There has been international interest in last week’s Varsity interview with a Cambridge student who has worked as a prostitute. Broadly speaking, there have been two lines of response. On one level there has been a drive to sensationalise the issue as far as possible, with the whole media circus trying to interview, name and expose the student involved. The second reaction has focussed on student welfare, latching onto the idea that a student would only become involved in an activity such as prostitution when in dire financial straits.

One of the papers carrying the story, the Cambridge Evening News, reported in a manner hardly reflecting the range of advertisements for escorting and massage services regularly included on their pages. Their leader column yesterday bemoaned prostitution as “a very dangerous, slippery slope – one that ruins young people’s lives.” We do not disagree. But perhaps the newspaper’s advertising policy and editorial moralising are not quite in synch. CEN did not contact Varsity before reprinting any of the material and the subsequent interview with our reporters was conducted before Varsity had seen their initial treatment of the story. We believe that our coverage has been misrepresented. It may be that CEN are merely embarrassed at having to wait for the Press Association to tell them about a story which was sitting right under their noses for five days. Or perhaps they were merely out of their depth, not used to having to report on a serious news story instead of their more customary diet of local under-11 football matches and flower arranging conventions.

Varsity produced a piece of investigative reporting into the ways in which students finance their degrees and lifestyles and into the more insalubrious channels open to those who choose to make use of them. It was not intended as a scandal and it was not intended as a call for help.

The extent of prostitution among Cambridge students is still unclear, and to generalise from one isolated case study would be foolish. This was a student who did see her job, at least at times, as a glamorous one, and who was happy to come forward and talk about her experiences in terms which were not overwhelmingly negative. Had she not occasionally viewed herself as something of a Belle du Jour, it is very possible that she would not have agreed to speak out.

There is certainly a more sordid side to prostitution in the city of Cambridge. It is possible that there is a more sordid side to prostitution in the University and it is possible that there are people to whom welfare networks would do well to reach out. But we know that the University is shot through with support systems at all levels, and we have seen no evidence to disprove the old tradition that once you’re in, the institution will support you to the end. None of those involved in Varsity’s investigation gave any call for welfare officers. They had, by their own admissions, made the decision to accept the payoff between a comfortable life and a less comfortable means of financing it.