Now that Warren cannot support her claim of Cherokee heritage, I feel she needs to answer the following questions:
(1) For a number of years, before and after her arrival at HLS, she listed herself as “Native American” and was promoted by Harvard as the first Law School “woman of color.” Does this constitute academic fraud?
(2) If so, what are the ramifications for both Warren and Harvard?
(3) Were federal or state monies awarded to Harvard and/or Harvard Law School based upon her classification as a Native American minority?
(4) I would like to hear from candidate Warren what percentage lineage she thinks one needs in order to be classified as a minority for legal purposes. 1/32nd? 1/2?
Please share widely!
nt
automatically delete any bs’s posts with the words “warren” and “Native American” in it?
There’s gotta be a script for that. Obviously using a manual delete isn’t practical, as fast as they come at you.
.
a policy against spamming on this site?
I’d say, one more post like this and he should be banned. Just, you know, my opinion.
This has gone from beating a dead horse territory to spamming and taking up valuable pixel space on the site.
What I have heard repeatedly is that her lineage was NOT a factor in her Harvard hiring.
She would still be a lot better than Brown on the issues most BMGers care about.
Finally, this falls into the same category as “So what if the President WERE a Muslim?”
We are electing a Senator, not tenured professor of the year, and Harvard ceased being a public institution years ago.
.
have been raised regarding statements from the NEHGS the response here is “this is spam”, “we’ve already discussed this”…
I expect more from the intellectual elite here at BMG.
Let’s assume that Warren has no documentation of her heritage and that she relied entirely on “family lore.” We’re still left with the fact – and it is a fact – that there is no evidence of her ever claiming minority status in applying for admission to college or law school, nor in applying to teach at a law school.
Also, as I’ve said over and over again, there is simply no doubt that, had Harvard Law thought she was a “minority woman” when they offered her tenure, that would have been trumpeted from the rooftops in 1995, given the intense pressure that Harvard was under on that issue at the time. It wasn’t – not a peep.
So, I really do invite you to explain what the issue is. Is this really all about the listing in the AALS directory, and about statements made by her employers after they hired her?
Yes, it’s about the directory and the statements by employers after they hired her. Why did they make those statements? And is there ever any evidence that anyone claimed to be a minority when they were hired? What evidence is there that Lani Guinier ever claimed minority status, for example?
I certainly don’t expect anyone on BMG to ever admit to being wrong or that their preferred candidate is flawed.
was flawed, but there’s nothing here to admit. Warren did not apply for her teaching positions through a minority hiring program. Records show that.
Find a smoking gun and we’ll talk.
You think you’re shooting at the enemy, but you’re playing Russian roulette with an unloaded gun. (There might be a metaphor there somewhere).
You’re really missing it, DGC. No one here sees this as an issue. It’s not a matter of partisanship. It’s a matter of perspective, a perspective we don’t share with you.
Are there plenty of non-issues brought up about Scott Brown here? Yes. Half court basketball shots are one. Why discuss those? Because it’s fun and there always a chance it will damage Brown by amplifying things.
public perception, not matter what anyone thinks is real or not is what gets people elected. Very important point that’s missing here. If there is a sense that Brown is a phony, votes one way because of the election, etc. and the basketball shot reinforces that perception, it’s real.
Brown pushing Warren’s heritage as an issue when JP Morgan is the issue of the day, well, how does that make Brown look? That’s the reason DGC is getting the comments that he is getting.
While DGC longs for the time Warren was on the defensive, focusing on this might now might not be the best thing for his campaign.
say Warren did anything wrong, but it looks like someone at Harvard–maybe this Chmura guy– probably misrepresented her. Politico reports:
But he wasn’t making that up out of thin air, he was going by her self-identification in the directories. Was he not supposed to believe her?
Regardless of her self-identification in legal directories, anyone who had ever seen Warren would think more than twice before calling her a “woman of color.”
This guy’s not in charge of the Law school or its communications. Does he freelance a phone call about people of color by referring to the directory to see if Harvard Law has any? There’s no evidence he was relying on the directory here.
If her minority status was so important that someone did a law review article on it, my guess is that someone with more authority than this guy decided to claim it. As someone suggested previously, it seems like Harvard was set on claiming Warren’s ethnicity.
Given my experience with college departments, I can say that it is possible that this was done without talking to Elizabeth Warren. Or that someone used it once and it took on a life of its own.
An interesting conundrum, but doesn’t shake my support.
It seems to me that the discussion draws more attention to this non-issue than it’s worth.
I’d like to consider the other side’s point on its merits when they have them.
There’s something weird that went on at Harvard; people are continuing to dig; and this issue may continue if people are digging and there’s something weird that Harvard did.
…when it ultimately doesn’t really matter what the answer is!
I wouldn’t quibble about spelling. Headlines, however, are different story. You’ve confused the following words:
wither–to shrivel
whither–where
Although misspelling is, perhaps, thematically more correct, the word “whither” is certainly more grammatically correct.
Perhaps it was a pun, considering how she went from being a Native American “woman of color”, to being 1/32, then 1/64, to none at all. That’s shriveling.
He is an incumbent Senator with a 3-1 cash advantage and a pretty face but he is losing in the polls. And he’s such a Republican that even when his entire campaign is on the line he votes to deregulate Wall Street, give even bigger tax breaks to billionaires, and let women’s bosses decide what health care they can and cannot have. Unbelievable. Scott Brown is so far out of touch with Massachusetts that he might as well be running for Senator of the Cabots and the Lodges or of the Rockefeller Republicans. A campaign based on class warfare, religious legislation, and derision for science and education might have succeeded in the nineteenth century, but this is 2012.
Do you know what academic fraud is?
Apparently not.
the chair of the Mass GOP doesn’t know what this term means either for he appears to be its originator.
how many aspiring little bureaucrats decide to carry the water for their august institutions (and now, apparently, Babson has the benefit of his service), Warren didn’t.