Received: from DANIEL.DREW.EDU (daniel.drew.edu [192.107.39.6]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id RAA16800 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:16:12 -0600 (MDT) Received: from drew.edu by drew.edu (PMDF V5.0-7 #21837) id <01IKF8KZ4TM89BVUH1@drew.edu> for socgrad@csf.colorado.edu; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 19:16:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 19:16:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Elizabeth Pullen Subject: Re: sociological advisor to Clinton To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I have two comments. Regarding the perception of sociology and the prestige of particular areas of study, I think that the question originated in an earlier thread on the hiring of Ph.D.s and so was based more in the professional perception than the public perception of particular areas. I would like to hear more contibutions! I'm beginning to wonder about the connection between grants and prestige. At UCSB, where I received my masters, Soc. of Religion was very respected but faculty in this area had also received several sizeable grants. Does grant money=exposure=scholarly debate=departmental prestige? And how does this all reflect trends in theoretical development? Or are we just making "in" and "out" lists? I was a bit surprised to hear that Tony Campolo is a regular advisor to Clinton. Although he is a sociologist, Campolo is more well-known for his association with ESA, Evangelicals for Social Action. He, along with Ron Siders and Jim Wallis, are well-known for their criticism of the Religious Right for not addressing social problems such as poverty, homelessness and environmental problems. It is interesting to consider what influence he might have had on Clinton's message. Do you know where one could get a copy of the address, Laura? Elizabeth Pullen Drew University epullen@drew.edu