Sources and Notes: Who Is Allowed to Succeed?

This page accompanies the GOOD Thoughts article The Myth of Meritocracy: Who Is Allowed to Succeed?

The article distinguishes between allegations, institutional findings and established facts. Inclusion here does not imply agreement with every argument made by a source. Links were last checked on 23 August 2026.

Jason Arday: appointment and public biography

Academic allegations and investigations

Death and scale of coverage

Nathan Cofnas and the meaning of meritocracy

The article quotes Cofnas because his stated theory is relevant to the wider use being made of the allegations. His views do not determine whether any particular textual or biographical claim concerning Arday was accurate.

Sport, running and visible performance

The passage about running is an argument, not a claim that athletics is free of unequal opportunity. Coaching, facilities, finance, nationality, sporting culture and selection all matter. The narrower point is that a stopwatch makes the final performance unusually visible and difficult to reinterpret. The article deliberately rejects the idea that the success of athletes from several distinct Black populations can responsibly be reduced to race.

Leicester City and the presentation of achievement

This comparison is expressly limited. Selective self-presentation is not equivalent to plagiarism, fabricated research or false qualifications. It illustrates the much more common practice of placing true or arguable achievements in the most favourable possible frame.

Boris Johnson: accountability and educational advantage

The figure of roughly £370,000 is an illustrative present-day headline value, calculated from approximately two years at Ashdown House and five years at Eton before extras. It is not a claim that Johnson’s family paid that sum. Historic fees differed, and the precise remission attached to his King’s Scholarship is not publicly established. The point is the scale of educational provision surrounding his abilities, not a reconstruction of his family’s accounts.

Education and access to political power

School type is used as evidence about routes and opportunities, not as a verdict on intelligence, character or fitness for office. “State-educated” also covers widely differing circumstances; a selective grammar school and an under-resourced comprehensive cannot automatically be treated as equivalent experiences.

Social class in universities and professional networks

The article does not claim that no university records any measure of social background. It says that the childhood circumstances and school histories of lecturers and professors are not recorded consistently enough to permit the same straightforward comparisons routinely made using race or gender data.

Media proportionality and Caroline Flack

The article explicitly states that the circumstances of the Flack and Arday cases were different. The comparison concerns only a recognisable public pattern: accusation, mass commentary, humiliation and retrospective expressions of regret.

Author’s experience and interpretation

The passages concerning the author’s state-school education, childhood on a Liverpool council estate, departure from school at 16 and personal experience of class prejudice are first-person testimony and therefore do not require an external source.

The article’s central conclusions—about meritocracy, collective judgement, proportionality and who is presumed to belong—are arguments drawn from the evidence above. References can establish the underlying events and figures; they cannot replace the reader’s judgement about what those facts mean.

Previous
Previous

Could Rita Afford to Be Educated Today?

Next
Next

The Myth of Meritocracy: Who Is Allowed to Succeed?