When it comes to student activism . . . the trickle-down theory applies. : Living It Down at Party Time

Good news. Cal State Northridge, which has not had a controversial student issue since the campus feminists tried to rewrite the First Amendment, is once more involved in a form of protest. I was going to say seething with protest, but they rarely seethe at Cal State. They mumble with protest. And what they are mumbling with protest about these days are fraternity theme parties.

Don’t tell me UCLA has been in a turmoil about its Viva Zapata bash since the middle of April. I already know that. One simply has to understand that when it comes to student activism at suburban universities, the trickle-down theory applies.

They take to the streets in Berkeley first and pretty soon the Westwood kids are marching down the boulevard and then they are taking over the administration building in Georgetown and in a month or so word reaches Northridge, by way of Cambridge, Omaha and Tucson, that a New Issue has been unfurled like a flag on foreign soil among America’s undergraduates.

“Hey,” a Cal State major in the human behavioral sciences might say, “we got that here, too.”

What they got here, or what they had here, were fraternity theme parties which were perceived to be racist or sexist in nature. Not that the fraternities were suddenly having offensive theme parties.

Greek-letter clubs have been holding offensive parties for as long as I can remember, including themes that have mocked Eskimos, Samoans, midgets, Chinese coolies and women with sexual deformities.

They didn’t seem to bother anyone too much then. We just assumed that’s what you did in a society famous for banning non-whites from Southern schools during Brotherhood Week.

However, we have come a long way since the days of Old Black Joe to a level of social awareness that make us sensitive to the ethnic images of others. Which is why, for instance, the Frito Bandito was shot off his burro some time back and why UCLA’s Viva Zapata Night will not be remembered as Westwood’s shining hour.

A theme party, by the way, for those who wisely missed John Belushi in “Animal House,” is one where fraternity boys and sorority girls make a grown-up attempt to standardize a reason for the party in the first place.

For example, last year one of Cal State’s clubs held a Pimp and Whore Night. The idea was to dress up in clothes one perceived to be apropos to the role of either prostitute or procurer. Short red dresses with spangles, wide-brim hats and blue suede shoes. Not academia’s most elevating theme, but what the hell. A party’s a party.

I don’t know that the kids actually did anything as pimps and whores, since no money was seen to change hands, but that wasn’t the point. Campus feminists complained not that the theme was immoral but that it was sexist. Orgies are all right, but mocking whoredom represents the vilest of social inequities.

But that was last year, and while Pimp and Whore Night is still being mumbled about at Northridge, that isn’t the central issue here. The central issue is the Slave Sale.

The Slave Sale, as I understand it, has been a project of one fraternity since the 1950s. Fraternity pledges are “sold” for modest sums to perform various socially acceptable services. Proceeds from the event go toward whatever charitable benefit the club has adopted as its own.

Black students protested at a campus senate meeting the other day that the theme was racist. One senator clarified this rationale by arguing that, when you think of slaves, you think of blacks, not of Scandinavian-Americans with MBAs from Pepperdine. Therefore, a slave sale is a sale of black people, not white services.

Well, the kid was right, but then the kid was wrong. The truth lies somewhere in between, as we used to say when we couldn’t think of a good transition sentence.

The term does evoke memories of an inglorious segment of American history, but must every reference outrage the people? Had the fraternity been selling pledges in black-face to work the cotton fields, I could understand the anger.

But there was no intent here to debase any racial group, and the protest therefore assumes a level of semantic nonsense that would ban luaus because they recall days of island savagery. As long as they aren’t cooking a missionary, no harm done.

The student senators, to their credit, defeated a resolution which, while banning “discriminatory attitudes,” would have honored the logic that indicts without debate. They instead urged the warring parties to stop fuming and start talking.

That’s good advice. I hope from this sort of dialogue emerges a realization that not everyone is a bigot. The Cal State fraternities might show their good will by dropping theme parties completely.

It’s time to get back to the basics anyhow. We always did quite well without themes. Just sex and booze and a Commie to kick around.