In Washington, it is often the response of politicians to allegations that get them into more trouble than the original allegations themselves. Harvard Professor and US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren appears to be reaffirming that rule as more information surfaced that casts serious questions about her veracity over the claim to being a Native American. The latest disclosure comes from the Boston Globe, a Democratic-leaning newspaper that has been criticized for downplaying the controversy in the past. I previously discussed how claiming to be a minority is a significant act for law professors due to reporting to the federal government, the ABA, and AALS. Warren has insisted that she was unaware that she was listed as a minority, but, as a law professor, I am skeptical how such listings can occur without a professor volunteering the information. Now, the Boston Globe is reporting that Harvard listed Warren for years as a minority in reports to the federal government. Obviously, this story has particular interest to law professors, but it is being played out in the Massachusetts senatorial race.
I do not share the view that anyone should be able to claim to be a minority, particularly when reporting responsibilities to the government and the ABA hold great importance for schools and academics. Warren is not a minority. She also does not meet that federal definition of a Native American.
Warren’s denial of knowledge of being viewed as a minority and a Cherokee has faced repeatedly contradiction including the recent disclosure by the New York Times of being claimed as a minority faculty member at her earlier law school, the University of Pennsylvania. There have also been smaller disclosures like her contributions to the “Pow Wow Cook Book” as a Cherokee woman.
The Globe reports on Warren’s pasts denial but reveals “for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school.” The school notes, as we previously discussed, such statistics are based on the reporting of the professors themselves as minorities. The newspaper states the new information “further questions about Warren’s statements that she was unaware Harvard was promoting her as Native American.”
Warren is refusing to respond to the new information and her campaign insists that she has already answered enough questions.
Alan Ray, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, was the official responsible during this period for reporting at Harvard. He is now president of Elmhurst College in Illinois and says that he did not list Warren unilaterally and never encouraged an professor to report themselves as a minority.
Warren was repeatedly identified as a minority Native American in various publications for the Harvard Crimson. As previously discussed, she was called Harvard Law’s “first woman of color” in a 1997 Fordham Law Review and in 1998, Harvard published a letter to the New York Times heralding the presence of a “Native American” on the faculty. Then again in 1998, the Crimson followed up on the New York Times publication and wrote “Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American.”
I have previously said how much I respect Warren as an academic and her intellect would be clearly be an asset in the U.S. Senate. However, I remained concerned over the denials of knowledge and the years of claims to be a minority. Whether such claims assisted her career or not, the reporting of minority hiring affects myriad of different issues and rankings. To count a minority member on a faculty, reduces pressure on the school to further diversify its ranks and elevates the status of the professor. Under any reasonable definition, Warren is not a minority and there is no documentation establishing that she is even 1/32 Cherokee. Even if she were 1/32 Cherokee, would we feel it was fine for someone to claim they are black or hispanic with 1/32 connection to that minority or asian? If so, law schools could claim a multifold increase in minorities. Clearly, we cannot have reporting data if anyone is given carte blanche in self-proclaiming themselves to be minorities.
While I do not question her pride in the family claim to have Indian blood (though tens of millions have such potential claims of a small presence of Indian blood in their families), there is a big difference between such pride and claiming to be a minority or Native American. I tend not to view these stories in partisan terms. Frankly, I am a critic of both parties. I believe that story does raise legitimate questions, particularly regarding the denials of knowledge. While I do not believe that this is the most important question in the campaign, I do believe it warrants further answers from Warren.
What do you think? Do you believe Warren should respond to these latest allegations in the Boston Globe and New York Times or is this completely irrelevant to judging Warren’s character and veracity?
Source: Boston Globe
Elaine,
You are pot on. This is an ancestral swift boating of Warren. She does need to face it head on.
Native American tribes issue cards indicating blood lines all the way out to 1/256. It’s always been that way. The only folks on the rolls are those whose ancestors allowed their names to be collected by the federal government; many at the time were distrustful of the US and never got counted. So growing up in Oklahoma it was common to see people with 1/256 blood cards, who were recognized by both their tribe and the federal government as Indian and received the benefits thereof. It’s also common to know folks who are visually “much more” native who aren’t part of a recognized tribe or whose ancestors names are not listed on the rolls.
1/256 equates to a great great great grandmother being Indian if I remember correctly.
I mention all of this because so many of the posts and even the origional blog entry strike me as oblivious to how these things currently work.
Cowardly smearing of Elizabeth Warren
‘Fauxcahontas’ scandal turns Mass. Senate race bizarre
2:05 AM, May. 24, 2012
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120524/OPINION04/305240029/Cowardly-smearing-Elizabeth-Warren
Excerpt:
The race for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts has taken a turn toward the absurd.
The contest pits two highly qualified candidates — Scott Brown, the incumbent, who made history by snatching Ted Kennedy’s seat away from the Democrats, and challenger Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law professor and whiz-kid of the Obama administration who created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
If any election could be counted on to maintain a high-minded tone and stick to important issues, it’s this one.
Instead, Topic A is Warren’s facial features — or, to be more specific, whether there is any way this woman could have had Cherokee ancestors, as she once claimed. Are her cheekbones high enough? The controversy has even earned Warren the epithet “Fauxcahontas.” The Boston Herald kicked things off in late April by questioning whether Warren had inaccurately claimed minority status when she was hired by Harvard Law School. She has listed herself in the past in a directory of law professors as a Native American.
Warren, the charge goes, is an affirmative action poser. Yet Harvard Law School denies any minority hiring preference in relation to Warren, as does the University of Pennsylvania, where she has also taught.
Nevertheless, the press keeps dredging up new “evidence” to keep this scandal alive. The latest is a cookbook. Seriously. Warren reportedly contributed five recipes to “Pow Wow Chow,” a collection of family cooking lore compiled by her cousin and published in 1984 by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, Okla. Under her byline, she’s listed as “Cherokee.” It seems that Warren may be guilty of a crime millions of Americans routinely commit: claiming, with no actual proof, that some ancestor back in the misty past was a Cherokee. Many families perpetuate these myths, perhaps to make their humdrum antecedents seem more exotic, perhaps just to share in the romance of all things Indian.
From a campaign standpoint, Warren hasn’t done much to end this silly brouhaha. She ought to either offer documented proof of her lineage or fess up to indulging uncritically in family lore.
But that’s not what this is really about. It never is when people imply that someone isn’t really a “true” minority.
This is the coward’s way of smearing Warren as unqualified. Her critics are insinuating that she couldn’t possibly have been hired by Harvard on merit, and that calls into question her fitness to serve in the Senate.
Here’s the thing with Warren, though: Her list of accomplishments is very, very long.
She came to national prominence as the highly effective chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). She oversaw the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Time has listed her twice as among the 100 most influential people. She’s written nine books. She is one of the foremost research experts on the financial difficulties of the middle class — a subject of some importance in these troubled times.
Brooklin Bridge
1, May 26, 2012 at 12:02 am
Elaine M., “Go stuff it”, eh?
Got your knickers in a twist over something I said?
Why Is Obama Dragging His Heels on Appointing Elizabeth Warren to Head CFPB?
William Greider May 27, 2011
http://www.thenation.com/article/161006/why-obama-dragging-his-heels-appointing-elizabeth-warren-head-cfpb
Excerpt:
Elizabeth Warren’s problem is not with the Republicans—though they have worked hard to demonize her. Her real problem is with the “boys” at the Treasury Department and Timothy Geithner, the head “boy” in charge of the president’s banking policies. Maybe she also has a problem with the “boys” at the White House. We are soon to find out. In the next month or so, Barack Obama must decide whether or not he will appoint Warren to chair the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
This ought to be a slam-dunk for him. After all, Elizabeth Warren invented the idea of a new regulatory agency to protect hapless consumers from predatory bankers. Obama embraced the concept as his own and it is one of his few distinctively original accomplishments. Warren knows consumer fraud. For many years, as a savvy reform critic, she courageously called out the banking industry on its most notorious practices. Her dynamic and plainspoken advocacy was essential in getting Congress to include the proposal in the financial reform legislation enacted last summer.
Yet Obama hesitated. For nearly a year, he has played coy and held off naming her to the job. We presumed that was because Republicans vowed to block her nomination unless the law is altered to weaken the CFPB and appease angry bankers. But that explanation doesn’t add up. Obama could always put her in the office through a recess appointment that gets around Senate confirmation. Yet he didn’t do so. What’s up with that?
Put aside the usual partisan bombast. I asked a Very Reliable Source to provide the inside skinny and this is what he told me: “All this is really about is the boys don’t want to have an independent woman in their clubhouse.” When I recounted this remark to my wife, she said, “What else is new?”
Tim Geithner, said my Very Reliable Source, really, really doesn’t want Elizabeth Warren in the position where she is sure to be a tough-minded and independent voice on major financial-policy issues. As CFPB director, Warren would also sit on the new “systemic risk” council of regulators who decide very large questions like “too big to fail.” The other regulators can outvote her easily enough, but Warren has an alarming history of personal candor. She says what she thinks, out loud and in public. That naturally disturbs the club members, all of whom have a rank history of making life easier for the big boys of banking.
Warren made her integrity clear when she served as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel digging into the financial crisis and bailouts. Her investigations turned up alarming facts the bankers and bank regulators wished to avoid. Furthermore, Warren was often dissenting on legislative issues Geithner and team were pushing in the congressional debates on financial reform. Geithner doesn’t tolerate contrary thinkers in his midst; witness the galaxy of Wall Streeters he recruited to run the Treasury department. Geithner is a favorite of the president’s, perhaps because he is absolutely faithful to the financial establishment’s best interests.
Elaine M., “Go stuff it”, eh? Ok, happy trails!
Brooklin Bridge,
I have seen this all before. I watched how the dirty tricks of the Nixon campaign destroyed the presidential candidacy of Edmund Muskie. Donald Segretti and other members of Nixon’s Committee to Re-elect the President even smeared the reputation of Muskie’s wife. I saw what the sleazy campaign tactics of Lee Atwater and his ilk did to Michael Dukakis when he ran against George H. W. Bush. I watched the swiftboating of John Kerry. You and others can focus on the Warren/Fauxcahontas scandal, if you like. All I’d like to know is if anyone has found ANY PROOF that Warren used minority status to get a job and that someone might have been brushed aside/passed over because of it. Warren didn’t handle the situation too well? Does that prove she’s not fit for office?
I’d like proof of any wrongdoing on Warren’s part before I call her character into question.
re you sure you don’t mean that skepticism is warranted?
Well said, but I’m afraid I am becoming a cynic so my mistake was more telling than simply a mistake.
I am actually surprised that Brown is doing as well as he is, particularly here in our fair state of Massachusetts. Possibly, hopefully, Warren and the administration and therefore the water carrying media are being very cautious about Warren’s chances given the upset that Martha Coakley’s over confident campaign (and her willingness to scuttle the public option and vote for the Stupac amendment) suffered.
Also, though based in pure chauvinistic (over zealous patriotism – nothing to do with women) fantasy , I can’t bring myself to believe folks in MA would fall for such crap.
Brooklyn Bridge,
“I’m simply saying we should try and find out what her positions really are and cynicism is warranted with her just as with other potential candidates.”
Are you sure you don’t mean that skepticism is warranted?
It’s difficult for Warren to talk about her positions on different issues at the moment because of this faux scandal that Brown and his supporters have got some of the media whipped into a frenzy over. It’s all a diversion. It’s a right-wing strategy to keep the press/media from asking Brown questions about his position on different issues and about his voting record in the Senate.
*****
You can always visit a candidate’s website to find out where he/she stands on the issues. I found the following position statements on Iran at Warren’s and Brown’s websites.
WARREN
Iran
Iran is a significant threat to the United States and our allies. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, it is an active state sponsor of terrorism, and its leaders have consistently challenged Israel’s right to exist. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable because a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world. The United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well. Iran must not have an escape hatch.
BROWN
Iran
I support the bi-partisan Iran sanctions bill and believe that until Ahmadinejad gives up his nuclear ambitions he should be isolated from the rest of the world. With its reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons, Iran represents the biggest threat to Israel. Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier who has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Meeting with him confers legitimacy when the only correct response is to treat him as an outcast. A personal meeting with Ahmadinejad, as suggested by my opponent, would embolden him and be used as a propaganda tool to strengthen his position.
I agree that it’s unlikely Warren is using/manipulating her ancestry for her career. But this is a legal blog and even if trivial, the misuse of such data can be significant beyond Warren’s intentions. I agree it’s trivial and with Elaine M. that it is the stuff Carl Rove’s dreams are made of and he is probably projecting that dream.
Still, Messpo’s position that someone might have been passed up can’t be brushed aside, nor Matt Johnon’s point that she could have handled it better.
I meant to say, “This is the stuff of war and the language of war and the provocation of war and he did not mention any of it in his campaign.”
Elaine M.,
I’m hardly talking just about Afghanistan. Obama would still have far more troops in Iraq were it not for a disagreement that American troops be above Iraqi law. He has been flying drones into Pakistan and Yemen killing scores of innocent people including woman and children. He has ramped up the rhetoric of war with Iran to a truly frightening degree. He has put untenable sanctions on that country that will, if not already has, caused enormous suffering of innocent people. He has toppled regimes without even asking congress even after the legal deadline for such a campaign strictly on presidential authority had passed. This is the stuff of war and the language of war and he did not mention any of it in his campaign.
Bonnie, I am glad you said that as you have real knowledge about the topic.
Elaine M. I do not even try and refute points about Brown’s Republicanism. But if suddenly Warren is silent or worse, in total active agreement with escalation of war rhetoric, then millions of very decent but uncritical people will suddenly have the same feeling about Iran they had about Iraq and about the rightness of our perpetual wars in general.
I’m not saying vote for Brown to thwart a Warren bait and switch. I’m not saying to vote for Brown at all. I’m simply saying we should try and find out what her positions really are and cynicism is warranted with her just as with other potential candidates.
It is the law and can be found in Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In my case, my Mom was from Montana and a member of another tribe. However, my Dad was a member of a Tribe in the Tacoma, WA, area, which is where we lived all my life. Thus, our Tribal Council conferred member status on my Mom because of her 50 years of marriage to my Dad after my Dad died. Additionally, my Dad served as Chief of our Tribe for 20 years. Regarding the specific issue of this blog, I do believe that this much ado about nothing.
McCain was the one singing about going to to war with Iran. We are coming to the end of Obama’s term, and we are not at war with Iran. Like I said earlier Warren needs all the help she can get from Obama. There is a huge gap.
Obama to Eliminate Elizabeth Warren as Head of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
By: Jane Hamsher Saturday July 16, 2011
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/07/16/obama-to-eliminate-elizabeth-warren-as-head-of-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/
Excerpt:
There was no way Elizabeth Warren was ever going to be the permanent director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The banks didn’t want her.
Bloomberg:
President Barack Obama has chosen a candidate other than Elizabeth Warren as director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a person briefed on the matter.
[]
The bureau’s director requires confirmation by the Senate. After 44 Republican senators announced in May that they wouldn’t vote to approve any candidate to run the bureau without changes in its structure, analysts said the White House might have to resort to a temporary appointment during a congressional recess.
Everybody knew the Republicans wouldn’t vote for Warren from the outset. Obama could have appointed her as the director when the agency was created, so the “60 vote” excuse was a charade. Remember the reasons given by the White House at the time to explain why he didn’t?
The concern stressed by officials in the White House is that Warren would not be allowed to be the public face of the agency or to testify before Congress if under the virtual cone of silence of a Presidential nominee. This allows the agency to begin without delay. But down the road, she could still serve in the interim capacity while nominated for the position, and that’s frankly where this can go.
Of course the only thing “down the road” was the can that the President likes to kick in his favorite metaphor. It allowed him to give her the boot when things had cooled down a bit, and the issue was out of the headlines. From a political perspective, now is a smart time to do it, because the debt ceiling battle will consume everything in its wake.
And so Elizabeth Warren’s tenure at the CFPB ends in a Friday night news dump.
Mayfly, cool story. Really! And you could well be on the nail.
I think Warren had built up far too specific a platform to back out (even if she were willing) and that Obama had therefore to choose between Summers/Geithner and Warren. Inotherwords, no choice at all. But I also suspect real friendship and considerable loyalty between Obama and Warren and hence the amicable separation. There is no doubt in my mind that had Obama opposed Warren running for Senate in Massachusetts, the DNC would have found a way to stifle and eliminate her nomination.
Brooklin Bridge,
A lot of Democrats/liberals weren’t listening or chose not to hear what Obama said about the war in Afghanistan when he was running for president. As I recall, he called it the “right” war. He was against going to war with Iraq.
I said previously on one of the other threads about Elizabeth Warren that I was concerned about her stance on Iran. I take issue with Brown, however, on a lot more issues–including his watering down of the Volcker Rule in the Financial Reform Bill, his support for the Blunt Amendment, he is a co-sponsor of the Enemy Expatriation Act, he blocked an extension of unemployment benefits in 2010.