The tragic death of Jason Arday has provoked strong feelings across academia and beyond. The former University of Cambridge professor was found dead nine days after resigning from his post amid allegations of plagiarism and doubts over his life story. At the time of his resignation, he issued a statement saying: “I no longer wish to feel as though I am living under a constant spotlight, where every aspect of my life is subject to public examination and judgement.”

Debate has continued with the publication in the UK of his memoirs.

There was a clear public interest in the allegations against Arday. Yet, as the head of the School of Journalism, Media and Culture at Cardiff University Matt Walsh, recently reflected, “the penalty he paid … was out of all proportion to any offence he may have committed”. Walsh, (a Trustee of The Conversation UK) counted 242 articles about Arday in British newspapers between July 25 and August 20.

Cambridge University Chancellor Chris Smith spoke of a “racist feeding frenzy” that had centred on Arday. A joint statement from Amnesty UK’s anti-racism and disabled people’s networks warned that “accountability cannot become a licence for dehumanisation. Public discussion must not devolve into relentless speculation, humiliation, harassment and digital bullying”.

As a cultural historian, the scapegoat was the archetype that came to mind for me as scrutiny of Arday intensified. Public interest and truth do not operate in a social vacuum, and nor are they doled out equally regardless of colour. Arday’s alleged wrongdoing became a racialised........

© The Conversation