It is reasonably shocking that one of the many wild accusations about Adam Bennett, in the letter received by Nouse, has turned out to be true. It seems more than likely that the letter was a slanderous attack against Bennett, whose independent company has only been running for six months and is supposedly doing very well in comparison to his agency rivals. However, the fact remains that the ex-member of staff has been revealed to be a male prostitute, and the number with which he conducts business is the same one which he has been advertising in the window of Adam Bennett’s.
Bennett claims to have been completely unaware of his employee’s secondary line of work. This may, or may not, be true. However, one has to question how prudent it is to allow relative unknowns to advertise services of which one knows little about. This is especially important given the prominence of Bennett’s office window on campus, and the undeniable association that anything posted within it will automatically cause.
What is perhaps more shocking, however, is the University’s lack of interest in the whole situation. They seem to take no interest whatsoever in the image, reputation, or dealings of their tenants. In addition to this, they seem wholly unaware of how great an effect those renting on campus can have on student body.
It is naïve to assume that the agencies, shops and businesses renting on campus bare no relation to the University. They are representative of the University’s values, morals and priorities, and taking so little interest in disruptive tenants shows a total disregard for the reputation of the institution.