Reactions and responses to intellectual and cultural events at Birmingham-Southern College.
Angela Fisher Hall's Lecture on Fraternal, Social, and Civic Organizations
Published on February 16, 2006 By jtatter In Current Events
This lecture, like the one by Dr. Abrams, was optional for this semester's course, but I am interested in seeing what you have to say about either one, if you attended. Please add your response by using the link below to "add a comment."

Ms. Hall took a personal approach to a community topic, explaining how her parents had been involved in what were then called "social and savings clubs" in the 1950s in Birmingham, and explaining how she herself was involved in the Art Students League, the Black Student Union, and the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority when she was a student at Birmingham-Southern in the 1970s. In decades when either the white community purposely excluded African Americans from social organizations, or individual black students didn't find much in common with their white classmates here at the college, these organizations served an important function. They gave young African Americans a chance to develop leadership skills, and they provided a network of support for those going into business or other areas of public life.

I was interested to hear how, in Ms. Hall's life, her sorority was a true sisterhood--not just a social club or an alternative to a predominantly white social scene on campus, but a group of women who would continue to be supportive of each other beyond graduation. This seems to me to be both a noble and practical purpose of Greek organizations. The thing is, many members of the white community, particularly the affluent white community, already have a network of support built up over years of relationships between families and businesses. I've never understood the need for Greek organizations on a small campus such as ours, one where students shouldn't feel at all isolated as they might at a large state university. In fact, the Greek system here has had the unfortunate effect of isolating those who don't pledge--the Independents. There is great merit to band together in an effort to include others in a support group. There is also an accompanying danger of banding together to exclude outsiders.

All of this comes around, for me, to our discussion in class about "In the American Society" where we saw both the differences and the similarities between American Country Club Society and Mr. Chang's Pancake House society. In both, there was a tension between an effort to include and an effort to exclude. What is perhaps most interesting to me is that, when we create clubs or societies, we concentrate on the good we do for the insiders. How often do we think about the negative effects on those we exclude?

Comments
on Feb 16, 2006
I also attended Ms. Hall's lecture. I agree that it was great how she explained that organizations on campus such as her sorority and also the Black Student Union played such a major role in her finding a group of people to feel apart of here on campus. It is great that our campus has Sororities for people of color here on campus, but I wish it was more integrated. Looking at how divided our greek system is racially makes me wonder how far we have actually come on integrating races.

Although I realy enjoyed Ms. Hall's lecture, I guess I was planning on it being more focused of how her time at Birmingham Southern was different than the way it is now or maybe just hearing more stories to get a feel of how hard it was to a black woman at a predominately white college in the 1970's. I am so glad that she came to talk, but I also wish it could have been a little bit longer.
on Feb 18, 2006
I attended the lecture entitled "The Psychology of Human Sexuality." When Dr. Keith Abrams said that he did not have enough time to talk about the psychology of human sexuality, but he was going to talk about sexual orientation. He explained that there were several things that made up sexuality and that there was a scale from completely homosexual to heterosexual. People cannot change what they are, but they can change their sexual behavior. Men and women both "become more homosexual" when you ask them questions that move from "Have you ever had a homosexual sexual experience?" to "Have you ever fantasized about it?" Just because someone doesn't go around telling everyone that he or she has come out of the closet, doesn't mean that he or she is ashamed of their orientation, there are consequences that come from a "change" in orientation. He also turned the tables and asked us how uncomfortable we would feel if someone asked us, "When did you decide you were heterosexual? Were you born that way? Can't you change?" That was kind of strange hearing it the other way around. One realization that I made was that a person's sexual orientation is not their most important charateristic. It is a lifestyle change but the public is so unforgiving of homosexuality. It was very interesting to hear things presented so unbiased. I really enjoyed learning about something from another angle and I think that this was a very eye-opening cultural event.
on Feb 28, 2006
I also attended "The Psychology of Human Sexuality" presented by Dr. Keith Abrams. I presumed that the major topic of dicussion would be sex and what drives people to crave sex. However, I learned that it was more about how people see their sexual orientation and what can cause their different sexual orientations. Dr. Abrams began by discussing that some people's sexual orientation varies beucase of genetics, or simply what they view as a "turn on" I guess you could say in simple terms. I, however, was caught off guard when he asked us how we would feel if we were asked why we were heterosexual and could we change. I often times have thought that homosexuality might be a genetic alteration that causes a child to perhaps view the same sex as desirable, but I have never viewed heterosexuality as something that should be questioned. I do beleieve that if a person is gay than that is he or she's right and none of my business, however, I have also felt that man and woman's sole purpose for sexual intercourse is the production of offspring. Gender's of the same sex cannot produce children, so therefore, I have never viewed it as common as heterosexuality.
on Mar 10, 2006
I attended Dr. Abram's lecture, "The Psychology of Human Sexuality." He began the lecture by defining the components of sexuality: natal sex, gender role, gender identity, sexual orientation, and sexual behavior. Natal sex is defined as being your gender, gender roles begin as soon as birth. (Example- pink or blue balloons, decorations, etc.) However, gender identity is the sense of gender that you have or the one that you are most comfortable with. People are more likely to discuss their sexual preferences in an anonymous, written survey. This has something to do with our heterosexist culture. The questions that Dr. Abram's presented after describing our "heterosexist culture" provided one way to see how homosexuals are treated. Dr. Abrams asked us if we knew any heterosexuals that were approached with these questions:
1) Do your parents accept your heterosexuality?
2) Did you know that most child molesters are heterosexual?
3) Is your heterosexuality a phase?