measured simply by whether autistic people are allowed through the door.
True inclusion means creating environments in which autistic and neurodivergent people can belong,
participate, contribute and thrive.
Professor Arday’s Legacy
Professor Arday’s life and contribution to higher education should not be reduced to the controversy
surrounding the final period of his life.
He was an autistic academic who achieved extraordinary things in a system that has historically excluded
many people who think, communicate and experience the world differently.
His life and death should compel institutions to examine whether they are genuinely prepared to support
autistic people not only in moments of achievement, but also during periods of vulnerability and crisis.
We must be able to hold people accountable without destroying their humanity, able to investigate without
humiliating and disagree without dehumanising.
The UNCRPD provides a human-rights framework for achieving this. The responsibility now lies with
institutions to ensure that these principles exist not merely on paper, but in the everyday experiences of
disabled people.
The CDPF therefore calls for meaningful reflection, independent scrutiny and concrete action to ensure that
the dignity, equality, safety and human rights of autistic, neurodivergent and disabled staff are protected.
Professor Jason Arday’s life mattered. His contribution mattered. His humanity mattered.
The CDPF extends its deepest condolences to his family, friends, colleagues and all those who knew and
loved him.
May his legacy become a catalyst for meaningful and lasting change.
Issued on behalf of the Commonwealth Disabled Peoples Forum
Yours sincerely,
Dr Emile Gouws
Representative of underrepresented groups