From its foundation in 1209 until the late 19th century Cambridge University dedicated itself unabashedly to the spreading of complete and utter nonsense.
Just to get a degree you had to had to pass a 'religious test' and swear allegiance to the Church and non-faith based bachelor's degrees only became available after 1856.
Even Isaac Newton used his position to promote what he called chymistry, some combination of alchemy and occult ceremony.
In my day, there was King's College, ground zero for all sorts of ideological affectation and the Anthropology part of Arch & Anth, it then seemed to me, only existed in order to shout down anybody who dared to suggest that human biology could play any role in the formation of our societies.
But surrounded as we were by cretinous charlatans, we somehow failed to enter into any kind of dire, dribbling moral panic about it all.
Read the 'papers' today and you'd think that they had pinpointed poor Jason Arday as some sort of canary in the academic coal mine, a harbinger of barely veiled decay if not imminent cultural collapse.
I'm not sure I was even aware Cambridge had an Education Department during my undergrad years. So if this is now somehow a den of opportunists who could never get a 'proper' MA Hons Cantab, this locus of what Dicky Dawkins calls 'obscurantism' remains somewhat obscure to me.
Yet the sad and somewhat foreseeable end to this over-inflated story has reminded me of a phenomenon I noticed both on arrival at Cambridge...and here in Guatemala.
Some people, faced with a wholly new environment in which to strive, socially and otherwise, choose to invent a 'legend' for themselves: in effect an essentially phoney, usually flattering backstory.
I had direct contact, friendships even, with several people who had basically made up their pre-Cambridge past and/or aligned themselves with a high viz pre-exisiting identity and its related postures as they believed this would make their life lift off in the new environment, particularly if they could lean into endemic tribal pretensions and groupthink. One of my college peers was even using a pseudonym to this effect.
And, as I suggested above, something similar seems to occur with certain ex-pats who show up down here.
In most cases having a legend, as I put it, is harmless. But in certain circumstances the combination of personal and collective dishonesty can turn a little more toxic.
And the degradation of a phoney backstory tends to happen a bit like bankruptcy as Hemingway characterised it — gradually then suddenly.
I suppose that when it comes to teaching standards, the big change since my time is thay today's students have to pay for this fraudulent crap, at least personally.
Which raises more pressing issues about deceit and impersonation on perhaps a more obviously legal level.

