Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren is under increasing criticism over her listing herself as a Native American as a law professor — a status reported by Harvard Law School in counting her as a minority faculty member. There is limited evidence that Warren is indeed Native American. At most, the degree of indian blood is extremely low. Warren has answered the criticism by saying that she was not trying to use minority status for her own professional benefit but to establish personal associations. The controversy has caused a buzz among law professors as to the definition of minority status for professors and students alike.
Warren listed herself as a Native American minority for years on the directory of law professors. She insisted in an interview this week that “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. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,.”
Warren is a very talented academic and I do not share the view that she was given her position at Harvard (or received her well-deserved praise as an academic) due to the claim of being a minority.
There is a mixed record on the question of her great great great grandmother. The article below says that genealogists at the New England Historic Genealogical Society were unable to support claims that her great great great grandmother is Cherokee. O.C. Sarah Smith is listed on an electronic transcript of a 1894 marriage application as Cherokee but they have been unable to find the original record. However, it would seem to be that the electronic record should give Warren the benefit of the doubt as to her beliefs in her ancestry. That does not entirely answer the question, however. Even if true, such a connection would constitute a reported 1/32 part Native American. Many Americans have such a small connection to Native Americans.
Is it relevant to running for political office if voters believe that Warren wrongly claimed or exaggerated minority status? I see no reason why someone should not claim ancestry tied to Native Americans, no matter how tangential. While I expect that there are a couple dozen of other bloodlines and cultures in the Warren family with equal or greater presence, it is clearly something that the family took pride in as part of its history.
Putting aside the hyper partisanship that seems to warp all analysis these days, there remains some difficult questions for the legal academy. While I do not believe that Warren’s well-earned success was due to this claim, she did make the claim for years and being a minority law professor does work to the advantage of both the academic and the school as institutions work to increase their minority numbers of both students and professors. The controversy also highlights the uncertain standards for claims of minority status among law schools. We are currently in the midst of a scandal over inflated employment numbers and the effort to impose concrete standards for how to count employment. Do we need the same reexamination of the claim of minority status or should it be entirely self-defined for each academic?
What do you think?
Source: Boston Herald
Mike…. Elaine…I agree….
Was the original “opt ad” ran may 1st….. Like maybe an indication that this is communist red day….. May 1st being May Pole day as I learned in school…. Or some catholic saints day as well?
OS,
America is a great melting pot of many diverse well qualified folks….
pete, those women were so beautiful they may as well have been princesses. Only the incredibly strong survived small pox in the Americas.
i generally check the other box and list myself as a norwegian-american.
and everyone in the south claims to have a cherokee princess as a great grandmother.
idealist,
“The primary debates have just begun. Let’s hear it from the Brown supporters, if any.”
*****
Brown polls well here in Massachusetts. He is quite popular statewide for a Republican.
He won the special election here because Martha Coakley was a godawful campaigner–and because he gots lots of support from the Tea Party and lots of money from Wall Street/banks.
idealist707, She has to win this first.
I think I have previously mentioned that rov(e) means ass as in arsle in Swedish. It is spelled röv, but skip the details. It is what comes out that counts.
And salutations to the turdy-turd ladies gang.
Nighty night from me.
All this on a mug of tea. What would spirits have done?
Irrepressible? Irresponsible? Irresistible? Irreproachable? Irreligious?
Eery? Yeah.
Warren for President. It’s time for it. Women must do better than the men.
SwM,
“Agree with Mike and Elaine.”
—————–
Are we voting already? The primary debates have just begun. Let’s hear it from the Brown supporters, if any. Should be good for a laugh.
Thanks Elaine for the whiny brat Brown piece from his buddy loose-paper BH. One thing is sure. The people quickly saw their mistake in electing him after Ted Kennedy. What a whiner. Booooohoo!
Warren for President!
I’d give the Kennedy’s a dynastic seat in the Senate if it were possible, just as long as the bloodline runs true. And not just the horny guys. How’s that grab ya’?
Will save the best for later.
You heard it hear first folks: ‘Warren for president.’
Just think Idealist707. The republicans could have had Warren safely tucked away at some nearly forgotten bureaucratic agency.
Now they have cleverly promoted her nearly to the Senate with a near certain invite to the Presidential primary dance.
I wonder what other issues the Republicans might refuse to compromise on?
Who says things are not getting better. I am pretty sure Warren can name the newspapers she reads in the morning.
Elaine,
You are spot on. These spurious attacks are garbage dredged up by Rove and his fellow Super Pac buddies.
MikeS
“I persoally believe that if elected she will be the Senator with the most integrity from the jump, save for Bernie Saders and that frightens corporations.”MikeS
Fine, but you don’t address the issue of her saying, as claimed by BB, to be supporting a militaristic Israel line, including claims that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Of course, that is your choice, and not suspect as such. It was the NA subject which was the thread. But it is being used against her for political purposes so her whole position comes up for discussion.
I, myself, was very convinced of her worth. I mean, how many would go the anti-TARP and the consumer support road to office. An unlikely route.
But this alleged convenient support of the USA doctrine of eternal middle east unrest which motivates power plays in the oil lands, disturbs me.
Israel is playing our game, and will do so as it will lead to recovery of Palestina under its old Jewish names. Yes? No? Or?
But as I said, what does one more Senator’s vote mean when there are so many pro-Israel now? It smells like the NA issue. Just a good reason to kick a good candidate down. Politics!
BTW: My principal shouted: “Get on the ball” He was from the North. Nobody else said that. He would have gotten fired for going below the belt in our town. Everybody there had their thoughts below the belt.
You can write me at fallingpetals696@hushmail.com if you like. I’d like your views on Iran and the Israel position vv Palestine’s status futurewise.
Id707,
The notion that a candidate for office should pass everyone’s litmus test is folly. I see the same trsin of thought from some on Obama. The very fact someone would run for office tells me they have at the very least a strong sense that they know better than everyone else. It’ s precisely why I never went into politics despite the fact that I was a great public speaker, had the looks and waas generally very likable. My two runs for Union office proved to me that ego could win out over my ideals. Seeing that I decided that living a life selling my ideals for notions of glory was not an option. Knowing though that even I could be swayed by baubles of vainglory was a sobering lesson in not putting myself on a pedestal.
As for the mid East my views are simple.
1. As Jew I believe that having a Jewish nation is essential.
2. I despise Bibi and his policies.
3. The West Bank settlements should be dismembered and given to the Arabs.
4. There needs to be a 2 state solution for peace to happen.
5. The real best friend in the ME of the US is the Saudi’s.
I wonder how these folks feel about a certain Supreme Court Justice’s tax forms?
Are the Koch brothers of German extraction? Or is it Dutch?
BB,
What’s one vote more or less for Israel worth? Does that steer you?
I prefer a WS buster, and a consumer protector who can her stuff.
Warren for President.
Elaine, Yep, Rove has to keep that seat in order to win back the senate for the republicans.
Swarthmore mom,
Can you guess who is behind many of the attack ads against Elizabeth Warren? Here’s a hint: His initials are K. R. and his nickname is Turd Blossom.
@bigfatmike: There is good reason for counting, statistics can reveal instances in which potential discrimination should be investigated, and the power to discriminate should be curtailed.
There is no good reason for tilting the scale based on genetic makeup; in fact it is the definition of institutional racial inequality.
The modern world has plenty of data to be able to determine whether somebody has experienced a structural disadvantage in upbringing; be it bad schools, poverty, bad nutrition, a crime-stressed home neighborhood or whatever. Preferential treatment based on such structural disadvantages is NOT genetically based, even though it turns out that minorites are indeed the ones that suffer the most. But they are not the only ones; there are Appalachia teens that have been slighted just as much and are unfairly denied assistance because they do not HAVE the necessary genes; there are California blacks that were never disadvantaged at all but get preferential treatment based solely upon the content of their genes.
We have the technology to correct such imbalances directly, we do not need to use the wildly flawed proxy of DNA at all.
bigfatmike: it depends on whether you are speaking to my Grandfather, who would have faced discrimination every day if he had ‘come out’.
Or me, who would have benefited from some college money as a NA student with very little or zero discrimination!
@shano
Good point. It is a complex subject and there are risks. If I sounded like I have answers, I did not express myself clearly. I feel gratified if I get a good clear statement of the question.
I try but cannot imagine what it must be like to live every day wondering if someone will discover my background.
Agree with Mike and Elaine.
Mike S.,
“This is quite frankly bullshit pulled out to sully a candidate who threatens the corporate power structure.”
You got that right!
I think Brown and his machine want to destroy Warren before the primaries. I believe Brown is scared to death of running against her. He’s even whined about the media’s treatment of Warren.
*****
Scott Brown blasts media over Elizabeth Warren coverage
By Lucy Madison
12/29/11
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57349743-503544/scott-brown-blasts-media-over-elizabeth-warren-coverage/
Excerpt:
Republican Senator Scott Brown on Wednesday took the media to task for allegedly being too easy on his Democratic Senate opponent Elizabeth Warren, imploring a reporter to “ask her some tough questions, too.”
Brown, in an interview with the Boston Herald, accused the media of being harder on him than on his liberal opponent, a Harvard Law professor and longtime consumer advocate.
“It’s all fluff. It’s all fluff. Gimme a break,” said Brown, about the press treatment of Warren. “I just think that if you’re going to find out where people stand, you gotta ask them tough questions like you guys ask me every single day. Every single day of my existence I get tough questions from you guys.”
Brown, who in 2010 won his seat in a special election following the death of longtime liberal Senator Ted Kennedy, will face a tough re-election challenge from Warren in what is expected to be a close and costly race. Warren, according to a Boston Herald poll taken earlier this month, leads the incumbent Republican by seven points, and has so far pulled in strong fundraising numbers. (In the third quarter, having entered the race just six weeks prior, Warren earned $3.15 million compared to Brown’s $1.55 million.)
“She’s going to have every advantage. … I don’t have a machine behind me like she will, and she does clearly,” Brown told the Herald. “It would help if you guys would ask her some tough questions, too, and ask her about how she would vote on things and why.”