Homosexuals in BGLOs
 

My follow-up book to African American Fraternities and Sororities: The Legacy and the Vision (www.legacyandvision.com) will also feature a chapter--based on a qualitative study--on homosexuals in BGLO fraternities. If you would like to share your thoughts--confidentially--on this issue, please visit: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alan_DeSantis/

Your comments will only be sent to the main researcher on the project, and your name and organizational affiliation will not appear in the book.

Thanks!

Gregory Parks, PhD

No offense DOC....however, I wish researchers would not waist time on such a topic. Why not research success stories related to our continued service to the community? Why not highlight certain national projects that have made a huge difference in the community or with individuals.

If they do a chapter on homosexual Greeks...they might as well include a chapter on Greeks that commit adultery, or Greeks who fornicate, or Greeks who lie alot...or Greeks who beat their wives....seems like useless info.

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...t=64216&page=2


again, i'm going to be the dissenting voice...

Mr. 21,
I think I see where u are going...BUT

Even though people "claim" they would not vote an openly gay person in their organizations, it still doesn't make it worthy for research.

I wouldn't vote an ex-con in my frat or a wife beater or a drug user for that matter but neither of those groups are worthy of research or publicity.

Gays in BGLOs: A Response
 

Thanks for the commentary about what is and is not worthy of study with regards to BGLOs. Let me comment. If you look at my last book and my blog, which lays out the next one, you will see that the success stories are and will be told--community service, philanthropy, civic action, role in international affairs.... But are we so one dimensional that all we can talk about is how wonderful we are? As a scholar and one who hopes other scholars will take the study of our groups seriously, I can't paint a one-sided picture--mainly because it is inaccurate. Also, however, if someone does not bring serious issues with which we wrestle to the fore, we will never effectively address them.

On another note, to say that since I address homosexuality in the book, I should also address lying, stealing, fornication, etc... is false logic. I addressed date rape, substance abuse, and hazing (all crimes) in the last book. However, I don't think I need to address homicide, pedophilia, and extortion among BGLOs. The issue for me is what are relevant issues for BGLOs, and what topics are currently researched re: fraternities and sororities generally, and how does that research relate to BGLOs.

The issues that the chapter addrssses is are a lot broader than simply why members won't vote gay members into their chapters. I wouldn't tackle a topic so narrow. I edited the chapter last week, and it says a lot about the stereotypes associated with several of the fraternities, notions about black manhood, hip hop culture, etc...

Seeing will be believing.

Dr. Gregory Parks

oh well hell, lol...i wasn't commenting on whether or not it was research worthy....i just figured it was more discourse on gays in bglo's (which in itself is an overdone topic).

but i think the topic gays in bglo's" is research worthy. if it's worthy doing research for gays in the military, then it is for bglo's. fraternity life is "macho" in itself.....and homos go against the grain in that fashion.

homosexuality (as opposed to cheating/womanizing, ect.) is one of those things that people do not really overlook or let "slide" very often, thus it is an issue when one tries to get down. not that it's right, but that's just how it is.

if i was doing the book, would i add it? probably not, because the reasons i listed in my previous post. but would i say that it's worthless info? not necessarily.

I was responding to Solomon. Starang21, I'm not sure what you mean when you say it is an overdone topic.

and i wasn't quoting you. and it's an overdone topic, IMO. do a search and see how many hits you get on this site alone.

If I do a google search, I can find out a lot about stepping, hazing/pledging/MIP, national programs of the groups, but none of it is a scholarly inquiry. Nonoe of it is substantive. That is my interst--my niche. I'm on tons of list-serves and groups. Lots of heated debate takes place about a lot re BGLOs. I rarely respond to the dialogue unless some comment is directed at me or my work. I'm not interested in the excessive back and forth on-line. I am interested in what various scholars can seriously mine with regards to our groups. Opinions don't amount to scholarship, and the one great thing about scholarship is that it can broadly address an issue with some degree of objectivity.

Nough said on my part with regards to this issue.

didn't say anything about google. check THIS site. this issue has been discussed often before, whether suitable for research or not. if you feel that it's not beneficial to you or your research, hey...whatever, no sweat off of my back. you're the one coming to a message board for "research" and asking people to provide their opinions. if you want "scholars" to respond, stick to people who have the same research topic you have. we're all expressing our opinions on this site and would hardly call ourselves "experts" and "objective."

I asked folks who are willing to share ideas with someone who will and can put those ideas in context. As for this and other sites, they are great to hash out ideas. But I'm not sure just because some topic has been discussed at great length in a chat room it means it shouldn't be subjected to some critical analysis in another context. If that is the case, we would rule out a lot of BGLO topics from study. I certainly don't think that, despite this being a great site, just because folks talk about an issue at length on here, researchers shouldn't take up the topic.

The last chapter of the book will deal with why it will be so difficult to have a serious group of scholars looking at our groups. Unlike most areas of scholarship, BGLO research will largely be scrutinized by non-academics/members. Members have a whole different set of expectations about what "good" research is--e.g., hasn't been discussed on chat rooms, only deals with the positive side of the organizations, etc.... But like you, no sweat off my back. This research is only a hobby for me. I only want to make sure that these organizations are around 50 years from now by providing hard answers to hard questions. Oh well, I guess some can appreciate that; others can't.

no, but i would hardly call a message board somewhere you can find "expert or critical" analysis. you yourself said "I'm not interested in the excessive back and forth on-line" but by coming to a message board, that is EXACTLY what you're going to get. whether or not the back and forth is suitable for research...that's for you to decide, it's your dissertation. check my 2nd post in this thread, i even said that your topic was a valid topic of research...so i'm confused as to exactly what this exchange is about.

i never said anything about the topic being good or not, whether it is or it isn't is completely irrelevant and pointless to me, because that's not my field of study. it's easy to ask for hard answers to hard questions, but don't get discouraged or pissy when the answers you get aren't the ones you want.

I believe I asked folks to respond to an online survey, not on this site. Those are two different things. I didn't ask for back and forth. If that was the case, I simply would have jumped on list-serves and quoted the comments people made. That's not what was done. Also, I'm not working on a dissertation. I'm working on a book, again, two different things. I'm equally confused about this exchange since I told you I intially was responding to Solomon. You responded again, so I felt obliged to clarify what you seemd confused about, and the cycle continues.

Lastly, I am not nor would I get "pissy" over responses to questions for a few reasons. First, I was not soliciting information on this site. I asked folks to join another, private list-serve, to respond to a few questions. Whatever information folks provided on the list-serve prior to or since then is not included in the research. Second, I have no preconceived notion of what the answers will or should be. Third, I didn't write the chapter. I edit the entire book and write certain portions. Other chapters are written by scholars from other disciplines. Therefore, I am not overly worked up over what is said in any one chapter. Fourth, the chapter was written as of three weeks ago, so whatever is said in this dialogue is irrelevant in as much as the book is concerned.

well, with this being said...good luck on the book and i look forward to reading it.