Global Pulse

分类： education

  • UK’s leader calls for reflection after the death of former Cambridge professor accused of plagiarism

    UK’s leader calls for reflection after the death of former Cambridge professor accused of plagiarism

    The sudden, unexpected death of 41-year-old Jason Arday — Cambridge University’s youngest Black professor, who resigned just days earlier amid a heated public scandal over academic plagiarism allegations — has thrown the United Kingdom into a fierce national debate about racial bias, academic accountability, and the escalating culture wars surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies in higher education.

    Arday, who held a position as professor of sociology of education, was found unresponsive at a residential address in south London on Friday afternoon. London’s Metropolitan Police confirmed the death is being treated as unexpected but not suspicious, consistent with a voice note Arday sent to a close friend earlier that same day, in which he said he “felt he couldn’t go on.”

    The controversy surrounding Arday began last month, when Nathan Cofnas, a former Cambridge philosophy researcher who left the institution after widespread protests against his public criticism of DEI initiatives, publicly raised questions about Arday’s academic qualifications. Cofnas has previously claimed that in a purely merit-based system, Black people “would disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment.”

    Following Cofnas’s initial claims, British media outlets published reports alleging that more than 100 passages from Arday’s 2015 PhD thesis were identical or nearly identical to work completed by another scholar years earlier. Reporters later challenged other personal and professional claims Arday had made over his career, including assertions that he had raised £5.5 million ($7.4 million) for charity through extreme athletic feats — such as running 30 marathons in 35 days and 600 miles in six days — and that he had overcome severe developmental delays that left him non-verbal until age 11. Arday, who publicly shared his diagnosis of autism, stated he could not read or write until he was 18 years old. He later revised his charity fundraising claims after the scrutiny emerged.

    Arday formally resigned from his Cambridge post on August 5. While he never admitted to intentional plagiarism, he acknowledged he had made accidental errors during his doctoral work. Initially, Cambridge University stood by Arday, noting that the original plagiarism claims had already been reviewed by Liverpool John Moores University, the institution that awarded his doctorate. But the university reversed its position shortly after, opening a formal investigation into Arday’s qualifications and honorary appointments, and announcing a broader institutional review of its senior hiring practices in response to the controversy.

    In the wake of Arday’s death, his family released a harrowing statement confirming he had endured years of targeted abuse and harassment dating back to the start of his tenure at Cambridge. “The campaign of misinformation was too much for Jason,” the family said, through his UK publisher Simon & Schuster. “We are in shock to have lost this amazing father, partner, brother, uncle and son.”

    Prominent academic figures have echoed the family’s claims that the scrutiny of Arday crossed far beyond legitimate accountability into cruel, disproportionate targeting. Simon Baron-Cohen, a leading Cambridge professor and director of the university’s Autism Research Centre, told the BBC that Arday was “subjected to relentless scrutiny, including ridicule, discrediting absolutely every detail of his life, and he wasn’t coping with the loss of his career, the loss of his reputation.”

    Critics of the media and anti-DEI campaigners argue that the allegations against Arday were deliberately inflated to serve broader ideological attacks on diversity policies, amplified by racial bias that turned a routine academic inquiry into a public execution. Supporters of this view include London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who said Arday had been “the victim of a pernicious public shaming that other people in his position simply wouldn’t have faced.” Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union, added that the situation had unleashed widespread harm to underrepresented scholars: “There is a profound difference between scrutiny and a sustained public campaign that turns an individual into a symbol of everything the right believes is wrong with DEI. The effect has been chilling. It tells Black people and others from underrepresented backgrounds that entering prominent public positions will make you a target.”

    Not all public commentary has placed blame solely on Arday’s accusers, however. Former Conservative home secretary James Cleverly, who is Black, argued on social media platform X that academic leaders also bear responsibility for Arday’s death. “They put him into positions he was clearly not qualified for so they could have a Black wunderkind to show off; they pushed him into the spotlight for their own benefit,” Cleverly wrote.

    UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham called for deliberate reflection rather than hasty conclusions in comments to reporters on Saturday. “It’s a tragedy on so many levels,” Burnham said. “It’s not a moment for any rushing to judgment. It’s a moment for reflection, I would say, reflecting on how things came to this.” Deborah Prentice, Cambridge’s vice chancellor, said the university community was “desperately saddened” by Arday’s death, and the institution has pledged to follow through on its promised review of appointment processes.

  • Ex-Cambridge professor at centre of plagiarism scandal found dead

    Ex-Cambridge professor at centre of plagiarism scandal found dead

    A 41-year-old academic who made history as the University of Cambridge’s youngest Black professor, before resigning last week amid a heated plagiarism scandal, has been found dead in south London, the elite British university confirmed.

    Jason Arday, who left his post as a professor and his fellowship at Jesus College on 5 August following the eruption of multiple public accusations, was found unresponsive on Friday afternoon at a residential address in the Battersea neighborhood of London. London’s Metropolitan Police Service confirmed that officers were called to the site by the London Ambulance Service, and that the 41-year-old man was pronounced dead at the scene. Next-of-kin have been notified, and police said the death is currently treated as unexpected but not suspicious. A full report will be prepared for the local coroner, with the investigation ongoing under the Met’s Central South Command Unit.

    “We are desperately saddened to hear this tragic news,” University of Cambridge Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice said in an official statement. “Our heartfelt sympathies go to Jason Arday’s family and friends at this incredibly difficult time.”

    UK Education Secretary Lucy Powell also released a statement saying she was “deeply shocked and saddened” by the news, calling on the public to respect the family’s privacy during the grieving period, reminding people “there are real people with loved ones involved.”

    The controversy that engulfed Arday began in July, when Nathan Cofnas, a US academic and self-described “race realist” whose research affiliation with Cambridge ended earlier this 2024 over his own allegations of racism, published public claims that Arday had plagiarized multiple sections of his doctoral dissertation from other scholars’ work. Right-wing British newspapers and commentators quickly amplified the allegations, arguing Arday had been given an unfair advantage through the university’s diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) hiring policies.

    Major UK outlets including The Times and The Telegraph published a series of investigative pieces that also disputed other claims Arday had made about his personal life, including assertions he had run 30 marathons in 35 days and raised millions of pounds for charity.

    Shortly after the university launched formal probes into the allegations, Arday announced his resignation. In a public letter posted online following his exit, he wrote that stepping down was “the only way” to end a “difficult period,” but stressed the decision should not be “mistaken for an acceptance of the narratives that have surrounded me.” In an interview with The Times earlier this August, Arday acknowledged he had made academic “mistakes” in his work, but pushed back against claims he was an “academic fraud,” arguing the campaign to remove him from his post was racially motivated.

    The scandal quickly fractured the Cambridge campus and wider academic community, with two competing factions issuing open letters to university leadership. One group of senior academics called for an independent investigation into Arday’s appointment, while other scholars signed a separate letter in support of Arday, rejecting attempts to use the controversy to generalize about minority academics.

    Earlier this week, Prentice addressed the growing divide, describing the alleged misconduct as “an aberration” and promising a thorough, transparent probe that would include independent academic investigators from outside Cambridge. She also stressed that the controversy should not be used “to cast aspersions” on other ethnic minority academics working at the institution.

    Just one day before Arday’s death, his memoir *Great and Unfortunate Things* was published in the United States, with a UK release scheduled for later this August. The book has also come under public scrutiny amid the ongoing scandal.

  • Youngest Black professor at Cambridge resigns as university investigates allegations of plagiarism

    Youngest Black professor at Cambridge resigns as university investigates allegations of plagiarism

    LONDON – In a development that has rocked UK academia, Jason Arday, the British sociologist who made history as the youngest Black professor appointed to the University of Cambridge, has stepped down from his post just months after his high-profile appointment, following the university’s launch of a formal investigation into newly emerged information about his academic credentials.

    Arday, who was 37 when he assumed his professorship at one of the world’s most elite higher education institutions in 2023, announced his resignation late Wednesday. The announcement comes after weeks of swirling public allegations ranging from plagiarism in his published academic work to scrutiny of unsubstantiated claims he made about past athletic achievements and charitable fundraising efforts.

    In an official statement released through the Good Law Project, a UK-based campaigning legal organization, Arday pushed back against the nature of the scrutiny he has faced. “While criticism is an inevitable part of academic life, what I have experienced has gone far beyond scholarly disagreement,” he wrote. “The relentless accusations, speculation and public commentary have taken a profound toll on me and on those I love.”

    Arday’s 2023 appointment to Cambridge was widely celebrated across global higher education circles, in large part because of his widely shared personal narrative of overcoming profound neurodevelopmental challenges. Arday has long spoken publicly about living with dyslexia, autism and developmental delays that left him non-verbal until age 11 and illiterate until his late teens, a story that positioned him as a powerful advocate for underrepresented and neurodivergent scholars.

    Public questions about Arday’s academic credentials were first raised last month by Nathan Cofnas, a former philosophy researcher at Cambridge who left the institution after widespread student protests against his public criticism of university diversity, equity and inclusion policies. On July 24, the *Times of London* published a detailed analysis of Arday’s 2015 PhD thesis, pointing to dozens of passages that the paper described as “identical or near-identical” to content from an earlier academic paper written by an unrelated researcher.

    Initially, Cambridge defended Arday, noting that the original plagiarism claims had already been reviewed by Liverpool John Moores University, the institution that granted Arday his doctoral degree. That position shifted abruptly this week, after the *Times of London* presented university leadership with new evidence alleging that portions of Arday’s research were fabricated and included what the paper described as “impossible” supporting data. Within days of receiving that new material, Cambridge confirmed it had launched a formal inquiry into the claims.

    “The University of Cambridge has begun an investigation following new information about Professor Arday’s qualifications and honorary appointments,” the university said in a brief official statement Wednesday. “In order to ensure a fair process, we will not comment further until this has concluded.”

    In an interview with the *Times of London* published last week, Arday outright denied intentional plagiarism, but acknowledged he made minor errors in his doctoral work. He attributed those mistakes to insufficient academic supervision during his PhD studies, a common challenge for early-career researchers at smaller institutions.

    In his resignation statement this week, Arday continued to defend his academic record, stressing that his choice to step down should not be misinterpreted.

    “My decision should not be interpreted as a loss of faith in scholarship,” he said. “Nor should it be mistaken for an acceptance of the narratives that have surrounded me. It is simply the decision of someone who has reached the limits of what any person should reasonably be expected to endure.”

  • Exclusive: Cambridge University backtracks on divesting from arms companies

    Exclusive: Cambridge University backtracks on divesting from arms companies

    Exclusive reporting from Middle East Eye has uncovered that the University of Cambridge has reversed a planned policy that would have paved the way for full divestment from weapons manufacturers, a step that came in direct response to widespread student and faculty campaigning over the institution’s investments linked to Israeli human rights violations.

    Internal documents reviewed by MEE show that on April 16, Cambridge’s top governing body, the University Council, signed off on a new monitoring framework for endowment investments in conventional weapons producers. The framework was developed by the Cambridge University Endowment Trustee Body (CUETB), the body tasked with overseeing the university’s £4.2 billion ($5.74 billion) endowment fund, which is managed day-to-day by University of Cambridge Investment Management Limited (UCIM).

    Under the original policy, the framework was designed to track the endowment’s total exposure to firms that primarily manufacture conventional weapons. If that exposure crossed a pre-set threshold as a share of total fund assets, mandatory discussions would be launched with UCIM to outline a timeline for reducing those holdings. In July 2026, CUETB went a step further, setting the threshold for arms investments at zero percent — a historic decision that would have required divestment talks for any level of investment in weapons companies, effectively committing the institution to full divestment.

    This policy was developed by a 2024 university working group convened after student activists with Cambridge for Palestine set up on-campus encampments to demand the university cut financial ties with firms enabling Israeli occupation and human rights abuses in Gaza and the West Bank. The policy reaffirmed commitments the university made to academic staff just one month ago, when the Council publicly stated it would move to reduce arms investments that crossed the established threshold.

    However, multiple anonymous sources with direct knowledge of the internal decision-making process told MEE that CUETB has quietly scrapped the original plan, replacing it with a new policy that removes any requirement to reduce holdings even if the zero percent threshold is breached. While the zero percent threshold remains on paper, the revised policy no longer mandates action to cut exposure to weapons manufacturers.

    Critically, the non-public policy change was made by CUETB without bringing the decision to a vote before the full University Council, and multiple sitting Council members confirmed to MEE they were never notified of the revision. It remains unclear when the reversal was approved, and the University of Cambridge has not responded to multiple repeated requests for comment from MEE on the policy shift.

    This is not the first time Cambridge has faced scrutiny over its endowment investments. In February 2025, MEE revealed that UCIM had allocated more than £140 million ($189 million) to an S&P 500 fund that holds stakes in multiple companies linked to Israeli human rights violations, including Palantir Technologies, Caterpillar, and GE Aerospace. The university has repeatedly refused to disclose the full list of firms in its endowment portfolio, citing legal confidentiality requirements. Earlier this year, dozens of senior Cambridge academics accused the institution of “maximal obfuscation” over its investments, arguing that the lack of transparency prevents faculty from conducting proper oversight of the endowment’s ties to arms manufacturers.

    A spokesperson for Cambridge for Palestine told MEE that the activist group was “shocked, but not surprised” by the university’s reversal of its public commitments. “The notice in April issued by the University Council made clear that if arms investments were to exceed a yet-to-be-decided threshold of overall investments, then exposure to such investments would be reduced as part of a new monitoring scheme,” the spokesperson said. “Now that this threshold has been set at zero percent, we are hearing that the university has chosen to ignore and sideline its own statements and commitments by removing any process of investment exposure reduction.”

    The spokesperson added that the decision is particularly problematic because it was made unilaterally by the trustee body, rather than going through the university’s formal governance processes. The original divestment motion that launched the working group process has still not been put to a vote before Regent House, Cambridge’s democratic governing body made up of faculty and staff. “The University can backtrack all it likes, and obfuscate language to avoid scrutiny and accountability,” the spokesperson said. “But Cambridge for Palestine re-emphasises that students, staff and local activists will never stop campaigning until the University’s money is used for education as it should be, not for funding war and occupation.”

  • Cambridge professor at centre of plagiarism furore quits

    Cambridge professor at centre of plagiarism furore quits

    A high-profile University of Cambridge academic, who entered the spotlight two years ago as the institution’s youngest Black professor, has stepped down from his posts with immediate effect, bringing a dramatic new turn to a rapidly escalating plagiarism and academic misconduct controversy. Jason Arday, who held a chair in the sociology of education and was a fellow at Jesus College, announced his resignation Wednesday, mere hours after Cambridge University confirmed it had launched a formal investigation into fresh allegations concerning his academic credentials and honorary appointments.

    The scandal first gained public traction when U.S.-based academic Nathan Cofnas, whose research affiliation with Cambridge ended in 2024 following accusations of racism, levied claims that multiple sections of Arday’s doctoral dissertation were copied from other scholars’ work. Beyond the plagiarism allegations, scrutiny has also spread to several personal and professional achievements Arday has cited publicly, including claims that he completed 30 marathons in 35 days and raised millions of dollars for charity, claims that have since been disputed.

    In an open resignation letter posted online, Arday framed his departure as the only viable path forward after an extended period of intense public and institutional pressure. “Quitting is the only way to end a difficult period,” he wrote, adding that his decision should not “be mistaken for an acceptance of the narratives that have surrounded me.” He noted that he had reached the breaking point of what any person could reasonably be expected to endure, while vowing that his departure would be temporary: “This is not the end of my work. I need time to heal… and be myself again. I will return.”

    Arday has long maintained that much of the scrutiny targeting him is rooted in anti-Black racism, a claim he repeated in a recent interview with The Times. During that interview, he acknowledged making unintentional academic “mistakes” but pushed back against efforts to paint him as “a liar, a fantasist and an academic fraud.”

    Cambridge’s decision to open a new investigation marks a notable shift from its position in June, when university officials forcefully defended Arday, describing the criticism against him as a “vile campaign to undermine his credibility.” At that time, the institution stated that prior allegations of plagiarism in Arday’s thesis and journal publications had already been investigated and dismissed by relevant academic bodies and publishing journals. On Wednesday, the university did not elaborate on what new information had prompted the fresh probe, and Jesus College separately confirmed it would launch its own independent inquiry into the matter.

    The controversy has quickly become a polarizing cultural flash point in the United Kingdom, with right-wing media and commentators seizing on the scandal to criticize higher education diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) policies, framing Arday as a prominent example of what they argue are compromised academic standards stemming from DEI initiatives. On the other side of the debate, an open letter in support of Arday, which accuses critics of orchestrating a coordinated attempt to undermine Black academics in positions of influence, has collected more than 15,000 signatures from prominent Black academics, senior Cambridge leaders and other supporters across the higher education sector.

    Arday’s remarkable personal backstory, which he details in an upcoming memoir set for publication this month by U.K. imprint Simon & Schuster UK, has been a core part of his public profile. Diagnosed with autism, Arday has said he remained non-verbal until age 11 and did not learn to read and write until he was 18, rising through academia to become a full professor at Cambridge by 37. Simon & Schuster reaffirmed its support for Arday this week, stating it remains “proud to publish” his story, and noted that no plagiarism allegations have been made against the memoir itself.

  • Oprah Winfrey says she will close her school for girls in South Africa next year

    Oprah Winfrey says she will close her school for girls in South Africa next year

    Nearly two decades after opening a transformative boarding school for disadvantaged young women outside Johannesburg, media mogul and philanthropist Oprah Winfrey has announced that the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls will cease operations at its current campus at the end of 2025, with full ownership transferred to South Africa’s Gauteng provincial education department. The landmark institution, first opened in 2007, grew out of a conversation with anti-apartheid icon and former South African President Nelson Mandela, who emphasized how investing in girls’ education could unlock widespread, lasting change across the continent. Mandela was in attendance at the academy’s grand opening to mark the launch of the project.

    From its inception, the handover of the 52-acre campus to local educational authorities was always part of the core agreement, academy representatives confirmed. The facility, which boasts 21 classrooms, six specialized science and computer labs, a 10,000-volume library, and a 600-seat performance theater, will now be taken over by the Gauteng provincial government, which has not yet announced its long-term plans for the property.

    Winfrey emphasized in a formal statement released Wednesday that the end of operations at the current campus does not mark the end of her commitment to empowering young South African women through education. “The dream was never simply to build a school,” Winfrey said. “It was to invest in the limitless potential of young women. That mission doesn’t end with one campus. It continues in every girl whose future can be transformed through education.”

    Moving forward, Winfrey’s philanthropic organization, the Oprah Winfrey Charitable Foundation, will expand its national scholarship program to support academically gifted girls at top-performing schools across South Africa. To date, more than 500 students have graduated from the Leadership Academy, with many going on to pursue higher education at leading universities in South Africa, the United States, and across Europe.

    Gauteng’s Provincial Minister for Education Lebogang Maile confirmed that current students enrolled at the academy will be able to complete their secondary education without disruption, with full financial support remaining in place through their graduation.

    The academy made global headlines shortly after its opening, when multiple students made accusations of physical and sexual abuse against a residential dormitory matron. Winfrey traveled immediately to South Africa to meet with affected students and their families, issued a public apology for the failure to protect students, and commissioned an independent probe into the allegations. The matron was ultimately acquitted of all criminal charges in a 2010 court ruling.

  • Oprah Winfrey to close her school for girls in South Africa

    Oprah Winfrey to close her school for girls in South Africa

    Nearly two decades after breaking ground on a transformative educational initiative for disadvantaged young women in South Africa, media icon Oprah Winfrey has announced that the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls (OWLAG) will close its current boarding campus at the end of the 2027 academic year, aligning with the original founding agreement for the site. The sprawling campus, located in Henley-on-Klip south of Johannesburg, will then be transferred to local Gauteng provincial education authorities.

    Winfrey’s plan for transitioning the academy ensures no currently enrolled student will face disruption to their studies: any girl who has not completed her degree by the 2027 handover will receive full scholarships to continue their education at other top institutions across the country. Moving forward, Winfrey’s foundation will shift its model from operating a single campus to running a national scholarship program that supports academically gifted girls from low-income communities to attend leading South African schools.

    The idea for OWLAG was first sparked in 2002, when Winfrey met with anti-apartheid icon and former South African president Nelson Mandela. Launched in 2007 at a total cost of $40 million, the boarding school was designed to unlock leadership potential for girls from underserved backgrounds. To date, more than 1,000 students have graduated from the academy, with alumni going on to build successful careers as doctors, lawyers, engineers, corporate executives, entrepreneurs and artists. One 2012 graduate, Andronica Klaas, now serves as a senior engineering lead at global tech giant Meta, who credits the academy with reshaping her worldview. “Every corner of the campus was filled with so much love and care and detail,” Klaas said in comments shared on Winfrey’s Oprah Daily platform. “OWLAG convinced me that preparation, character and purpose mattered more than where I came from.”

    Long circulating online speculation has linked the campus closure to mismanagement, but Nico Olwagen, a public relations consultant for the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy Foundation, has denied these claims. For Winfrey, the transition is not an end to her mission, but an expansion of it. “The dream was never simply to build a school,” the 72-year-old media mogul explained in an official statement. “It was to invest in the limitless potential of young women. That mission doesn’t end with one campus. It continues in every girl whose future can be transformed through education. I’m excited that this next chapter will allow us to reach even more young women across South Africa and continue the promise that began more than 20 years ago.”

    While the future use of the OWLAG campus remains undecided following the handover, Gauteng’s education department has pledged to uphold the institution’s founding legacy. “We will ensure that this exceptional institution continues to serve the people of Gauteng while honouring the vision upon which it was established,” the department said in a statement.

    Throughout its 20-year history, OWLAG has not been without controversy. When the academy first opened, some critics questioned its lavish facilities, which included two theaters, a yoga studio and a beauty salon, arguing that the $40 million investment could have served a larger number of students if distributed across existing public institutions. Just months after opening, the academy also faced scandal when a group of students accused a former staff member of abuse; the staff member was ultimately cleared of all charges. Currently, 281 students are enrolled at the campus.

  • India’s CJP protests: Why tech alone won’t stop exam paper leaks

    India’s CJP protests: Why tech alone won’t stop exam paper leaks

    India’s decades-long battle against entrance exam question paper leaks has boiled over into national crisis in 2026, following widespread countrywide protests over the breach of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), the country’s top medical school entrance exam. The unrest ultimately forced the resignation of India’s education minister, and families of more than 20 students who died by suicide have linked their deaths directly to the uncertainty and despair sparked by the exam scandal.

    In response to the public outrage, Prime Minister Narendra Modi moved quickly to assemble a high-level expert task force led by Nandan Nilekani, co-founder of Indian IT giant Infosys, to overhaul the National Testing Agency (NTA) — the government body that administers the country’s largest national entrance exams. Modi has thrown his support behind a proposal to shift all high-stakes entrance exams from traditional pen-and-paper formats to fully computer-based testing (CBT), framing the digital shift as the most effective path to blocking the recurring leaks that have eroded public trust in India’s education assessment system.

    India’s Supreme Court, which is currently hearing public interest petitions on the proposed reforms, has praised the government’s commitment to addressing the crisis but issued a critical warning: digital testing alone cannot fully eliminate the risk of paper leaks. This caution highlights the core challenge facing the task force: can technology solve a problem that is rooted at its core in weak governance, skewed incentives, and broken public trust, rather than just format?

    Two separate NEET leak incidents, in 2024 and 2026, illustrate just how complicated this issue is, with breaches occurring at very different stages of the exam process to expose systemic flaws. In 2024, the leak occurred after question papers were printed, when sealed transport containers were opened en route to exam centers. Investigators found the breach involved only 40 to 50 connected individuals, and the Supreme Court ruled that the overall integrity of the exam remained intact, rejecting widespread demands for a retest. In contrast, the 2026 leak was traced all the way back to the NTA itself, with internal teachers accused of leaking the papers before they even entered the secure printing and supply chain. Officials confirmed that safeguards for transport, printing, and on-site distribution held firm — the vulnerability existed at the source, long before the secure custody process began.

    V Kamakoti, director of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras and a member of the expert task force, explains that these two incidents lay bare where trust in an examination system ultimately lives. “The roots of trust lie in two places: the teachers who set the question papers and the invigilators who supervise candidates. If either is compromised, the system is vulnerable,” he explained in comments to the BBC.

    Officials have already proposed upgrades including widespread CCTV coverage with live central monitoring, and Kamakoti notes that artificial intelligence can add another layer of security, automatically flagging unusual activity such as prolonged unauthorized contact between invigilators and test-takers to allow for real-time intervention. “At least the invigilator part we can certainly handle,” he said.

    But for Kamakoti, the most significant jump in security will come from a full shift to online, computer-based testing. He argues that CBT would make large-scale entrance exams far more resistant to tampering, noting that “compromising the technology would be extremely difficult” — a claim backed by more than 10 years of successful large-scale digital testing run by IIT Madras.

    IIT Madras already manages Swayam, India’s government-backed national online learning platform, and has administered major high-stakes entrance exams including the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) and the advanced Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) for India’s top engineering colleges via CBT for years. Kamakoti explains that these secure systems use constant red teaming — dedicated teams that continuously probe for vulnerabilities — and air-gapped networks that are physically disconnected from the public internet. “No one can hack into that network,” he says, adding that the systems are built to withstand technical disruptions: if a test-taker’s device crashes or loses power, the exam timer automatically pauses and resumes seamlessly on a replacement machine.

    Even the most robust digital infrastructure, however, cannot eliminate the human element of risk. For Kamakoti, the single greatest challenge remains securing the question-setting process. NEET is one of the world’s largest multilingual entrance exams, administered in 13 languages to more than 2.2 million candidates annually. Creating a single NEET paper requires a large team of subject experts, translators, reviewers, and moderators, numbering around 50 people total. “If even one person in that entire set is compromised, we are gone,” he warned.

    Even with this human risk remaining, CBT does eliminate one major long-standing vulnerability: it removes the need to print, transport, and store millions of physical question papers, the step where many past leaks have occurred.

    So why has NEET not shifted to digital testing already? Kamakoti explains that the test has remained pen-and-paper based to preserve fairness: all test-takers take the exam in a single session to prevent any advantage from question exposure across multiple slots. Currently, India’s national digital testing infrastructure can only accommodate around 300,000 candidates per session, a fraction of NEET’s 2.2 million annual test-takers. A full shift to CBT would therefore require either a massive rapid expansion of testing capacity or splitting the exam across multiple testing sessions, a change that brings its own fairness concerns.

    Not all experts agree that a shift to digital testing alone is enough to solve India’s leak crisis. Debananda Misra, a policy researcher at the IIT Delhi School of Public Policy, agrees that CBT can cut down on opportunities for physical paper leaks, but argues that the current debate has become overly focused on technology as a cure-all.

    “CBT is not a silver bullet,” Misra told the BBC. “It can strengthen exam security and improve efficiency, but it does not address the deeper incentives that drive malpractice.”

    Those incentives are driven by extreme scarcity of high-quality, affordable higher education opportunities. This year, nearly 2.2 million students took NEET, and just over half qualified for medical school admission. But heavily subsidized government medical colleges, where a full degree can cost less than 30,000 rupees (around $313), only have seats for fewer than 6% of qualified candidates — or less than 3% of all students who take the exam. Students who miss out on government seats face private college tuition that can run into hundreds of thousands of rupees, a cost out of reach for most Indian families.

    Investigators say this extreme scarcity has fueled increasingly sophisticated criminal paper-leak networks that connect corrupt insiders, middlemen, and exam center staff. While CBT closes off old vulnerabilities, it creates new ones. Misra notes that even minor technical disruptions can have lasting, unmeasurable impacts on candidate performance: “A non-functional mouse is not just about pausing the timer. It is also about disruption to concentration.”

    Misra also warns that a full shift to CBT risks widening equity gaps in Indian education. Success on digital exams depends not just on subject mastery, but on prior digital experience and access to practice in simulated testing environments — advantages that are heavily concentrated among students who can afford expensive private coaching, and out of reach for many students from low-resourced rural and government schools.

    Most fundamentally, Misra argues that India’s examination system puts too much catastrophic pressure on a single high-stakes test. “As long as a single test determines access to scarce opportunities, there will be strong incentives for exam malpractice, regardless of the testing format,” he said.

    Misra proposes deeper reforms beyond digital testing: stronger governance of exam agencies through tighter protocols, regular independent audits, greater public accountability, and stricter penalties for malpractice. He also suggests structural changes such as random allocation of multiple equivalent question papers, or localized test versions, so that a single breach in one area does not invalidate an entire national exam. Long-term, he argues India must reduce its over-reliance on single high-stakes entrance tests by creating multiple assessment opportunities and broader pathways into higher education.

    “If the purpose is to generate a ranked list and match students to institutions, perhaps we should also think about creating greater diversity on both sides,” he said.

    Prime Minister Modi has repeatedly pledged to crack down on exam fraud, promising since 2023 that the “paper-leak mafia” would be held accountable, saying that “those playing with the future of young people will not be spared,” and framing the government’s response as a “war footing” effort to end leaks. After the 2024 NEET leak, the government appointed a high-level review committee led by India’s former space agency chief that produced the most comprehensive assessment of India’s exam system to date. But reportedly only 57% of the committee’s more than 100 recommendations have been implemented, and leaks have continued to disrupt national exams.

    The task force faces a tight deadline to deliver its overhaul: India’s annual entrance exam season for medicine, engineering, university, and postgraduate programs runs from December through May, so major reforms must be finalized within the next one to two months to be ready for the next cycle.

    Ultimately, experts agree the task force’s success will not be measured by how many exams shift to digital formats, but by whether it can restore the faith of India’s young people that the system that determines their future is fair.

  • Young Japanese artists turn school blackboards into a hit medium for creativity

    Young Japanese artists turn school blackboards into a hit medium for creativity

    In the city of Kumagaya, located just northwest of Japan’s capital Tokyo, a group of young art students at Kumagaya Girls High School are huddled together this July, brainstorming their entry for one of the country’s most unique student art competitions: Kokuban Art Koshien, the annual national chalk-on-blackboard art championship for middle and high school creators.

    Blending the Japanese word for blackboard, *kokuban*, with the name of Japan’s iconic high school baseball national tournament held at Koshien Stadium, the competition has grown steadily since its launch in 2015, drawing roughly 300 participating middle and high schools across the country every year. All works are created directly on classroom blackboards, typically during students’ summer break, and range wildly in scope and theme: from vibrant, dynamic renderings of dinosaurs, marine life and household pets, to reimaginations of classic manga scenes, reproductions of iconic masterworks from Hokusai’s Great Wave off Kanagawa to the Mona Lisa and Da Vinci’s Last Supper, and surreal original concepts like underwater classrooms. Even meta pieces depicting a person writing on a blackboard itself have made appearances. Every entry is a collaborative project, bringing together teams as small as two creators or as large as dozens of students, blending individual creativity with group coordination to bring a shared vision to life.

    Unlike many established fine art forms that prioritize permanent, individual work, Kokuban Art Koshien stands out for its experimental, accessible nature. Kazunari Minamishima, an art instructor at Saitama Prefectural High School of the Arts whose students have competed for years, explains that the medium gives young creators freedom that oil painting, sculpture and other traditional forms do not. “It’s still a work in progress,” he notes of the evolving art form itself.

    The competition was founded by Tokyo-based blackboard manufacturer Nichigaku Co., after company leaders spotted a viral, incredibly detailed replica of Da Vinci’s *Last Supper* drawn anonymously on a Japanese school blackboard. At the time, company president Tomohiro Yoshida explains, while casual chalk drawing was common in schools, there was no formal recognized genre of blackboard art. “Back then, there was graffiti, but there was no genre called blackboard art,” Yoshida says.

    While the contest is not designed as a direct marketing push — all Japanese schools already equip their classrooms with blackboards, after all — Yoshida says he is proud to see many past contestants go on to build careers as professional artists. Because full blackboards cannot be transported for in-person judging, organizers collect high-resolution photographs of each completed work to evaluate, with winners set to be announced this coming November.

    The unique medium of chalk on blackboard also allows for creative techniques that cannot be replicated with traditional paints. Artists dust loose chalk powder across the surface to create a soft, stardust-like glow, smudge pigment with fingers or tissue paper to build muted shadows and gradients, and can even replicate the translucent shine of a dragon’s eyeball with skilled shading. One past award-winning entry even mixed chalk pigment with water and sprayed it onto the blackboard in the style of abstract expressionist Jackson Pollock.

    Open to all Japanese schools, including international institutions, organizers have even expressed hopes of expanding the competition to international participants in coming years. Unlike unpermitted street graffiti common in Western countries, all blackboard art pieces for the competition are created with explicit school permission, reflecting Japan’s emphasis on respect for public spaces and collective order. For participating students, the collaborative process is the biggest draw, even more than winning awards.

    Kento Misumi, who competed in the contest as a high school student and now works for organizer Nichigaku, says the experience taught him far more than individual art creation ever could. “The challenge of trying to sort out the conflicting opinions of my two collaborators is the biggest memory about taking part in blackboard Koshien, as opposed to doing your own artwork,” he explained. Misumi recalled that even a single piece required multiple days of coordinated work from his team, a far more demanding process than many first-time competitors expect. “I want young people today to go through the experience,” he added.

    That spirit of collaborative growth is on full display at Kumagaya Girls High School, where a team of first-time competitors are preparing their 2026 entry, building on the legacy of older students who have won top national prizes in past years. “I see it as a chance to deepen my relationships with my schoolmates,” said Chiho Ninomiya, one of the student participants. “It’s our first time so I’m not sure we will be able to do a good job. But even if we don’t win, it’d have been worth it as long as we become better friends while doing it.”

    For this year’s entry, the team is brainstorming a playful concept: parody spinoffs of classic fine artworks by artists like Renoir, juxtaposed with vivid scenes of uniformed Japanese high school students capturing everyday campus life. Ninomiya notes that working with chalk on blackboard is a very different experience than drawing with pencils or paint, requiring constant adjustment, erasing, and reworking as the team learns the quirks of the medium.

    It is true that after the contest is photographed and judged, every labor-intensive piece will eventually be erased to make the blackboard usable for classes again. Proponents of the competition say this impermanence is part of its unique educational power: it teaches students a quiet lesson about the fragility of creation, the transient nature of life, and the courage to create even when a work will not last forever. For the community of Kokuban Art Koshien, a blackboard chalk drawing is only truly complete the moment it is erased.

  • Tough new anti-racism measure for unis, Education Minister warns more to come

    Tough new anti-racism measure for unis, Education Minister warns more to come

    Australia’s higher education sector is facing sweeping new anti-racism regulations that come into force Monday, the same day a landmark royal commission into antisemitism and social cohesion resumes public hearings in Melbourne, with damning testimony of widespread harassment of Jewish students on campus expected. The changes, announced by Education Minister Jason Clare, require every registered higher education provider across the country to formally adopt official definitions of both antisemitism and Islamophobia, overhaul their student and staff complaint handling processes, and proactively maintain safe, inclusive learning and working environments for all communities.

    Clare told reporters on Sunday that the commission will be presented with what he described as “horrific” evidence from Jewish students who have endured persistent abuse, intimidation, and harassment on Australian university campuses. While the minister acknowledged that some institutions have implemented incremental improvements to their anti-racism frameworks in recent years, he stressed that progress has been far too slow. “There’s a lot more to do,” Clare said, adding that the new rules are just the first phase of broader reform to crack down on inaction by university leadership.

    Alongside new anti-racism requirements, the changes also introduce mandatory University Governance Principles, modeled on the corporate governance standards that apply to publicly listed Australian companies. These new principles, which cover eight core areas including accountability, transparency, inclusivity, diversity of perspective, and sustainability, will become a formal part of national university standards starting Monday. Public universities will now be required to publish detailed public disclosures, including outcomes of governing body meetings, all consultancy spending and its objectives, external professional roles held by vice-chancellors and senior executives, and annual reports detailing executive remuneration. The principles were developed by the Expert Council on University Governance following a 2025 parliamentary inquiry into higher education governance reform, and all institutions will be required to report on their compliance to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), Australia’s higher education regulator.

    The fourth round of royal commission hearings will feature testimony from senior leaders at some of Australia’s most prestigious tertiary institutions, including the Australian National University, the University of New South Wales, the University of Melbourne, and the University of Sydney. The renewed focus on campus racism comes after pro-Palestine protests sparked by the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks and Israel’s subsequent military campaign in Gaza put Australian universities’ response to antisemitism under intense national scrutiny. A 2024 parliamentary inquiry into the issue already documented an “alarming and abhorrent rise in antisemitism amongst students and staff at Australian universities”, finding that widespread reluctance among university administrations to impose meaningful penalties for hateful misconduct allowed toxic campus environments to escalate.

    Clare also outlined plans for further regulatory reform in the coming months, announcing that he will introduce new legislation to strengthen TEQSA’s enforcement powers. Currently, the regulator must launch court proceedings to issue fines against universities that fail to meet national standards. Clare said this cumbersome process is ineffective, and the proposed changes will give TEQSA direct power to impose penalties on non-compliant institutions, giving the watchdog “more teeth” to hold universities accountable for failing to address racism on campus.