I am writing this letter in disgust of the actions taken by the university in response to the recent sexual assaults on campus. According to The State News, MSU spokesman Terry Denbow said that "the sexual assaults were not announced because there was no immediate danger to students."

I would like to contest his notion of "no immediate danger." First and foremost, the first two assaults were committed by people that the victims were acquainted with. We know from research that in the majority of sexual assaults the victim knows his or her attacker(s). This is reason enough to release such information - to increase such awareness. The more people we can educate, the better choices we can help people make so that they can stay safe.

Secondly, though the university should be commended on distributing the "Safety Update" and including safety tips to help reduce one's chances of victimization, why was it that only two of the assaults were mentioned? If not for privacy reasons, then why wouldn't all other assaults be announced as well?

This failure to distribute information sends the message to victims that reporting it will not do any good, and that other crimes are taken more seriously. It has been proven that sexual assault, especially if the victim knows his or her attacker, is one of the most underreported crimes that occurs on college campuses. Why would reporting it be discouraged? Though hopefully this was not the university's intent, these are the dangerous repercussions.

Lastly, I would like to know who decides if I am in "immediate danger" or not and exactly how they decide. Is acquaintance sexual assault no need for concern? Maybe the policies and procedures need to be changed.

Emily Dressler
mathematics senior