Sandbox

Here’s a hypothetical: the student union at a major university sponsors an on-campus party with a theme that inherently marginalizes and objectifies women. Students who attend the party are encouraged to wear costumes that reflect this theme, and the venue where the party is held is adorned with themed décor.

Is this party offensive?

So here’s what I’m trying to do, in case my intentionally and transparently vague language in the first paragraph didn’t give it away: I’m drawing a parallel between Pi Kappa Phi’s “Pilgrims and Indians” party and the “Mad Men, Mad Women” party hosted by DUU in Perkins Library last year.

An intentionally obtuse comparison, but still, I think similarities here are worth noting. If I’m a Native American (one who is inclined to take offense to, y’know, party themes), then I’m not too thrilled about the idea of a party that celebrates a period of history in which individuals of my ethnicity were systematically subjugated. If I’m a woman, I’m not too thrilled about the idea of a party that celebrates the same.

The first response I got when, recently, I walked into a room of people and asked for their reactions to the backlash over “Pilgrims and Indians” was: “Valid point, overreaction.” That sounds like equivocating, and a lot of the anti-P&I contingent has said this is exactly the problem: people accept that there’s something offensive here but don’t think it warrants so much controversy.

I disagree. Offensiveness is not a binary notion; the P&I party and the “Mad Men” party might both be offensive, but I think the anti-P&I contingent would accept that one was worse than another. I’m going to purposely beg off of a decisive take-away message here, but I’ll venture this much: there are grounds for offense to be taken almost everywhere we look.