Lackluster response to CTIS discouraging
When the Survey of Unwanted Sexual Ex-periences proved that, much like other college campuses, sexual misconduct and assault are prevalent at Rice, many in the student body rallied around the cause and proposed change in the form of a mandatory Critical Thinking in Sexuality Class for new students. However, the administration’s response and support for this course has been lagging — and this delay could have dire consequences for the incoming class. Though the class was controversial, the fact that so many students felt compelled to respond is in itself impressive. It also indicates that a large portion of the student body is aware that sexual misconduct is a pressing issue and are actively working to create a safer Rice community.
Given the buzz around CTIS, it is concerning that the administration has not updated the en-tire student body regarding the course’s status. It was not until returning this fall that students even learned the course will not be oﬀ ered this semester as planned last spring. The student body proposed and approved the creation of the CTIS course with a huge sense of urgency, to reduce the amount of harm to future Owls as much as possible, yet the course in its envi-sioned mandatory state has been delayed to at least fall 2018 without much warning.
Other aspects of the treatment of sexual mis-conduct remain lacking. For instance, sexual assault prevention training during Orientation Week needs to include more focus about the speciﬁ c environment in which sexual miscon-duct occurs at Rice. This year at Project SAFE, there was no mention of the SUSE.
While O-Week is a balancing act between providing new students with information they need to remain safe while also not oﬀ ending sensibilities, it is irresponsible to gloss over sex-ual misconduct statistics that indicate the scale and context behind this important issue. Even EMS includes in their O-Week presentation the number of students bitten by squirrels each year, if only to ensure awareness of the prob-lem. The SUSE should become an annual occur-rence, instead of once every two or three years as Dean Hutchinson plans. His concern that an annual survey might cause “survey fatigue” is not unfounded. Nonetheless, if the administra-tion wants students to be surveyed annually about Fondren Library’s resources, then surely making it a priority to annually ask students if they’ve experienced sexual misconduct is not unreasonable. Furthermore, the questions should be more detailed in order to capture the wide range of experiences students may have.
Our university still has much room for im-provement when it comes to sexual assault awareness and prevention. O-Week and the SUSE are intuitive places to start, but the future of CTIS remains critical. We understand that creating a course takes time and a great deal of logistical planning, but for every semester or year we delay the implementation of any sort of sexuality education or other tangible steps in addressing sexual misconduct, we are faced with the prospect of one more class of Rice stu-dents just as vulnerable as the class that walked through the Sallyport in the years before.
Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the Thresher editorial staﬀ . All other opinion pieces represent solely the opinion of the piece’s author.
More from The Rice Thresher
As the semester starts and parties are in full swing, I want to speak out and be clear about one thing: Don’t use the N-word while rapping or singing along to songs. On a broader note, don’t use the N-word in your casual vocabulary. This is a demand, not a request.
Two weeks ago, I attended the “Howdy, Modi!” event along with over 100 Rice students and 2,000 students from universities across the United States. It was a proud moment as an Indian American, as I saw fellow students dancing in their colorful garb, musicians celebrating all of India’s spiritual traditions and politicians honoring the contributions made and unique place held by Indian Americans in the fabric of the U.S.
Last week, I was dismayed to hear that over the course of protests happening at the university, chalk was used to deface multiple buildings across campus. A desire to strongly express feelings is understandable; however, it seems the vandals paid little attention to the burden their actions placed on those responsible for removing the writing.