I don't really know what Drudge is trying to say, but the women — Ivanka and Elizabeth Warren — both have bands around their heads (I know Ivanka's is an entire hat) and the men's heads are more differentiated:
1. Musk's head is enclosed within a space helmet, 2. Bezo displays baldness glossily, 3. Eminem, like a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, has his noggin inside a baseball cap wrapped in a hoodie.
I was going to discuss Elizabeth Warren's crudely photoshopped "Indian" headband (and arrows), but I took a moment to click to see what Jeff Bezos has on that tray, and it's the entire body of a cooked iguana and he's posing seemingly eating a chunk of it!
From the text of "Bezos Says He’ll Spend ‘Amazon Lottery Winnings’ on Space Travel"(Bloomberg):
The Amazon chief executive officer wasn’t the only billionaire at the glitzy event at the Marriott Marquis in Times Square. West Coast industrial real estate tycoon Ed Roski and Frederik Paulsen, a Swedish pharmaceutical titan and pole explorer, perused the tarantula, cockroach and roasted iguana appetizers amid 1,200 guests including James Lovell, the first person to journey twice to the moon, on Apollo 8 and Apollo 13.Boldface added. Eat what you're told! I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy)...
But, okay, here's the Elizabeth Warren article Drudge links to: "Elizabeth Warren refuses DNA test to prove Native American heritage." There's no "Indian" paraphernalia in the photo there (at the New York Post). I think it's grotesque and irrelevant to demand a DNA test.
Grotesque, because it's okay for people to enjoy the fun of a possibly somewhat accurate scientific test of their origins, pushing another person into getting tested is evocative of the Nazi era. We should not care.
Irrelevant, because though Elizabeth Warren did make claims of having a particular ancestry, it's only important in 2 ways, and neither has anything to do with whether she was correct about having Native American ancestry.
The first way it matters is that it might relate to her honesty, but the DNA test wouldn't reveal whether she really believed what she said at the time. Maybe she was bullshitting all along, or maybe she has a tendency to jump to conclusions she likes without very much evidence. A DNA test, going either way, would not shed any light on her honesty, since she never claimed to have a belief based on a DNA test.
The second way it matters is that Elizabeth Warren promoted herself, in her career, to some extent, by using the diversity factor of Native American ancestry. Her choice to do this reflects on her character, and I don't see how your assessment of that should change if you knew that a DNA test says she was wrong.
Most people learn their ancestry by listening to what they are told growing up, and they believe it. What if a person who thought he was 1/4 African American checked the "African American" box on a college application, got admitted under an affirmative action policy, and later discovered he was mistaken? The school demanded that he answered a question and he answered it the way he believed was true. Is there anything against his character? No!
You might think affirmative action and giving credit for "diversity" is ethically wrong, but that goes to the character of the institutions that use that policy, not to the applicants who seek positions within those institutions.
But maybe you think the claim of Native American ancestry is different, because so many Americans believe they have some Native American "blood," and not all make public claims about it (and because the tribes have an enrollment procedure, so maybe there should be a rule against making a claim unless you are enrolled).
I know at least 2 individuals who have beliefs about their Native American ancestry — beliefs similar to the way Warren felt back when she made her claims — but they chose not to speak of it and not to give any institution the ability to give them affirmative action or to use them in their boasts about "diversity" (as Harvard used Warren). In my judgment, those two demonstrated superior ethics to Warren's. But a DNA test should have no effect on my judgment.
IN THE COMMENTS: Qwerty Smith brings out a subtlety about evidence. While the test results may have no relevancy to any question at issue, the refusal to take the test is evidence — evidence of aspects of her current state of mind — and that evidence may be relevant to an issue we care about:
The refusal to take the test is revealing and unjustified, because the reasons she had for believing she was Native American have been debunked. Consequently, her primary motive for avoiding the test must be to make it impossible to definitively refute her claim by leaving open the possibility that she has native ancestry for reasons unrelated to her family's stories.I don't necessarily agree with Qwerty's interpretation of the evidence of her current state of mind, but I greatly appreciate his breaking out what is a separate evidence question. I used to teach the law school class "Evidence," and one of the problems was about a person accused of murder who believed in the superstition that a murdered person's body would bleed if touched by the murderer. Even though the test is worthless — we know corpses don't bleed like that — his refusal to touch the body is some evidence of what's in his head and makes it more likely that he really is the murderer. But you still have to interpret the evidence: there are some reasons why an innocent believer in the superstition would decline to touch the corpse.
I suspect that Warren sincerely believed that she had native ancestry and then tried to use it in a cynical effort to get ahead professionally. Cynical, because she supports affirmative action, presumably for reasons distinct from the possibility that a certain random minority of white people can justly use it to get ahead.
Her doubling down in the face of counter-evidence, by contrast, shows that she is unprincipled and dishonest.
In this light, I still see good reason for Warren to refuse. To be willing to take the test would generate evidence of her belief that she was correct, and she might want to create that evidence, which has meaning, whatever the result of the test shows. But I see the reason to decline to create that evidence, just as I see reason not to take the corpse test or a lie detector test, even when you are innocent. For one thing, your willingness seems to vouch for the accuracy of the test and for the significance of the results. If Warren believes, as I do, that it doesn't matter what's in the DNA, she's right to decline to engage in a performance that creates the impression that the DNA matters.
And this is why I don't think the evidence of refusing to take the test has much weight. It's relevant in that it makes a fact in issue more/less likely to be true, but the probative value is low.
Posts
140 comments:
"The second way it matters is that Elizabeth Warren promoted herself, in her career, to some extent, by using the diversity factor of Native American ancestry. Her choice to do this reflects on her character, and I don't see how your assessment of that should change if you knew that a DNA test says she was wrong."
She is in the honorable tradition of Ward Churchill.
"The second way it matters is that Elizabeth Warren promoted herself, in her career, to some extent, by using the diversity factor of Native American ancestry."
Parsing some are we. Next it will be what the meaning of "is" is. You are way off base here Ann.
I dunno, a positive DNA result would make it seem more likely that EW’s family actually told her those stories and that they were confirmed inside the family often enough that it was reasonable for EW to credit them. I wouldn’t say a DNA test would be conclusive on EW’s honesty, but I wouldn’t say “irrelevant” either.
A DNA test, going either way, would not shed any light on her honesty, since she never claimed to have a belief based on a DNA test.
It gives you information. It changes the odds of her lying, even if the DNA test isn't always right (in which case the actual DNA odds would just figure in too).
Bayes theorem. Like a person being black changes the odds of his being dangerous.
If you get more information, then that changes the next Bayes test. It's always current.
DNA evidence... nay, forensic evidence is so traditional. Today, the standard of legal jurisprudence is preponderance of allegations that persist through partisan bullhorns in the "press".
As for diversity or rather "color" diversity... it's a Choice... I mean, choice, rite, right?
Do we keep affirmative action? If you say yes, what is the penalty for stealing someone’s spot? Also, Warren refused invitations to Native American events at Harvard. So, if she believed, she believed also that she was above rubbing shoulders with.
I think it's grotesque and irrelevant to demand a DNA test.
It would be irrelevant IF she hadn't played upon her "supposed" native american Indian heritage to get special treatment, financial advantages and uses it as some sort of political leverage.
However, since SHE has made a point of using her hypothetical Cherokee heritage to her own self aggrandizement, it is now incumbent upon her to prove it. She gamed the system without any proof.
Put up or shut up and apologize Lizzie.
A DNA test, going either way, would not shed any light on her honesty, since she never claimed to have a belief based on a DNA test.
Still, I have reservations.
#MeUmToo
Indian ancestry claimant.
"Still, I have reservations."
And Howgh.
Indian ancestry is a social construction.
The refusal to take the test is revealing and unjustified, because the reasons she had for believing she was Native American have been debunked. Consequently, her primary motive for avoiding the test must be to make it impossible to definitively refute her claim by leaving open the possibility that she has native ancestry for reasons unrelated to her family's stories.
I suspect that Warren sincerely believed that she had native ancestry and then tried to use it in a cynical effort to get ahead professionally. Cynical, because she supports affirmative action, presumably for reasons distinct from the possibility that a certain random minority of white people can justly use it to get ahead.
Her doubling down in the face of counter-evidence, by contrast, shows that she is unprincipled and dishonest.
You are an accomplished retired law school professor and one of the all-time great bloggers, but your chain of reasoning is bizarre sometimes.
In all likelihood Warren knew her Native American background was merely a family fable. This is suggested by her total lack of interest in participating in any Native American programs and associations during her tenure, and she jettisoned references to the fable as time went on, once her position was secure and it was no longer necessary to lie. A DNA test would provide further evidence of that narrative.
It's called building a case.
Just about anyone whose ancestors came to VA in the 1600's, as my mother's did, has some Native American ancestry.
I'm pretty sure Elizabeth Warren took the test anonymously, and didn't like the answer.
Althouse:
"Most people learn their ancestry by listening to what they are told growing up, and they believe it. What if a person who thought he was 1/4 African American checked the "African American" box on a college application, got admitted under an affirmative action policy, and later discovered he was mistaken? The school demanded that he answered a question and he answered it the way he believed was true. Is there anything against his character? No!
"You might think affirmative action and giving credit for "diversity" is ethically wrong, but that goes to the character of the institutions that use that policy, not to the applicants who seek positions within those institutions."
Wow, if that's all it takes -- a subjective belief -- to qualify for something like a special set-aside place on the Harvard Law faculty, or more importantly (because of the vast numbers at issue) a place in a prestigious public university graduate school, or a uniquely prestigious undergraduate program like the University of Michigan ;-) ... then Althouse has just issued one of the more effective indictments of Affirmative Action in U.S. history.
And maybe, Althouse is really unconcerned about that conclusion. I recall only Althouse's legal/analytical blogging on the Affirmative Action cases; I don't recall her political viewpoint(s) regarding the issue. I sort of recall Althouse NOT betraying any personal views on the subject.
My long-held cynicism regarding Affirmative Action is only strengthened in the new era of consumer-grade DNA testing. So what if you buy a kit from Ancestry, and do the testing, and find out that you have -- or, much more precisely, Ancestry's analysts say that you have -- something like 2% sub-Saharan African in you. It is something that nobody in your family knew, and perhaps no one would even believe. You have zero outward appearance of being a sub-Saharan African.
Do you apply to Yale Law School as an "African-American"?
That's a better case, than Elizabeth Warren's.
By the way, Althouse; I don't know if you watched Fox News Sunday, where Warren answered John Roberts' question about a DNA test. It was a case-study in an Elizabeth Warren non-answer. The Althouse answer herein is a hundred times better than the Warren gibberish about her "family story."
By the way, most people interested in family history go to the trouble of looking up material in such places as the Mormon Family History Library or go to Ancestry do come where I have 3500 family members documents going back to the early 1700s.
It's hard to go back more as records in Europe and England get difficult to find and professional genealogists are expensive.
No, I haven't found any Indian ancestors.
"Dot Com"
Who needs a DNA test when they have high cheekbones?
"I dunno, a positive DNA result would make it seem more likely that EW’s family actually told her those stories and that they were confirmed inside the family often enough that it was reasonable for EW to credit them."
Yeah but a greater issue is that Cherokees and other groups have mixed DNA. People married in or were adopted into the tribe/nation that were Scottish or African or Irish or what-have-you. Ethnicity was not the determining factor for membership in Native American tribes.
In the eyes of a 17th or 18th century Native American, a white guy really could become an "Indian." Not just "adopted" or a "white guy" pretending to play Indian, but a full member of the tribe/nation. Especially if your mother was a member of the tribe. Kind of like the way Jewish heritage and identity is passed down through the matrilineal line. If that makes sense? In other words, it's possible her DNA is diluted but these stories were passed down.
Another example of diluted DNA is with the ancestors of Thomas Jefferson & Sally Hemings. Their descendants are white and yet they still have the oral history stories. Sally Hemings is still their ancestor, and they aren't lying about that fact.
All that said - It's private family history and it was stupid for Warren to talk about these stories with anyone outside of her family or close friends, especially to work colleagues or to a political audience. It is a story of unofficial, not-enrolled in Tribal Membership, DNA diluted, white-looking descendants with nothing but family stories. She offends or confuses American citizens and citizens of the tribes.
Just open it, trust me:
http://www.californiaherps.com/films/filmimages/freshman12.jpg
Iowan2: "Do we keep affirmative action? If you say yes, what is the penalty for stealing someone’s spot?"
If you are a Trump opponent and a lefty dem, then one need have no fear of being called out by the lefties and their LLR allies for something so mundane as pretending to be a minority to advance your career.
I think Warren really believed she has Native American ancestry, and I haven't seen proof yet that she is wrong (though refusing the test does force me to update my priors a bit), but here is the thing- it should be considered wrong to use that belief in that ancestry to claim affirmative action benefits if you have none of the outward signs or history of being such. If she had grown up in poverty on a reservation somewhere, it would not matter to me if she had zero % Native American DNA- she would have at least the associated history of it and I would offer no criticism of the lack of the actual DNA.
Chuck,
I read in a story that the faculty who presented her case to the administration did not know about this stuff. If that's true she was not an affirmative action hire -- even if she got listed as a minority in that Harvard book.
Doesn't make it stupid of her to have told anyone for listing in that book. But, if administration didn't know that means she wasn't an AA hire.
The Pochahontas pic is hysterical.
Why won't the Left admit that, just being a plane white liberal doesn't impress the Harvard tenure committee, but a claim to be part Indian, well, that's exotic, and will goose you a few notches toward the Promised Land.
This is also why Obama claimed in a few pieces marketing pieces to be from Kenya. Barry Obama from America raised by his white Grandparents < Barack Obama from Kenya.
So what if you buy a kit from Ancestry, and do the testing, and find out that you have -- or, much more precisely, Ancestry's analysts say that you have -- something like 2% sub-Saharan African in you.
My wife and daughter did do this and find that they do have African, although not "sub Saharan", genes.
They are probably Berber and related to the migration of the Vandals to Africa from northern Europe but, what the heck, Yale Law School, here we come !
A fair number of lily white Americans have ancestors who were brought to the US as slaves- think about the outrage it would cause if they started claiming affirmative action positions based on that DNA alone- indeed, I think Elizabeth Warren would be on the front lines criticizing such people, and encouraging companies and universities to ignore the DNA evidence because of the lack of outward appearance and history.
wwww: "I read in a story that the faculty who presented her case to the administration did not know about this stuff."
That would be the best "storyline" to advance now if you were the hiring authorities at Harvard at that time, wouldn't it?
Does it seem likely that U Penn and then Harvard would hire as a law professor someone with a BS in Speech Pathology from the University of Houston and a JD from Rutgers Law School(Newark), knowing the credentialism of Ivy League law schools? What could be the missing resume item that opens the door. Ooh, ooh, I get it now...
Gilbert Pinfold: "Does it seem likely that U Penn and then Harvard would hire as a law professor someone with a BS in Speech Pathology from the University of Houston and a JD from Rutgers Law School(Newark), knowing the credentialism of Ivy League law schools? What could be the missing resume item that opens the door. Ooh, ooh, I get it now..."
This.
Elizabeth Warren was the ONLY non-Ivy hired. And she wasn't even close to having the credentials necessary to qualify.
Harvard is lying.
Warren is lying.
Her defenders are lying.
The media has been lying for a decade.
Probaby because of Trump. And the NRA. And white supremacy.
Facts don't matter, evidence doesn't matter, truth doesn't exist.
The only thing that matters is feelings.
"Just about anyone whose ancestors came to VA in the 1600's, as my mother's did, has some Native American ancestry."
As did my father's mother's ancestors, who also mixed with indentured Africans—pre-codified slavery. Defected to the tobacco growing Powhatans, which beat starving to death. Original affirmative action.
"That would be the best "storyline" to advance now if you were the hiring authorities at Harvard at that time, wouldn't it?"
That assumes the hiring authorities at Harvard need to advance a "storyline." I don't see a boycott of Harvard by parents or students. Kid gets into Harvard, "Hey Mom and Dad, I got into Harvard but I'm not gonna go because of Elizabeth Warren."
meh. Harvard doesn't need anything. Former Chair or Dean of Harvard doesn't need anything.
All this story does is make it less likely that Warren wants to run for President. And she doesn't come across to me as someone who is particularly interested in the job. That means Dems are more likely to nominate a moderate white male. Trump would be lucky to run against Warren.
A DNA test showed that I have no Native American ancestry, even though my Mother was French-Canadian. It came as a surprise, although I do have high cheekbones.
Look, I'm in the my late 50s. Full head of hair. It's not even gray, not even a little, (though my beard is grizzled). Bezos would give every cent that he has if he could have my hair. But, you know what? It's not for sale.
Sorry, Jeff. Everything isn't about money.
You are an accomplished retired law school professor and one of the all-time great bloggers, but your chain of reasoning is bizarre sometimes
She seems to have a very poor understanding of the process of reasoning. She actually makes the argument that emotion is a valid component of reasoning.
And, like Fritz, I think Warren took this test some time ago and didn't like the results.
That means Dems are more likely to nominate a moderate white male
Like who?
I'm not enrolled but I do like to rock enroll.
Don't give her a DNA test. Give her a high colonic.
Demmies present themselves as youthful, working class, minorities and authentic.
Two potential presidential candidates, Warren and Sanders give the lie to all that
Elderly
Well to do
White
Fake Democrat/fake indian
Sadly, everyone else seems even worse.
John Henry
That means Dems are more likely to nominate a moderate white male
Like who?
I got no guesses on specific people for 2020. I think Biden is a possibility but probably too old w/ too many family tragedies. I don't think he'll have the desire for the run.
These are my 2 cent guesses about who wins. I have no idea & it's way too soon but my guesses/ predictions:
(1) White man, moderate, younger. (2) A Surprise. (3) Could be outside of government. Young in Age.
(3) Trump has a very good chance of winning if economy is doing well.
I'm pretty sure Elizabeth Warren took the test anonymously, and didn't like the answer.
This is the correct answer. If she had a single Indian DNA she'd produce it and rub our faces in it and call us all racists. She'd be able to claim victim status.
It's a mistake to concentrate on if she has any Indian blood. The disgrace is she's a blonde haired blue eye white woman who listed herself as a minority to advance her career. She stole their history and their remedy.
She's a disgrace.
I've always checked the "other" box because "white" is just so... othering.
"A DNA test showed that I have no Native American ancestry, even though my Mother was French-Canadian. It came as a surprise, although I do have high cheekbones."
You still might have that ancestry. These tests are fun, but I've seen some data on them that suggests they might not be fully accurate in locating geographical location of origin or ethnic origin.
I'd take them more seriously on the health risk info.
Elon Musk is an African-White-American.
Hopefully, none of his relatives in South Africa are farmers.
Hey lewis,
I have a nice full head of hair and if Bezos wants to make any kind of decent offer, the answer is yes! I'll even tattoo a big Amazon.com logo on my newly bald head to sweeten the deal.
Jeff Bezos increased his personal wealth by $39 billion under President Trump and paid less than $2-3 million in personal taxes. How cool is that? He can afford my hair.
John Henry
Www
Biden was vp. Automatic disqualification.
Not legally, of course, but as a practical matter.
John Henry
Ann, agree with you on almost all of this, but what about EW and her supporters' claim/suggestion that her heritage never helped her advance. Have you seen the statistical analysis? She graduated from Rutgers, didn't have a prestigious clerkship, didn't work for a prestigious firm, etc. She climbed because each law school on the ladder so desperately needed a woman of color on their faculty. She did not and does not have a third of the credentials or brain power that you had/have. But she was willing to check the box.
Biden lost his chance at the presidency when he allowed Clinton to scare him off in 2015. I don't know what Clinton had on him, but it must be pretty bad. 2020 is 4 years too late for Biden.
"she's a blonde haired blue eye white woman "
Piebald Supremacy.
She is a fraud, plain and simple, and Harvard should require her to forfeit her back salary. ;-D
As for 2020, I stick to my prediction- Hillary Clinton is definitely planning to run again, and she has let it be known already to certain women who have declared themselves out publicly- Warren being the latest to do so. Clinton's hope is to drive all the women out of the race by the Summer of 2019, and I wouldn't bet against her. If the Democrats really don't want her running again, they need to put her ass in prison.
Althouse wrote: (and because the tribes have an enrollment procedure, so maybe there should be a rule against making a claim unless you are enrolled).
I am surprised Althouse wrote this. We don't have racial identification cards in the US. There are many reasons why you could authentically be Native American (DNA & everything), but not end up on a tribal roll. Cherokees closed their roll over a century ago, if you had a Cherokee ancestor who didn't get put on the roll, you aren't a Cherokee (according to the tribe), but your DNA still says you are Cherokee.
Most Mexicans have a lot of Native American in their background. We call them "Aztecs" or "Mayans."
The weak point of the AA system is that it's all based on self-identity & appearance.
I have a small amount of sub-Saharan African & Native American blood from one ancestor who entered the Wetzel bloodline in the early 1800's. It was a family story I heard growing up, 23&me results confirmed it, right down to the time period.
If I claim that I am Native American or Black, who can tell me I'm wrong? I've got the DNA, baby!
Warren had no problem plagiarizing a French chef's recipes, and offering them for publication as part of her Indian heritage, in a 1984 book called "Pow Wow Chow", billed "as a collection of recipes from the Five Civilized Tribes."
Both recipes featured crab as the main ingredient, leading many to marvel at how far the Gulf Coast had receded since Cherokees last gathered the critters along the Oklahoma shoreline.
But--the book was compiled and edited by a Warren relative, which offers support for Fauxcahontas' claim that a Warren ancestor had spent some hot times under an Indian blanket.
The DNA ancestry tests tell you what genes you have now, that are represented in other populations now. It does not tell you from which populations you are descended. You don't know what the gene frequencies in those populations were in the past anyway.
What Bullshit.
Whenever someone uses an emo word like "Grotesque" - y'know they have a weak case.
Why wouldn't someone who sincerely believed they have Indian ancestry want to prove their critics wrong? Once the DNA test showed Warren was right, she could make all critics eat crow and apologize. think of the great publicity. Plus,making Trump look like a fool!
Obviously, she doesn't want to take the test, because she knows she lied. And she hasn't used the Althouse defense: "Hey, maybe i'm not Indian, but Uncle Fred told me I was, and I believe it". She simply asserts again and again that she is part Indian.
But doesn't want to prove it.
Every time the Liberal/Left gets caught in a crime or a lie, they just deny, deny, deny. And if they're found guilty, then they claim the trial was a set-up, or they were REALLY innocent except blah, blah, blah happened.
Or they pretend like its all a big puzzle and mystery and that we'll never know whether the Rosenberg's were REALLY guilty, or Lillian Hellman made up "Julia" or what happened in the White House with Clinton/Lewinsky or etc. etc.
Also, if you believe in affirmative action as a way of helping people overcome disadvantages, you do not play that card, you do not check that box if you are a blond and blue-eyed person who grew up driving a convertible as a teenager. Whether she believed it or not, EW's checking the box was greedy and dishonorable.
Musk, tony stark wannabe, doesn't explain if he hasn't even gotten to the moon yet, how he is going to get to mars which is 140 times farther away, at its closest approach.
Massachusetts Nazis. I hate Massachusetts Nazis.
Fritz said... [hush][hide comment]
I'm pretty sure Elizabeth Warren took the test anonymously, and didn't like the answer
Agree she took the test. Maybe it was positive. Whip it out at the most opportune time during her run for President.
BTW, story from a guy who used three different labs for ancestry DNA got three different opinions.
Nope, don't have a link but I think link I followed may have came from this blog a month or so ago.
Gahrie said...
You are an accomplished retired law school professor and one of the all-time great bloggers, but your chain of reasoning is bizarre sometimes
She seems to have a very poor understanding of the process of reasoning. She actually makes the argument that emotion is a valid component of reasoning."
Like all of us, Althouse has her blind spots. This is a case where she lets her emotional blind spot convince her that Warren's bullshit is acceptable because Warren believed in it. A case of if I believe a lie and recite the lie am I lying to someone else when I tell them the lie? Except in Warren's case she has the opportunity to confirm the lie as a lie or prove that the allege lie is actually true so Warren's choice tells the average non emotionally invested and blinded person that Warren knows she is lying.
I have some questions.
Aren't affirmative action programs supposed to help racial minorities who suffer from discrimination because of their appearance? So when white-bread looking Warren strolls in, do they just take her word for it that she's native? If not, what documentation did Warren provide to back up her claim?
Has Warren ever actually suffered from racial discrimination? If she believes in affirmative action, why would she feel it's okay to take a job that has been set aside for somebody who has? And in light of this, shouldn't Warren have done something to verify to herself this "family lore" before elbowing actual native-looking applicants out of the way?
Are we supposed to believe that a smart woman like Warren never thought about any of this? That she didn't think there was a difference between a conversation at a cocktail party and getting a job at Harvard?
If she was an honest broker, wouldn't she want to know? Wouldn't she want to open up a job for a real minority teacher? Since the answer seems to be no, I don't have a problem asking her to take a DNA test. It's not a requirement. It's political speech calling that effectively calls her out on basic questions of honesty and ethical behavior.
And furthermore since mars will be further out of aligmenr in 2019, what new propulsion system he'll use to vet there.
So when white-bread looking Warren strolls in, do they just take her word for it that she's native? If not, what documentation did Warren provide to back up her claim?
Balls. That's all it takes is balls. Harvard won't even admit that she is the Indian they bragged about on their faculty, even though there doesn't seem to be another one, and even though her qualifications are far and away the lowest of anybody on their law faculty. Harvard doesn't go to Rutgers for faculty. Princeton, maybe, if they wan't somebody from New Jersey.
"Ann, agree with you on almost all of this, but what about EW and her supporters' claim/suggestion that her heritage never helped her advance."
That goes to character and as I'm saying in this post, that character is in issue for us (especially if she runs for President). I'd like to look at the specific things she's said about this and the evidence about her basis for believing that and what she would say now if the evidence refuted that.
"Have you seen the statistical analysis? She graduated from Rutgers, didn't have a prestigious clerkship, didn't work for a prestigious firm, etc. She climbed because each law school on the ladder so desperately needed a woman of color on their faculty. She did not and does not have a third of the credentials or brain power that you had/have. But she was willing to check the box."
I'm not sure I would call that "statistical analysis." It's more like circumstantial evidence, a basis for inferring that she received affirmative action. So let's look at the facts. She got her first law teaching job at her own law school Rutgers, so that's not unusual. She worked her way up, to the University of Houston Law Center — also not a fancy school — and then to the University of Texas School of Law (in 1981, when it was less prestigious than it is today).
She specialized in a field where there are focused searches — bankruptcy — and she got to University of Pennsylvania Law School and, after all that, Harvard. She became prominent in bankruptcy and was probably often on lists of schools wanting to make a lateral hire in bankruptcy.
I'd bet that's how she got to Penn, and, after further burnishing her reputation, Harvard.
Claiming to have some Native American ancestry doesn't seem like an obvious, necessary factor, and frankly, I don't think Harvard would have brought her in as their bankruptcy expert because of that. It might have even caused some looking down on her, if they thought about it at all, not that they'd admit it. But of course, Harvard wanted other people to think they had a Native American. That made Harvard look better to people Harvard cares about.
I do think the fact that she was female would have been important. Harvard was under intense criticism at the time (1992) about the low number of female faculty. I visited at Boston University in fall 1990 and participated in a group called FemCrits (which included lawprofs from all the schools in the area, including Harvard), and I can tell you from experience that Harvard and women was a red-hot topic.
As for "She did not and does not have a third of the credentials or brain power that you had/have," thanks, but one thing my brain did not do was get me into a specialty like bankruptcy where schools have special needs. I was drawn to things that interested me intellectually, and I am really aversive to commerce and finance. Another aversion of mine is political ideology. If I had set out to climb the ranks, I had a terrible strategy. I think it's much more strategically successful to choose a moderately left-wing political ideology and adhere to it in a simple, faithful way. I'm just not that kind of person.
Amazing that several people are discussing the pros and cons of Biden running again without mentioning the biggest con: he's been caught on film molesting the wives and daughters (many of the latter under-age) of at least a dozen different federal appointees. He's a filthy old pervert, and everyone knows it except those who are trying very hard not to know it.
Oklahoma has a really bad history when it comes to racism against both Blacks & Native Americans. I am glad that I am not 100% Okie. Only my dad's family is from Oklahoma.
Mom's people came from Georgia :)
Wasn't there a story about Biden's habit of skinny dipping in the VP residence pool making female secret service agents uncomfortable?
"Has Warren ever actually suffered from racial discrimination?"
No doubt she has. It is common and universal for individuals with pigment mutations to be persecuted.
"No doubt she has. It is common and universal for individuals with albinism to be persecuted."
The only albino race is the annual Red-Eye Run For The Cure in White Plains...which is held at night. It's kinda freaky the first time you stumble into the event unawares.
If the question is why didn't Warren go to a classier law school, the answer seems to be that she was living in NJ because of her husband's job and she was caring for 2 little children.
So Althouse's argument is that Harvard hired her for her left-wing nutcakery.
the answer seems to be that she was living in NJ because of her husband's job and she was caring for 2 little children.
I wonder where Princeton is...
Hey Meade, you changed it. That's cheatin'.
"Hey Meade, you changed it. That's cheatin'."
I know. You caught me. Pontificating about albinism made me sound racist. So I changed it because, well, I'm a big fat virtue signaler.
Demanding Warren take a DNA test is grotesque, I agree, but her refusal is suspicious. She claimed to have complete confidence in what her family told her about her background, but she really doesn't. She's afraid to know the truth or let people know the truth. Refusing to take the test is a sign of weakness, a fatal character flaw for any president. imo
"So Althouse's argument is that Harvard hired her for her left-wing nutcakery."
Actually the more left-wing group was getting pushed back, and more moderate liberals were trying to hold their ground. To the real lefties, these people seemed conservative. The critical studies people were much more about fighting liberals than conservatives. As I remember, no one took conservatives seriously back then... not in the law schools I saw. Even to take conservative arguments seriously — which is all I did — would make people hostile.
The crits were at least interesting intellectually, but I'm sure you'd see them as "nutcakes." The liberals were smug, boring, and repressive.
Far more probative of Warren's state of mind were her efforts to market her Native American heritage right up to the point she received tenure at Harvard (at which point she completely stopped marketing it). As long as Native American heritage helped her career (by making it more likely she would be promoted) she marketed it, but as soon as it would have been a negative (because any promotion could have been viewed as a result of affirmative action) she stopped marketing it. Are these actions consistent with someone who actually "believed" she was Native American??
As others have noted, there's a pretty good chance that Warren had the DNA test done in a discreet way and didn't like the results. In the way that it is incumbent on Trump to prove that he didn't hire hookers to piss on the bed, it is now incumbent on Warren to prove that she never had a DNA test. Paradoxically, the only way that she can prove that she never had such a test and is acting in good faith is by now taking the test.....,..I took the DNA test and researched some of my ancestry. The unexpected discovery was that my mother's grandfather decided not to be Jewish. He was a German Jew who emigrated to America. Any chance I can hook up with any of that reparation money the Germans are throwing around?
Musk, tony stark wannabe, doesn't explain if he hasn't even gotten to the moon yet, how he is going to get to mars which is 140 times farther away, at its closest approach.
Actually he has. It's called the Mars Transport System, and he's currently designing the ship, tanker and rocket booster system he will need. His current name for the system is the BFR.
Claiming to have some Native American ancestry doesn't seem like an obvious, necessary factor, and frankly, I don't think Harvard would have brought her in as their bankruptcy expert because of that.
But her medical bankruptcy study was so poorly done!
Oklahoma has a really bad history when it comes to racism against both Blacks & Native Americans. I am glad that I am not 100% Okie. Only my dad's family is from Oklahoma.
Mom's people came from Georgia :)
It was your Mom's family that forced them to leave Georgia and move to Oklahoma.
As to stats - see https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/warrens-law-degree-is-last-among-harvards-elite-staff/article/563101
Note that her then latest bankruptcy work was being attacked as shoddy even before tenure decision. Ann's correct that the pressure to give a woman tenure was extremely high at that time; if EW had been male, HLS might well have passed on giving her tenure.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/10/harvard-law-dean-cited-affirmative-action-in-1993-elizabeth-warren-hiring-academic-qualifications-questioned-in-1990/
BTW, and to be fair, I have two young conservative friends who took classes from her at HLS. They both say she was great.
Purely anecdotal, I know, but the DNA tests I know the results of match known ancestry very well. My wife is a bit less than a quarter "Native American", certainly from her Mexican father, otherwise various European. So spot on.
I have some levantine/middle eastern which is typical of Spain, and a bit of East Asian. So quite plausible.
And a lady I arrange a DNA test for, who was proud of her "ocho apellidos", the test for 'pure' Basque ancestry, was indeed 100% Iberian, or as close to that as makes no difference.
So AFAIK, they are reasonably good. Where they get into trouble is at the edges, and the sorts of things people are obsessing over are these questionable traces of whatever that are likely random errors and/or just the way uncertainty falls out in human genetics. If the test says someone is 1% Mongol with no family connection of that it is not really a failure of the test, nor does it prove descent from Genghis Khan.
If the test says someone is 1% Mongol with no family connection of that it is not really a failure of the test, nor does it prove descent from Genghis Khan.
The Y chromosome is where you find Genghis.
Just like mitochondrial DNA is for female ancestors.
I don't know if "23 and me" does mitochondrial DNA.
Whenever Affirmative Action is a topic, I feel that I must remind people that Obama claimed that he was a recipient of affirmative action:
I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized either within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review.
http://hlrecord.org/2008/10/record-retrospective-obama-on-affirmative-action/
Obama was not descended from American slaves, was half-white, grew up abroad and in a state that was not part of the United States when slavery was an issue, was raised by middle class white people, and attended an expensive private prep school.
I'm pretty sure Ghengis Khan had an extra Y chromosome.
wwww said...
Chuck,
I read in a story that the faculty who presented her case to the administration did not know about this stuff. If that's true she was not an affirmative action hire -- even if she got listed as a minority in that Harvard book.
Doesn't make it stupid of her to have told anyone for listing in that book. But, if administration didn't know that means she wasn't an AA hire.
The "DNA test" question is actually well down the list of interesting questions in Warren's case. Higher on the list would simply be a release of her personnel file, redacted for all stray personal info but open to scrutiny as to whether, and how, she claimed any minority status. Because her employer-schools did report to federal authorities that she was a minority faculty member.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/11/elizabeth-warren-native-american-heritage-harvard-fraud/
The article on that Drudge page that most interested me was that the Chinese space station is going to crash into lower Michigan.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5486985/Lower-Michigan-crash-site-falling-Chinese-space-station.html
"Obama was not descended from American slaves"
The obvious counter-argument in his case would have been that his appearance was sufficient to create prejudice against him as he would be mistaken for one of these descendants of slaves (and not the descendant of chieftains that he actually was); and besides which there was doubtless some considerable shame about his mothers miscegenation creating some harm to his psyche.
Not that any of that can be shown to have hampered him somehow, but someone could argue that way.
The Ivies have zero trouble finding African American candidates that are non AA and truly qualified. Twenty or thirty years ago, yes. Today, no. That cannot be said about Native Americans and it cannot be said for the next tier of excellent public and private universities.
Warren gamed the system with an assist from Harvard whose PR benefited from her presence.
Blogger Gahrie said...
. . .
It was your Mom's family that forced them to leave Georgia and move to Oklahoma.
3/12/18, 1:24 PM
Family legend sez that sometime in the early 19th century we had a native American ancestor (Cherokee) in Georgia. He owned a small amount of land & kept a few slaves. Being a property owner saved him from the trail of tears. This person freed a female slave & married her. Their daughter would have been my great-great Grandmother.
I was surprised when 23&me seemed to confirm this: some Native American & sub-Saharan African DNA entered the chain in the early 19th century.
Sex difference aside, I look a lot more like Elizabeth Warren than Crazy Horse or Nat Turner.
I shot an iguana in Costa Rica many decades ago. With a 22 pistol it took several shots to dislodge him (her?) from the tree. She tasted like rubbery chicken and was hell to skin. Maybe twenty four inches nose to tail. Hardly a meal when all was said and done.
"I shot an iguana in Costa Rica many decades ago."
Sounds like the opening line of a great novel. Was it a dark and stormy night?
"Obama was not descended from American slaves,"
Obama won't take the DNA test either. It's a wise child ...
@ Tim in Vermont
"So when white-bread looking Warren strolls in, do they just take her word for it that she's native? If not, what documentation did Warren provide to back up her claim?
Balls. That's all it takes is balls. Harvard won't even admit that she is the Indian they bragged about on their faculty, even though there doesn't seem to be another one, and even though her qualifications are far and away the lowest of anybody on their law faculty. Harvard doesn't go to Rutgers for faculty. Princeton, maybe, if they wan't somebody from New Jersey."
Princeton (thankfully) does not have a law school, medical school, school of business, etc. Only a school of architecture that offers a professional certification.
Do Asians pretend to be White to get into Ivy League schools ?
Whether she truly believed the family lore is not the point. The point is that she cashed in on it for her own selfish reasons Took the advantages, possibly from someone else who was/is qualified without anything other than wishful thinking.
The lore in my husband's family from the Arkansas and Georgia branch of the family is that there was Cherokee (isn't it always Cherokee?) in his blood. That was interesting to think about, but we didn't rush out to get free medical from the Indian Clinic, cash in on Casino loot or try to get on the government gravy train. As it turns out after an ancestry DNA testing there is zero zippo nada Indian Heritage of any kind.
Believing the stories is one thing. Cashing in and then REFUSING to prove it to your voters is another thing entirely.
"Obama was not descended from American slaves,"
It's more likely that his privileged paternal lineage progressed from slavers. Africa has a [very] diverse, in the progressive sense (i.e. class), population.
"I shot an iguana in Costa Rica many decades ago."
Doesn't have quite the same ring as "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die".
"I shot an iguana in Costa Rica many decades ago."
It's an excellent beginning for a Bad Hemingway Contest entry.
"A DNA test, going either way, would not shed any light on her honesty, since she never claimed to have a belief based on a DNA test."
If I don't think I'm the father of your son, that's all that should matter. Stick that test up your ass, mom.
This means we can all get reparations. 40 acres and a mule, please.
I think it's grotesque and irrelevant to demand a DNA test.
Women should never be expected to prove their assertions. Video tape is a tool of the Patriarchy--as is all applied science. Facts piss on the heads of legends and family stories.
If Warren believes, as I do, that it doesn't matter what's in the DNA
Well at least you're consistent, since you (and Warren I bet), believe a man should be forced to pay child support even if a DNA test proves he's not the father.
It's possible to be a member of a tribe/Nation and not have any Native American DNA.
You don't have to be WASP to be an American and you don't have to be ethnically Native American to be a Cherokee. There's a lot of African Americans who became enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation. They count as "real" Cherokee members and "real" Cherokee. They are not disqualified because of their DNA.
There was a blood quantum requirement, but that was an American thing. Native American tribes did adopt people and families who were not of their ethnic background.
Bannock is a Native American dish of Scottish background and popular at PowWows. That doesn't mean Bannock is not "real" food at PowWows and it doesn't mean that the Scottish fur traders who married into tribes, and their children, weren't "real" tribal members.
This isn't to say EW is Native. she's not and DNA would not prove she is a member. That's why identifying as a something she is not is wrong. She's not a member, she doesn't have family or cultural connections in this era and she doesn't have aunties who are Native & who taught her how to make legendary bannock.
DNA doesn't transform somebody into a member of a Native nation or a "Indian." They're "nations" with a certain amount of legal sovereignty recognized by the USA.
A teenage boy and girl have a baby. They put the baby at birth up for legal adoption.
A nice couple in their 30s adopts the baby.
Legally that baby is the child of the adopting couple. The baby is raised with the holiday traditions of the couple. The baby is siblings to their children. The baby is raised according to their religious beliefs.
It doesn't matter what the baby's DNA is. The baby takes their lineage. The baby is eligible for their inheritance. The baby takes their last name. The baby takes their citizenship.
A DNA test will never make the teenage boy the legal or legitimate parent.
William Weatherford, Chief Red Eagle, who fought against Andrew Jackson and later befriended him, was only half Native. His father was a Scot.
My maternal grandmother's family had a story of a half NA grandmother. Recently I began to research my family tree at Ancestry dot com and sure enough a NA 5 times great grandmother popped up in the family tree...but not on Gran's side, so one never knows.
Cherokee genealogists claim they can find no trace of NA ancestry in Warren's lineage. They seem to be rather positive about it, but handwritten records weren't always accurate, names were often spelled phonetically and census takers sometimes drew their own conclusion as to race and ethnicity.
Elizabeth "George Costanza" Warren
I had been told that we might have some Cherokee heritage but it turns out that the Weatherfords were Creeks.
"I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized"
--
Not a good barometer, that guy.
He of unearned Nobel.
Critical Theory is a school of thought that stresses the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture by applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities.
LOL, so they start with the journal of irreproducible results, and work from there! Brilliant!
I think “Nutcakery” covers it nicely.
After I retired from law practice, I used Ancestry.com to research my genealogy. One of the things I discovered was that I may have a Native American ancestor. One quarter of my ancestry is New England Yankees, and one of the early English settlers from whom I am descended may have married a Native American woman in the mid 1600's. The evidence isn't conclusive, but I think it's pretty cool, so I accept it. No, that doesn't show up in my Ancestry DNA test, but if it's true it would mean that my DNA is 0.10% American Indian, and the DNA test isn't that precise. I would NEVER identify myself, or allow anyone else to identify me, as Native American.
There's a society of Indians from the tribe of which Pocahontas was a member. Someone asked them if the descendants of Pocahontas could qualify as members. Pocahontas married an Englishman and moved to England, where she had several children and died. The society's answer was that the descendants of Pocahontas had no connection with the tribe and could not qualify as members.
Does no one here remember "the touch of the tar brush"? Back when there was serious discrimination against Blacks, a person who had or was suspected to have a tiny bit of African ancestry was subject to discrimination, out of fear that their child might be born with brown eyes and skin. I don't think Ms. Warren ever had to face that kind of discrimination.
Personally, I don't care. If her politics were good, I'd support her whether she was White, Red, or Striped. I think the best Justice of the Supreme Court today is the one who happens to have the darkest skin. But Prof. You-didn't-build-that is not going to get a free pass from me, no matter what her family history.
What is grotesque and quite relevant is that she was almost certainly hired due to her being believed to be a "woman of color". Grotesque because she isn't, and relevant, because she would not be a national figure at Austin.
To demonstrate her chances of becoming a US Senator from Texas (presuming she would have stayed there if not hired away by an Ivy law school), I have here a snowball and a flamethrower ...
I think the best Justice of the Supreme Court today is the one who happens to have the darkest skin.
Am I the only one who thinks that darker blacks are more likely to be conservative ?
I'm not saying they all are, of course, but there seems to be an issue. Look at Thomas and Cain and Charles Payne on Fox.
It seems that light skin and leftism go together. Maybe it is a class thing or maybe they are angry because they are not quite white enough/
Republicans really like mocking our own Native Americans, don't they.
A teenage boy and girl have a baby. They put the baby at birth up for legal adoption.
A nice couple in their 30s adopts the baby.
Legally that baby is the child of the adopting couple. The baby is raised with the holiday traditions of the couple. The baby is siblings to their children. The baby is raised according to their religious beliefs.
It doesn't matter what the baby's DNA is.
Not if one of those teenaged parents was an American Indian. Tribes can, and have, overturned adoptions because of the baby's DNA.
The baby takes their lineage. The baby is eligible for their inheritance. The baby takes their last name.
Usually true.
The baby takes their citizenship.
If government regulations are followed.
A DNA test will never make the teenage boy the legal or legitimate parent.
Sure it will. The adopted parents die in a car crash. There is no one to take the child and it becomes a ward of the state. The state will come after the teenaged dad for child support.
"Playing upon" her heritage? Well, it sure beats the way that Trump's minions "play" upon how his white German-Scottish heritage is good for them now, doesn't it?
Every other Southerner claims to have some Indian blood - and every other Texan and Oklahoman claims the same or to have a Mexican Great-Grandmother.
Given the Indians were usually outnumbered 100-1, it seems doubtful.
Obama was not descended from American slaves, was half-white, grew up abroad and in a state that was not part of the United States when slavery was an issue, was raised by middle class white people, and attended an expensive private prep school.
He still was subjected to racist attitudes controlling the system such as those witnessed here every day in their approval of Trump's self-promotion of a symbol of white dominance and its supposed restoration. The Klan hasn't been this excited about a candidate or president since 1968! You are allied with what they want, whether you can admit that or not.
The Klan hasn't been this excited about a candidate or president since 1968!
Surely they were at least as excited in 1988 when David Duke ran as a Democrat and in 1992 when he ran as a Republican?
Surely they were at least as excited in 1988 when David Duke ran as a Democrat and in 1992 when he ran as a Republican?
Why would they be, Sparky? The <1% showing he got in the polls (and removal from 39 state ballots in 1988) obviously put him much further out of the running, as your newest Klan favorite Trump would remind you.
So obviously with this guy they get the one they want AND the power and platform to match. Pretty good deal for them, wouldn't you say?
It's good that their values/interests align so closely with yours, no?
It's good that their values/interests align so closely with yours, no?
Fuck you.
"It's good that their values/interests align so closely with yours, no?"
Fuck you.
U mad, bro?
What are you saying, Gahrie? That you don't want their votes?
That would be a first for Republicans.
Good Grief ! A Ritmo shower.
Open wide, Michael Drama Queen.
Say, "Ahhhh!"
Michael guesses: It seems that light skin and leftism go together. Maybe it is a class thing or maybe they are angry because they are not quite white enough/
Au contraire! They are afraid they will be called not black enough.
I think “Nutcakery” covers it nicely.
She could dance in the Nutcaker Suite.
Blogger mockturtle said...
Michael guesses: It seems that light skin and leftism go together. Maybe it is a class thing or maybe they are angry because they are not quite white enough/
Au contraire! They are afraid they will be called not black enough.
Harvard admits about one in twenty applicants. Harvard, its faculty, administration, and its students, consider Harvard to be a bastion of equality. It is against "exclusion" of any kind. It is up to the American working class to show the Harvardians that they are !@#% nuts.
”The Klan hasn't been this excited about a candidate or president since 1968!”
Yeah, all 3,000 of them.
The Klan has so many undercover FBI agents in it, it is just another branch of the "deep state."
It matters because of what it says about her probity. If the test results belie her claims of American Indian ancestry, then she would be confronted with a tough decision.
Maybe, if it weren't for her "diverse" background, another more qualified, but less "diverse" (or less qualified, but truly"diverse") candidate would have been chosen in her stead, at various steps in her career. The appearance of impropriety might compel her to make some reparatory gesture in response to the fraud she has (unwittingly?) perpetrated.
Refusing to take the test says something negative about her character. She avoids confronting difficult issues head-on and tries to take the sneaky way out.
And the real issue, by the way, is that people like Warren, who are in no way stigmatized as members of a visible and/or persecuted minority, but can claim membership and "persecution" for the purpose of advancing their careers, are the truly privileged and are in the process of forming a new aristocracy and most certainly won't give up their privileges without a fight.
Post a Comment