Nathan Cofnas, UGent University and Academical Freedom - Universities Should Investigate Facts, Not Condemn Researchers
The suspension of Nathan Cofnas by Ghent University (UGent) raises a fundamental question about academic freedom. Rector Petra De Sutter and her university say they want to combat discrimination, hatred, and racism. That should, in itself, go without saying. But a university in particular must continue to distinguish between discrimination against individuals and research or criticism whose conclusions are perceived as controversial, unpleasant, or even offensive. When that distinction disappears, the university risks changing from a research institution into a political and moral arbiter.
Cofnas was preventively suspended on August 20 while UGent investigates whether there are sufficient grounds to refer his case to a disciplinary body. At the same time, the university emphasises that it does not wish to prejudge the outcome. That is essential. Declaring a researcher guilty before carefully establishing exactly which rules he has violated would run counter to the standards that a university itself ought to defend.
The case is particularly charged because of Jason Arday. Nathan Cofnas made serious allegations about Arday’s academic work and public life story. Media subsequently reported, among other things, that more than one hundred passages in Arday’s doctoral dissertation were allegedly identical or nearly identical to previously published work. Arday denied plagiarism, while he later revised some other claims about his achievements. His university, Cambridge, was consequently also faced with difficult questions to answer.
Arday’s tragic death, however, must not be used to establish a causal link to Cofnas without evidence. At present, a judicial investigation into the circumstances of Arday’s death is still ongoing. The police do not consider the circumstances suspicious, while the coroner believes that further investigation is necessary because of indications of a potentially unnatural death. Anyone who now definitively claims that Cofnas was responsible for Arday’s death is therefore getting ahead of the facts.
That does not mean Cambridge should escape scrutiny. On the contrary. If it subsequently emerges that there were serious problems with the academic work or the presentation of the achievements of someone appointed as a professor, there should be an investigation into how the selection and review procedures functioned. A university has a responsibility, both to its academics and to the public, to base appointments on verifiable academic quality.
This is where the affair touches on academic freedom. Science can function only when hypotheses, data, publications, and academic qualifications may be critically examined. The identity of the person making the criticism, or of the person being criticized, should not determine whether facts may be investigated. The same standard should apply to everyone.
For precisely that reason, UGent’s broader direction is also relevant. In recent years, the university has decided to phase out various collaborations with Israeli institutions when its human rights committee assessed those partners negatively. In 2026, it accelerated its withdrawal from five Horizon projects. This is, incidentally, not the same as a complete boycott of all Israeli academic institutions: UGent has so far not introduced such a general boycott. However, UGent does apply double standards. There are plenty of universities in non-democratic countries around the world with poor human-rights records, yet only Israeli institutions that rank among the world’s best (UGent itself is not in the top 100) are being boycotted under De Sutter.
Nevertheless, a pattern is emerging that may legitimately be discussed critically. A university must guard against allowing social pressure, activism, or political sensitivities to become more decisive than consistent, predetermined academic standards. When a controversial researcher becomes subject to disciplinary measures, it must therefore be crystal clear which specific rule of conduct has been violated, rather than merely that his conclusions are considered offensive or socially undesirable.
In the interview with TRIGGERnometry released on August 26, Nathan Cofnas is given ample opportunity to present his own side of the affair. The program explicitly presents him as a controversial researcher and discusses both the Arday case and what Cofnas himself has experienced in recent weeks. The interview does not have to persuade anyone to adopt his views. Its value lies precisely in allowing listeners to assess his arguments directly rather than solely through supporters or opponents.
This brings us to the fundamental point of academic freedom: freedom of research does not mean that every theory is correct. Nor does it mean that academics are exempt from criticism or disciplinary rules. It does mean, however, that controversial claims should in principle be challenged with arguments, methodology, data, and further research.
A thought from Ayn Rand is relevant here: “The smallest minority on earth is the individual.” Her broader point was that individual rights become meaningless when people are ultimately treated only as members of groups. There is an important lesson here for universities. Anyone who is genuinely opposed to discrimination must ultimately judge researchers and students as individuals: on their actions, arguments, and work, not on their skin color, background, religion, or group identity.
UGent should therefore not determine which researchers are socially acceptable, but whether academic and professional rules have actually been violated. And Cambridge should critically examine how its own procedures concerning Arday functioned. Universities do neither minorities nor science any favours when different standards are applied. Equal treatment ultimately means something very simple: the same rules, the same evidence, and the same intellectual freedom for everyone.
This is where UGent, under De Sutter’s leadership, is once again getting it wrong.
Woke ideology and DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) are in retreat throughout the West, except at Petra De Sutter’s UGent.
Imagecredits: Tim Alex via Unsplash
