That's a transcription of something she said, and I think the punctuation makes it confusing. I'm guessing she said "I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group — something that might happen with people who are like I am."
So the assertion is that she used it as a way to make associations with other people, to network, with lawprofs, but this was somehow disconnected from career advancement. That's a strange line to draw and it makes her sound naive. We are talking about the years from 1986 to 1995. That's a long time, and it's a period when there was a tremendous amount of attention to the enterprise of increasing racial diversity among faculty.
(Here at the University of Wisconsin—Madison, we had Donna Shalala as our chancellor during that time period, and her central agenda — celebrated in the NYT — was "the Madison Plan," which included "doubl[ing] the number of minority faculty members by adding 70 within three years." Taking advantage of the Plan's incentives, my law school hired 4 new faculty members — all drawn from other law schools.)
Here's video of Warren attempting to field the question:
Note that she says:
"The only one as I understand it who’s raising any question about whether or not I was qualified for my job is Scott Brown and I think I am qualified and frankly I’m a little shocked to hear anybody raise a question about whether or not I’m qualified to hold a job teaching,” she said, pushing to put Brown on defense. “What does he think it takes for a woman to be qualified?”This is nonresponsive to the issue, an attempt to distract. The question is not whether she was qualified. The question is whether she tried to obtain or did obtain a special advantage, with race taken as a plus factor. In affirmative action, the concern is not whether those who are hired are qualified. It's whether the most meritorious candidate received the offer and whether race should boost one person over the next person.
Now, I assume that Professor Warren supports affirmative action within the law schools where she has worked. Ask her about it! Does she vote in favor of admissions policies that count race as a plus factor? Has she supported faculty appointments, choosing one person over another, with race as a factor? I'd be extremely surprised if she hasn't. Assuming she has, why is she acting outraged that anyone would say that it seems that it benefited her and that she sought that benefit?
By the way, does anyone think it's acceptable to check the "Native American" box on an job/admissions application based on one distant ancestor? Affirmative action isn't about genetics!
पोस्ट्स
१०४ टिप्पण्या:
What? Fauxcahontas is not boring at all.
From the article:
"Warren’s statements come as genealogists at the New England Historic Genealogical Society were unable to back up earlier accounts that her great great great grandmother is Cherokee. While Warren’s great great great grandmother, named O.C. Sarah Smith, is listed on a electronic transcript of a 1894 marriage application as Cherokee, the genealogists are unable to find the actual record or a photograhic copy of it, Society spokesman Tom Champoux said. A copy of the marriage license itself has been located, but unlike the application, it does not list Smith’s ethnicity"
Long story short: her "proof" of 1/32 Cherokee heritage is not credible so now she has to come up with a new story.
New story: She checked a box because she wanted to hang with other sorta-kindof-but-not-really-indians but "nothing like that ever happened" so . . . she kept checking the box FOR NINE MORE YEARS. And she may have mentioned it to Harvard although Harvard would never ever consider such a thing in hiring. Except when they did and showed off about it. In her case. Fauxcahontas.
There is no good explanation. She supports AA and took improper advantage of it.
This issue is clearly hurting her, as her defenders are getting more shrill.
Wasn't it Tom Friedman who said the first rule of holes was to stop digging, but if you're in three, to bring more shovels? That made no sense, but it looks like Warren is taking that advice.
She checked the box in order to accrue personal pecuniary advantage. She was clever enough to choose a tribe (Cherokee) that only requires 1/32 Indian blood to qualify. However, tribes often set up other conditions, like having an ancestor that was on an official tribal membership list.
Her action was corrupt and contemptible, and apparently typical of Harvard faculty these days.
I know that politics is celebrity for ugly people, but even so!
Anyway, I suppose that Dances With Socialists, of the Wannabee Nation, will have a new excuse tomorrow.
You are never so at home as you are with people who share the same 1/32nd of your ancestry.
When you go to lunch with people who do not have The 1/32, what are you even going to talk about?
it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon ... a group something that might happen with people who are like I am.
She claimed to be an Indian in the hopes of getting invited to lunch with a bunch of upper-class white people?
Well. It worked, I guess?
Well, Ward Churchill was headed nowhere as an associate in a 'studies' department, nowhere at about $40K/year. The University of Colorado announced that your race and gender were (and are) entirely a matter of self-identification which would never be checked or questioned. When he came out as an Indian, lo, he was on a swift assent to Department Chair at $117K/year. It's amazing, and to the academic mind an ever-renewed surprise, that you get more of what you pay for.
I can see how this could happen. When i was young I heard that my mother's family had Cherokee blood. Years later I found the records -- the supposed Cherokee ancestor had the last name of "Rewis" and the Rewis family had been considered "white" since the 1830's -- but not before.
"Scipio le Moyne, from Gallipolice, Ohio," he
said. "The eldest of us always gets called Scipio. It's French. But us folks have been white for a hundred years."
Owen Wister, The Virginian
Oh, I get it.
Warren is a big fan of curried chicken, so she wanted to get invited to luncheons where they served Indian food.
This can't be working to her political advantage and Scott Brown need not even mention it.
I think normal people are outraged by what she did. She better not hope this has legs in MA.
Well, she comes from a long line of people who have lied about their ancestry. It's a family traditiion, and she will abide by it even if it causes momentary distress. Her sense of integrity will allow no other course. Does Louis Gates still support her?
Considering she's running in a state that would vote for anyone , regardless of how untrustworthy or incompetent they were, as long as they had the last name Kennedy, my original question, "Does she really expect people are that stupid?", requires no further answer.
Ann Althouse said...
By the way, does anyone think it's acceptable to check the "Native American" box on an job/admissions application based on one distant ancestor?
I don't know about ancestors, but I've been tempted to do it, just so, when asked, I can tell them, "Of course, I'm a Native American. I was born in Bryn Mawr Hospital in Bryn Mawr PA. Now, if you want to know if I'm a Siberian-American..."
Wouldn't it be hilarious if some racist student at Harvard had found out about her claim and started hassling her? Calling her "dirty injun", "wagon burner", and so forth?
And you a lawyer, Ann!:)
whether or not it is acceptable is not the real question. The real question is whether it was legal.
Under Federal Law it is illegal to claim status as "Native American" unless one is an enrolled member of a tribe. Doesn't matter who your parents are. Doesn't matter how you were brought up.
The ONLY thing that counts is enrollment in a recognized tribe.
She is not. If she claimed Native American status, and got any benefit from it she probably broke the law.
Why is nobody talking about that?
John Henry
FWIW, I do not think it is acceptable either.
Terry said...
Wouldn't it be hilarious if some racist student at Harvard had found out about her claim and started hassling her? Calling her "dirty injun", "wagon burner", and so forth?
Ethan Edwards might try to rescue her.
We all know how that almost turned out.
PS Read that line from "The Virginian" when I was 14 and never forgot it.
Really: "Affirmative action isn't about genetics!" If affirmative action isn't predicated on genetics, is it then based on political affiliation, or on movie preferences or on what?
Wasn't both the old one drop rule and the current one drop rule (Really one and the same for all practical and real reasons) the basis for racial discrimination back in the bad old days of yore. And, wasn't racial discrimination based exclusively on so-called racial makeup of people? And, aren't genetics the sole basis for determining a person's racial characteristics, the pigmentation of our skin? Somehow, I doubt that even tanning booths have that same capability as our genetic makeup.
Ah well, off to find another bridge to cross!
I asked my parents for permission to apply for minority status as an Asian because of our centuries-old Russian roots. However, someone pointed out that, while U.S. minorities, Asians won't get affirmative action protection because of the perception that they're high-achievers and it could work against an Asian applicant.
It's hard to know which continent or ethnicity to use when Roots creds could come in handy.
A bit off topic but Ken Kesey had a great riff in his last novel "Sailor Song"
The Native Americans of Alaska (in the novel) decided that they did not like being called Native Americans and wanted to be called "Early American People"
That did not fly because they were not. They were officially called "descendents of early American people"
That got shortened to "DEAP" which always seemed to sound a bit racist to me. Especially the way it was used in the book.
Is Elizabeth Warren a DEAP? Perhaps we could start a meme. Who cares what it means, it sounds like a bad thing to call her.
John Henry
I wish Prof. Althouse would enlighten us as to what affirmative action is about, if it isn't about genetics. We know she is a big supporter of AA--it's the only cause for which she has demonstrated--but I don't think she has ever explained what she thinks are its purpose or true nature. It's easy to snark at other lawprofs, but if you haven't set out your own position, it's sort of intellectually dishonest.
Elisabeth Warren or anybody else has the right to take the benefits, whether AA, tax, welfare or otherwise, that are offered by the gummint.
Rich folks take big tax exemptions and deductions just for breeding. Employees take advantage of tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance benefits.
The tax rules are stupid, socialist, racist, pro-natalist, and otherwise not justified, but everybody is entitled to play in the gummint-largess game.
"Affirmative action isn't about genetics!"
We're all have African ancestors, if you go back far enough.
Women are extremely concerned that they're thought to be qualified.
Guys don't care.
I'd predict, from her claim, that she's on a committee concerned with women's workplace issues as well.
It's not nonresponsiveness but hot buttonness.
Affirmative action is absolutely about genetics. To claim otherwise is absurd.
I am 15/16 sick of Elizabeth Warren's bullshit and spin.
As someone who is at least 1/8 Cherokee (paternal grandmother definitely 1/2, differing stories on grandfather's blood line), I've looked into tribal membership and, for the Cherokees, it's basically a closed club.
The reason why is because there are MILLIONS of mixed blood Cherokees in the US. I knew quite a few in HS in Alabama, and found out that my former corporate sales guy (a black guy from upper New York state) was also 1/8.
You take a pot of government bennies and spread it out among millions of people and it just doesn't amount to much.
"...-something that might happen with people who are like I am."
I assume she means people who are white, and pretend otherwise to get an unfair advantage over others. Do they have clubs, Tupperware or whine testing parties that such people attend?
edutcher wrote:
PS Read that line from "The Virginian" when I was 14 and never forgot it.
If you can believe the historian David McCullough, Wister was a fierce racist who believed that the massive immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe that occurred around the turn of the 20th century was destroying America.
She is smooth. She plays everybody for sympathy.
First she was lonely and reaching out to get admitted into Tribal Clubs. Then she is a hard worker that teaches well and earned her elite jobs with no help. Then she is a woman being told she cannot qualify to teach at Harvard by a MAN who wars against women.
The next thing we will probably hear is that Brown put a pubic hair onto her coke can.
True Lies? Nah.
Epic fail in honesty!
"Affirmative action isn't about genetics!."
Not true. It is about genetics, and elite blacks use their genetics to game the system.
40% of the black undergraduates at Ivy League schools had at least one foreign born parent. This is more that double the average of such persons at non-Ivy institutions. http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/56_race_sensitive_not_helping.html
Here are some quotes from that article:
The study by the Princeton and Penn researchers also looked at the family backgrounds of the black students who enrolled at 28 selective colleges and universities. The results showed, as Harvard’s Professor Gates suspected, that the vast majority of black students at these schools are not from low-income, inner-city, or rural black belt families. In fact, for native-born black students at these 28 selective colleges and universities, a remarkable 55.2 percent of their fathers are college graduates and 25 percent of their fathers hold a graduate degree. Fifty-seven percent of these students at selective colleges have mothers who had completed college and 26 percent have mothers who hold a graduate degree. These percentages are about triple the national average for all African Americans.
Furthermore, for native-born black students at these 28 selective institutions, 74 percent owned their home compared to less than half of all black families nationwide. The median value of the homes of these black students was nearly $200,000.
More than one quarter of the native-born black students at these selective colleges and universities come from families with annual incomes over $100,000. Nationwide, only 7 percent of all black households have incomes of more than $100,000.
Twenty-seven percent of the black students at these selective colleges and universities were graduates of private high schools. This is a level very similar to that of white students at these selective colleges and universities.
Also:
Now a new study by Professors Douglas S. Massey, Margarita Mooney, and Kimberly C. Torres of Princeton University and Camille Z. Charles of the University of Pennsylvania shows that black students who are not able to claim to be descendants of American slaves make up an even larger percentage of the black students at America’s most selective colleges and universities than is the case in the nation as a whole.
This study, published in the February 2007 issue of the American Journal of Education, finds that 27 percent of black students at 28 highly selective colleges and universities had at least one parent who was born outside the United States. But nationwide, 20.9 percent of all black undergraduate students had at least one parent born in a foreign land. Thus, the percentage of recent immigrants among black students at the selective schools is significantly higher than the nationwide average. The data shows that of the immigrant black students at these 28 selective colleges, 43 percent had Caribbean roots while 29 percent had at least one parent born in Africa.
When we look at the eight Ivy League colleges alone, according to the study, 40.9 percent of all black students had at least one parent born in a foreign land. This is almost twice the national average for black students at all colleges and universities in the United States.
There's more that I will not quote.
The entire system benefits foreign born blacks, recent immigrants and blacks of high educational heritage and high economic class. The people it is supposed to benefit--the descendants of slaves--can go suck eggs, as far as the effect of affirmative action is concerned.
Terry said...
PS Read that line from "The Virginian" when I was 14 and never forgot it.
If you can believe the historian David McCullough, Wister was a fierce racist who believed that the massive immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe that occurred around the turn of the 20th century was destroying America.
We can argue how big a racist Wister may have been, but it was very common belief among WASPs at the time. TR made a fairly famous speech about "hyphenates" (the Micks and the Squareheads were on the verge of being accepted, so somebody else had to be the scapegoat) and that verifiable racist and unreconstructed Confederate, Woody Wilson, absolutely hated them.
She's tried out every liberal canard as traditionalguy says. The next step is telling the truth right? right?
Worth repeating: If the 'officials involved' at Harvard said her lineage was either not discussed or not a factor, they are violating their school's own policy of community standards, as well as the code of conduct. Speaks to the integrity of not just Warren, but Harvard as well, if what 'officials' are claiming is true...
From the student handbook-
the kennedy school will work affirmatively to recruit a highly diverse group of students, faculty, and staff. It is committed to increasing the numbers of underrep- resented minorities, particularly women and people of color. It will work to ensure that our appointments and selection procedures consciously identify and evaluate a people from underrepresented groups.
Warren's best response would have been: "You know, I did that and it was a mistake. I am proud of having some native background but it was a curiosity and not relevant to my job. I should have left it out and I apologize."
It's always the cover up that's worse, Elizabeth. You are now in modified, limited hang out territory, and it ain't working out for you.
Ho
Sykes.1@6:37
Don't know what your talking about. (And perhaps neither do you). The one piece of evidence that's been offered is a marriage certificate that reportedly says Cherokee, not "Indian not elsewhere classified.". Whatever else she did, she didn't choose her tribe. Also, I've read all the other comment threads on this topic, and while a number of people have opined on the various qualifications for tribal membership, no one has suggested a blood quantum as low as 1/32.
oh, and lady Warren, you can stop digging now
Rehajim--precisely correct.
Rehajim--precisely correct on both comments.
No one can touch Warren. She has POTUS support. She has NYT support. She has the KENNEDY support.
Brown is history, just as Romney/Portman will be.
What does it take a woman to be qualified as a Native American. I think that's the key question at hand.
No one can touch Warren. She has POTUS support. She has NYT support. She has the KENNEDY support.
Don't be so sure- Massachusetts voters are quick to grant historic preservation status to their politicians. Brown may be a lifer..
The -i grew up with these stories - family lore - just want to connect with my people excuse just doesn't pass the laugh test; much less the smell test. So the family identity is based upon one! G-g-g granny. Put that in context. Not only is that generationally and chronologically remote, but everyone has 32! G.g.g grandparents. That must be one boring family if one native American trumps 31 other equivalent ancestors, and no one else in the several subsequent generations did anything else to help mold the family identity.
"The people it is supposed to benefit--the descendants of slaves--can go suck eggs, as far as the effect of affirmative action is concerned. "
Which means it's all about genetics, which means it's pure racism - institutional racism. If there ever was a place that term fit, AA is it.
Liberals and many others who are into the style over substance in life find this a convenient way to give into that base human weakness. They want you to think they are being sensitive, and compassionate, but they don't want it looked at too closely.
Hey.. Don't knock it until you try it..
It got Sonia invited to Supreme conferences..
So how was Colombia, AP?
Rehajm, Warren is at Harvard Law, not the pathetic Kennedy School, which is mostly a holding tank for failed Dem pols.
As candidates for major office go, Ms Warren seems particularly weak, tonedeaf and ineffective. She is unable so far to shake this story, and her explanation (I wanted an invitation to a party!) is an insult to the voters' intelligence.
Dumb + clumsy + hypocritical. I think she's latched on to a winning formula. For Scottie, that is, in deep blue Massachusetts.
Why did a university call her out of the blue while she was doing real-estate closings and consumer bankruptcies in New Jersey to teach?
Because they admired her work? No, it was more likely because she was on a list of minority women and was recruited.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZEZPs06Sgw
By definition she thinks Scott Brown isn't qualified to do his job. Who is she to play the self-pity card? Pathetic.
Warren seems to lack a sense of the ridiculous. My kids are 1/32 or 1/64 Cherokee or something like that. It's interesting family history, but as ethnicity its ridiculous.
edutcher wrote:
We can argue how big a racist Wister may have been, but it was very common belief among WASPs at the time.
The racism of the 1910's and 1920's was much more vicious than the racism of earlier times. Early 20th Century racism promoted the idea that your race determined what sort of person you were. It also accepted the idea that much of history was driven by competition between the races. You don't find this in books and stories written before, say, 1890.
Kind of works against the idea that society progresses, morally, with time.
"Early 20th Century racism promoted the idea that your race determined what sort of person you were... Kind of works against the idea that society progresses, morally, with time."
Ugly as that was, at least they were considered people, which was some progress.
Now if we could just get to where we see all ethnicities as equally capable, we will have made some progress in our own time.
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own"
I think I see what she means.
If it's not about genetics, tell me how Eric Holder has and continues to benefit from AA despite the fact his parents are both foreign born. There's no reason that Americans have to "pay" through affirmative action for the sins of the past by providing him opportunities. But we do. Just as we did with his boss.
I double-checked - his mother was born here but her parents were not. Either way, same deal.
Terry said...
We can argue how big a racist Wister may have been, but it was very common belief among WASPs at the time.
The racism of the 1910's and 1920's was much more vicious than the racism of earlier times. Early 20th Century racism promoted the idea that your race determined what sort of person you were. It also accepted the idea that much of history was driven by competition between the races.
A lot of that was promoted by Huston Stuart Chamberlain (sp?) and, of course, was prominent in Hitler's theories on the subject.
As I say, the Micks and the Squareheads* were on the cusp of acceptance at the time, although you can still find places where they're still barely considered Americans.
* For those who don't know, I have both in my ancestry.
Elizabeth Warren was a minority.. until she voted against it.
Elizabeth had to be a minority first.. so she could find out what's in it.. for her.
Granny Warren is toast. She can go home and make her XXX moonshine out by the cement pond.
Bagoh20 wrote:
Now if we could just get to where we see all ethnicities as equally capable, we will have made some progress in our own time.
You might want to check out Jonah Goldbergs The Tyranny of Cliches from your local library, Bagoh20.
The difference between the racism of, say, the 1840's and the 1920's was that the racism of the 1840's was a social convention based on tradition with some biblical justification. In the 1920's they believed that they had scientific proof of the gross differences between, and the inequality of, the races.
I think that's a defendable thesis.
Good Lord! By "I think that's a defendable thesis" I don't mean the racist beliefs of the 20th century progressives, I mean I believe that the racism of the early 20th century used science as its justification is defendable thesis. Our creator made all men equal.
And that includes women.
I sense a "Dead Squaw Walking".
First question, will the money start to dry up?
How do you know when Liz Warren is full of it?
She shakes her head side-to-side to convey what she's saying comes from the heart.
Watch the clip.
..You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything..
Clearly, Elizabeth is mired in the midst of an identity crisis.. that are more relevant at the halls of a good psychiatrist.. and not the hollow halls of the US Senate ;)
India also apparently has a form of Affirmative Action for untouchables. Some jobs are set aside so that Brahmin can't even apply. It's similar and has raised similar discourses in their country. Why do they call it Affirmative Action. What exactly has been affirmed? Whose action is it? It's funny that if you're thinking about merit in terms of who gets hired, you're also thinking about equality as a positive outcome. The two goals are obviously perversely at odds with one another. Quite amusing, what.
When is the Massachusetts election? It seems like they've been campaigning forever. Does this go all the way through 'til November? If it does, this kerfuffle will be forgotten by then, replaced by a new outrage.
You are right EDH
In this clip I see a more subdued, quivering Elizabeth.. not the "nobody got rich on his own" defiant Elizabeth.
"It's just lunch."
MadisonMan said...
When is the Massachusetts election? It seems like they've been campaigning forever. Does this go all the way through 'til November? If it does, this kerfuffle will be forgotten by then, replaced by a new outrage.
It seems that way because there's been no Democrat primary. There was a field of lesser known locals, but the party capos coronated Warren at the starting line and shunted aside all the other primary candidates, basically telling them there would be no big money coming their way.
As a result, Warren's subsequent melt-down would do significant harm within the party between the leadership and the grass roots.
I don't think this one goes away. Partially because of that internal Democrat dynamic, this could be the death of a thousand cuts, and if Warren really flounders I could see an insurgent campaign to get her off the ballot.
I smell pig shit.
Terry wrote: "Our creator made all men equal.
And that includes women."
Smile when you say that.
(Actually, that remark doesn't really reflect my beliefs, but I just wanted to sneak it into this thread. You know why. I'm surprised nobody else stuck it in first ...)
"I expected an invitation to the Homeopathic Native American Professors Club, but it never came!"
Let's replace the sacagawea dollar with the Elizabeth Warren Wooden Buffalo Nickel.
But nationwide, 20.9 percent of all black undergraduate students had at least one parent born in a foreign land.
That's an amazing statistic, the 40% even more so.
I had two ancestors circa 1700 who were killed by Indians
I discovered last week that an ancestor settled on land in 1634 on which the previous inhabitants had been massacred in 1622. Not quite what they mean by capitalism's "creative destruction." They continued to call it Sheffield plantation after the dead family until some filthy Canadians bought it in the 1880's.
A 'luncheon' that the rest of us payed for..
"Now look, you want to eat dog meat and it turned into something tough, or a great book idea? God bless. Eat a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that dog meat and pass it forward for the next kid who comes along."
I understand that--in addition to being part Cherokee--or is she a faux member of the Fox Clan of the "Sue" Tribe, Ms. Warren is also the inventor of --or maybe the mother of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. With all that to her (dis)credit, why should I give a War Whoop about her election?
Every single person applying to college or other places should check the box for African-American.
If you go back far enough, everyone's ancestors came from Africa.
Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection notes that the entries don't specify what minority, just that she's a minority.
Therefore, the excuse of wanting to meet similar people for lunch is wanting...
Alan R Templeton PhD says:
"Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans -- genetic differences," says Templeton. "Evolutionary history is the key to understanding race, and new molecular biology techniques offer so much on recent evolutionary history. I wanted to bring some objectivity to the topic. This very objective analysis shows the outcome is not even a close call: There's nothing even like a really distinct subdivision of humanity."
Can't argue with a PhD. Or maybe you can, especially a climate scientist, but here's one man's opinion anyway.
Not sure what this means in terms of forensics according to CSI.
As this woman *continues* to blather on and search for explanations, it becomes increasingly clear that she did what she did to gain advantage.
Whether she has legitimate claim to her native American roots is debatable; note the silly place this situation has arrived at.
Racial set-asides are outcome-based nonsense and should be done away with.
Elizabeth Warren arrives on campus,
"Where're all my pretIndians at?"
One of the dumbest "stories" of 2012. Which is saying something.
Already we near the point where all that keeps it alive will be a few proud screechers.
The press is so anxious to sweep this under the rug it isn't even funny now.
That they seem to be buying this nonsense is almost insulting --- unless one realizes that journalists are a shade above paint eating 4 year olds in the intellectual scale of things.
Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection notes that the entries don't specify what minority, just that she's a minority.
Therefore, the excuse of wanting to meet similar people for lunch is wanting...
Also, anybody want to place bets on the racial makeup of her home area? Any bets on it having more than, say, 1% minority population?
What's keeping it alive is Warren continuing to speak. Going on about her ancestor's having "high cheekbones, like all of the Indians do" is just mind boggling. Really? She went there? Wanna toss out any more racial/genetic stereotypes there while you're at it, Liz? Or do they all just look the same to you?
The great thing about this has been that Scott Brown hasn't done anything to advance this. Brown's staff must be grinning ear to ear over Warren kicking own goal after own goal. She's the one doing the heavy lifting on the stupid.
One thing's for sure; Warren probably isn't going over well with the Southie demographic in Mass at this point. Witness Ray Flynn endorsing Scott Brown.
Chef Mojo,
Sure, she's handling this "story" stupidly. But no matter how you spin it, 'twould would be far stupider still, to base one's vote on on election day, on this. I don't think in this case, people will prove to be that stupid.
Harrogate,
Elections have swung on such things in the past. For example, Virginia Senate 2006. George Allen using the term "macaca" to describe a dark skinned Dem gotcha artist. All Jim Webb had to do was stand back and watch Allen flail about. The perception wasn't that Allen did anything wrong using "macaca," but that he had let the gotcha artist get under his skin, whereupon he acted like an amateur. He then compounded the mistake by kicking own goals. Allen had been crushing Webb in polling up to that point, in a bad year for Republicans. He ended up losing to Webb by a little over 9000 votes. This is a great example of how the public can be swayed by amateurish behavior in a candidate.
Warren, like Liz Coakley before her, is showing she isn't ready for prime time. This is going to resonate with people beyond the Cambridge Cocoon. It isn't people being stupid, harrogate. It's shows their ability to sniff out bullshit in people, and judge them on their character.
Will the Cambridge elite continue to support her? Sure. But, I imagine they're wondering what happened on the way to the coronation. You would have thought that they would have learned something from Coakley. Evidently not.
Rehajm, Warren is at Harvard Law, not the pathetic Kennedy School
Correct. Kennedy is under the Harvard umbrella, and I think it is relevant how much less guarded they are about publishing diversity practices. It's evidence of the point Althouse is making..
Why are the schools reticent about saying that they consider minority status a plus factor in hiring? Why aren't they out-and-proud about diversity? Law schools have fought for the proposition that diversity is a compelling state interest, justifying racial discrimination.
Massachusetts is full of parents who were faced with the tick box for anything but white which would give their child a leg up getting into the school of their choice.
Democrats have no idea of the kind of resentment this box creates. Now Warren abused it and makes 400K as a "minority professor" at Harvard...
Sure, it is no story at all, you go with that.
harrogate said...
Sure, she's handling this "story" stupidly. But no matter how you spin it, 'twould would be far stupider still, to base one's vote on on election day, on this. I don't think in this case, people will prove to be that stupid.
What is wrong with basing your vote on whether or not a candiate will lie in order to advance their career?
a professor who'll assign a textbook she has a financial interest in is already telling you something about her ethical standards.
By the way, does anyone think it's acceptable to check the "Native American" box on an job/admissions application based on one distant ancestor?
Well, yes.
But where is the outrage on part of the true AA believers?
Shouldn't they be upset and critical of this phony?
Oh, she's running as a Democrat.
Never mind.
I understand it is a character issue. I am just not thinking that this endgame:
"I agree with Warren on the issues but I am going to vote for Brown because of her law school application"
makes sense. Especially given the issues she and Brown are most different from one another on. People who agree with what she has been saying will vote for her still. And if you think it is only "Cambridge elites" that agree with what she has been saying, then you yourself might be the one who is cocooned.
"What is wrong with basing your vote on whether or not a candiate will lie in order to advance their career?"
Nothing. It is not like Scott Brown is from the "troglodyte right" either. He is a moderate, Warren is an ideologue who benefits personally from the laws she supports that harm others.
But the more you defend her, the better I like it.
Two things:
1) As has been noted upthread, Dear Lizzy is not yet, in fact, the Dem nominee. If she continues to flail and flounder, the D powers that be may grab an understudy and shove him out into the footlights, at the same time manning the crook to yank Lizzy offstage. You just never know.
2) On Cape Cod, I'm seeing plenty of Brown yard signs and bumperstickers. Warren? Surprisingly few.
Bottom line: unless Scott Brown really steps in it, I think he'll be re-elected comfortably.
"I agree with Warren on the issues but I am going to vote for Brown because of her law school application"
Which law school application?
The issue here is her being listed as a minority as a tenured faculty member.
Jay,
Right, my fault.
I say "You go girl." This woman is special. She ought to take advantage of every special thing she can, because it's in her self-interest.
People opposed to affirmative action should be glad, since it demonstrates how ridiculous it is.
"Affirmative action isn't about genetics!"
Huh? Well, it isn't about pulling up poor qualified people with white skin (usually). Sometimes it's about giving preference to established blacks. So if it isn't about genetics, then what's it about? I'm curious what YOU view as the goal of affirmative action. Has it been successful?
here is an interesting claim Blacks' success at UC now that affirmative action is gone:
"On the contrary, more blacks graduated from the [UC] system after the ban [On affirmative action]" Thomas Sowell.
@EDH, thanks for the info. I feel for the Massachusettsians exposed to this endless campaigning. How tedious!
Actually, Squaw Warren is livening up talk radio in Mass, which I listen to some times,a *lot*.
Not to mention putting AA in such a positive light.
"Affirmative action isn't about genetics!"
Of course it's about genetics! The argument, as I understand it, is: Because of your genetics, you've been discriminated against. Thus "we" must help you overcome that disadvantage. Unfortunately, "we" isn't "we" at all. It's one poor schmuck, who never did anything to you, who must give up the job so you can have it.
How is that not about genetics?
So she shows up to the luncheon, and people ask her "How are you a minority?"
What was her plan then?
I've gotta think that most people would find this offensive.
She has no concrete proof of her Cherokee heritage, so for the purpose of a job application that is false information. Other people, like the situation of George O'Leary's brief hiring at Notre Dame, get fired when the false information on a job application is discovered.
So is Harvard:
A) Going to terminate her employment with the College?
B) Give her a stern reprimand? Or
C) Force her to sit for a half hour in the comfy chair?
I'm guessing C.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा