Eugene M. Tobin Distinguished Professor of Sociology Daniel Chambliss, James S. Sherman Professor of Government Philip Klinkner and Visiting Assistant Professor of Psychology Azriel Grysman were highlighted in national publications during the week of Sept. 15. Chambliss penned an opinion piece for The Chronicle of Higher Education. Klinkner’s remarks appeared on Talking Points Memo (TPM), a major political news website, and Grysman was quoted in Science of Us, a website within the New York Magazine site.
The Chronicle of Higher Education has been featuring Chambliss’ co-authored book, How College Works, weekly since late August as the publication’s second pick of the season in its book club series. On Monday, Sept. 15, the Chronicle also printed an opinion piece by Chambliss titled “The Power of the Personal.” Chambliss wrote about “one step colleges can take right now to engage students, without spending a cent or creating a new program: They can encourage more face-to-face human contact.” He referenced his own research for his book as well as the 2014 Gallup-Purdue Index and the work of another scholar.
”Why Men Never Remember Anything,” an article that quoted Grysman’s extensively on gender differences and memory research, appeared in New York Magazine’s Science on the Go on Sept. 19. The piece posited that the way parents tend to talk to their sons can be different from the way they talk to their daughters.
The results are potentially long-lasting, Grysman explained. “The message that girls are getting is that talking about your feelings is part of describing an event. … And for boys, emotions are something to be concerned with when they are part of a larger issue, but otherwise not. And it’s quite possible, over time, that those tendencies will help women establish more connections in their brains of different pieces of an event, which will lead to better memory long-term.”
Phil Klinkner responded to the question posed by the Talking Points Memo article title, “Why Are The Knives Out For The Democratic Party Chair?” published on Sept. 18. The piece analyzed the reasons behind the new focus on the troubled leadership of Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. "The importance of the party chair has really declined over the years in a lot of ways," Philip Klinkner told TPM. "But traditionally what you saw was that the new nominee of the party was able to appoint the next chair. It was their way of establishing their titular leadership of the party.”
And it seems at least plausible that the ghost of 2008 would weigh heavily on Clintonite minds -- and that would likely make them intent on having some say on who replaces Wasserman Schultz, when and if she goes. The maneuvering to appoint a chair is usually a kind of "jockeying between different factions of the party," Klinkner said.
"My guess is the Clinton people want to make sure that the party procedures are in place are going to be favorable to her as possible or that the people who are running the national committee apparatus are as favorable to her as possible," Klinkner said. "It may be that they want to make sure that they have their person there. People who are looking to run for the nomination want to make sure that the national committee chair is as favorable to them as possible."