Buried in its correction section, The Boston Globe has issued a retraction of its claim that a marriage license supporting the claim of U.S. Senate Candidate and Law Professor Elizabeth Warren that she is part Cherokee. The correction says that no such marriage license has ever been found and that the reference comes from a “family newsletter” and refers to an application for a marriage license. Moreover, no one has been able to find the paper, let alone study it. In the meantime, the Warren campaign is addressing new disclosures that Warren claimed to be a minority not just at Harvard but also at the University of Pennsylvania. Today another news story reported that Warren (who denied knowledge of being listed as a minority) was cited as “Harvard’s first woman of color” in a Fordham Law Review piece — quoting a Harvard official.
The Boston Globe earlier published an account that became the primary defense for Warren supporters:
A record unearthed Monday shows that US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has a great-great-great grandmother listed in an 1894 document as a Cherokee, said a genealogist at the New England Historic and Genealogy Society.
The shred of evidence could validate her assertion that she has Native American ancestry, making her 1/32 American Indian, but may not put an end to the questions swirling around the subject….
Chris Child, a genealogist at the New England Historic and Genealogy Society, said he began digging into Warren’s family history on Thursday, when media interest emerged.
At first, he found no link between Warren’s family and Native Americans in her native Oklahoma.
But Monday afternoon, he said, he discovered a few links. Warren’s great-great-great grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, is listed on her son’s 1894 application for a marriage license as a Cherokee.
Now however the newspaper has said that that was not true:
Correction: Because of a reporting error, a story in the May 1 Metro section and the accompanying headline incorrectly described the 1894 document that was purported to list Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great grandmother as a Cherokee. The document, alluded to in a family newsletter found by the New England Historic Genealogical Society, was an application for a marriage license, not the license itself. Neither the society nor the Globe has seen the primary document, whose existence has not been proven.
That seems like a pretty important disclosure to be simply pushed into the correction section of the newspaper.
In the meantime, the New York Times is reporting that Warren was not just listed as a minority faculty member at Harvard but also at University of Pennsylvania. At the very most, Warren is no more than 1/32 Cherokee, even if the account of the great great great grandmother is proven to be true.
As I have mentioned before, I do not believe that Warren was given her positions due to the claim of minority status. She is an extremely intelligent and talented academic. The claim as a minority however has caused a stir among academics who have been discussing the lack of any criteria for such claims. Minority status is an obvious advantage for a law professor as school strive to diversify their faculty ranks. Claiming minority status has an important impact on reporting academic data for schools as it does for governmental reporting.a
What is intriguing is the claim by Warren that she was not aware that she was listed as a minority when that status was asserted by both Penn and Harvard. I do not believe that she would be considered a minority by any conceivable definition without making most Americans minorities. Presumably, these schools did not arbitrarily claim such status for a faculty member, but had to be given an affirmative claim of being a minority by the faculty member. Yet, this process is remarkably fluid and ill-defined at schools. Schools are eager to list every possible minority members in annual reporting.
I am more interested in the general issue of how to define minority status than the campaign. But, putting aside the raw partisanship over the Senate race, how important should this issue in your view be in judging a candidate?
rafflaw,
“This story is a red herring. The real story is that Brown is in the pocket of Wall Street.”
Ain’t that the truth?
This story is a red herring. The real story is that Brown is in the pocket of Wall Street.
Brooklin Bridge,
I am concerned about Warren’s position on Iran too. I am also concerned about a number of Scott Brown’s positions. He helped to water down the Volcker rule. He supported the Blunt Amendment. He’s against Obamacare–yet insures his daughter Ayla under one of its provisions. He is one of Wall Street’s favorite senators.
(Forgot to close a formatting directive. I wish there was a delete facitily). This is how the above comment should look:
[… But, putting aside the raw partisanship over the Senate race, how important should this issue in your view be in judging a candidate?
About 1/32 of an inch. No, make that a Pica.
As a sometime admirer of Warren, I am more interested in and concerned by her very hawkish position on Iran and her seeming acceptance of anything Israeli as being some sacred pact we are eternally bound to regardless of how loathsome or unfair it might be.
Perhaps I’m also just a little be more cautious than I used to be about people who promise to clean up Washington and Wall Street.
[… But, putting aside the raw partisanship over the Senate race, how important should this issue in your view be in judging a candidate?
About 1/32 of an inch. No, make that a Pica.
As a sometime admirer of Warren, I am more interested in and concerned by her very hawkish position on Iran and her seeming acceptance of anything Israeli as being some sacred pact we are eternally bound to regardless of how loathsome or unfair it might be.
Perhaps I’m also just a little be more cautious than I used to be about people who promise to clean up Washington and Wall Street.
Bron,
“that isnt the point, unless your husband told me he had native American ancestors I would not have known.”
Please explain what you mean. You’re the one who brought up blond hair and blue eyes–implying Warren was lying about her Native American ancestry.
*****
I’ll ask you again: Do you have proof that Warren used minority status to get a job? Otherwise, what’s the big deal?
Bron, I don’t care for CNN either. I get very little news from the TV since Walter Cronkite retired. There is a heck of a lot more news on the internet, and I read a lot faster than I can watch the latest iteration of Ted Baxter read it to me. My TV is pretty much limited to documentaries where I can actually….you know….learn something.
Elaine:
that isnt the point, unless your husband told me he had native American ancestors I would not have known.
So you prove my point.
Chmura did not pull that statement out of thin air, there was some impetus behind that statement.
My achin head.
Bron,
Do you have proof that Warren used minority status to get a job? Otherwise, what’s the big deal?
Bron,
“But how could he make that up? She has blond hair and blue eyes.”
Oh, my achin’ head!
My husband has baby blue eyes–and had a red beard before it went gray–and he has Native American ancestry too. He has no papers to prove it, though. He must be lying about his ancestry, huh?
Otteray Scribe:
are you one of the 54,000 people who watch CNN?
Demashitz:
I may not agree with Warren but if she didnt do it then she didnt do it. The truth never hurt anyone.
Otteray,
I believe the original story about Warren came from the hateful little Howie Carr. They should hire him at Faux News. He’d fit right in.
The Politico did its homework and accurately reports the information.
The question is why did Chmura say what he said. What Warren supporters are implying is that he made it up. But how could he make that up? She has blond hair and blue eyes.
For Chmura or the author of the paper to have made that up is very hard to believe. The only place that information could have come from is Warren herself.
The question now is did it help her get hired? My guess is she did otherwise Chmura would not have made a big deal about it. Harvard had bragging rights.
Ersatzagawea is busted. And she looks foolish. But that doesnt prohibit here from running in the state of MA, in fact the more outrageous the better for the people of the Bay State.
The fact that Romney was an elected governor of MA is a serious black mark against him in my opinion.
Bron,
Why spell it out? You’re helping them cheat.
I had Faux Spews on earlier today. I was scrolling past it and the controller button stuck for one traumatic moment. There were a couple of talking heads on, and the general thrust of what they were saying seemed to be breathless pearl-clutching regarding Dr. Warren and her “claim” to be NA. Fortunately for my sanity, I jiggled the controller and got the button to work and moved on to something else before I had to get out the brain bleach.
Thanks, Bron. There’s not much there that proves anything.
*****
“In 1996, Harvard Law School spokesman Michael Chmura told the Harvard Crimson that Warren was Native American. Neither the law school nor Chmura, now the director of communications at Babson College, has responded to requests for an explanation of how they made the determination that Warren was Native American.”
http://www.wbur.org/2012/05/09/warren-american-indian
*****
It would be good to know how that determination was made.
page 57 of the PDF file.
Elaine:
here you go, see page 898:
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3415&context=flr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3DLaura%2BPadilla%252c%2Bwas%2B%2522Intersectionality%2Band%2Bpositionality%253a%2BSituating%2Bwomen%2Bof%2Bcolor%2Bin%2Bthe%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CF8QFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fir.lawnet.fordham.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D3415%2526context%253Dflr%26ei%3DdvOyT_3hLeGX6AHT9YGWCQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGVgA0JQeLN6M-x1HdzD3ZydKSEEw#search=%22Laura%20Padilla%2C%20Intersectionality%20positionality%3A%20Situating%20women%20color%22
Elaine:
No, I am assuming that Politico did their homework.
But in any event where would that guy come up with a statement like that?
If Politico is lying then they are schmucks. I would like to see the article as well.