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
bettykath,
I think you mean Elizabeth Warren– not Elizabeth Edwards.
What is Edwards to say about her heritage? I don’t see her denying a heritage of which she is proud. And making a statement about it that doesn’t include proof won’t work. Best she not say anything about it and stick to the issues.
What I hope happens is that someone finds the actual proof and makes a big deal about it. I’d do the search myself but I don’t enough information to make the search timely. And I’m not in OK so I would have to rely on whatever is online. What the NEHGS found was an indication that the story is true. However, they are not in a position to say that it is b/c they are bound by what can be proven. What they found was a clue that a good researcher could follow up on.
Matt Johnson 1, May 26, 2012 at 11:35 am
bettykath,
Are you going to answer the questions? If she already knew the answers, why did she need to ask? So she wouldn’t have to be responsible for the answers?
———————————
Am I going to answer what questions?
I believe your next questions relate to my comments about the video where Edwards was questioning Geitner.
When lawyers are questioning a witness do you think it important for them to already know the answer? Surely this would make framing the question easier to get at the testimony they’re looking for, to frame additional questions if the witness is obfuscating, and so on. Elizabeth was questioning Geitner in the same way. She was after his testimony, his answers to questions where he should have had the answers. She did her homework.
=======================
BB, yes, I meant Edwards, not Brown.
Negative Press On Warren’s Heritage Ineffectual
By Dan Payne
May 25, 2012
http://www.wbur.org/2012/05/25/elizabeth-warren-2
Excerpt:
Rep. Barney Frank, who had been attacked and had his words twisted by the Boston Herald, announced after his 2010 election that it demonstrated the “complete political irrelevance of the Boston Herald.” He was referring to his 11-point margin over a Republican who got blanket-warm and snuggly coverage from the Herald.
So it comes as no surprise that the Herald’s drumbeat (pun intended) on Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s heritage was ineffectual. According to a new Suffolk University/Channel 7 poll, she has gained strength, now trailing Scott Brown 47 percent to his 48 percent*. This is an eight-point slide from a February Suffolk poll that showed Brown ahead by nine points.
For nearly a month, the Herald has pounded Warren on its front page, news pages, columns, editorials and op-ed columns; they may have attacked her in the crossword puzzle, but I didn’t check. Day after day they found ways to question, criticize and challenge her Native American bloodline. As a result, the poll found nearly three-quarters of voters were aware of the controversy, but among those, half believed she was being honest, a quarter weren’t sure, and only another quarter thought she wasn’t telling the truth.
Furthermore, the poll showed that 45 percent said she did not benefit from being listed as a minority, while 41 percent believed that she did. (When exactly did it become an advantage in America to be a member of a minority?) Most important, 69 percent said her heritage listing was not a significant story, while 27 percent said that it was — a ratio that means a lot of trees died needlessly.
The Boston Globe, playing catchup, decided to join the pack in a long, long story on Warren and Harvard. That piece seems to say that Warren could have known that Harvard was listing her as a Native American had she been checking the university’s filings with the U.S. Labor Department or reading various Harvard publications. Harvard’s affirmative action filings were made by a man who is himself part Native American, but who, like Warren, has fair skin and blue eyes. This “revelation” adds nothing to whether she would make a good U.S. senator.
Also perplexing is why the Boston TV and radio stations swarmed around Warren, shouting “Are you an Indian?” Actually, she says she is! But she also proposed keeping leaders of big Wall Street banks, like JP Morgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon, off regional offices of the Federal Reserve, which is supposed to oversee banks like Dimon’s.
Warren has finally and correctly decided not to comment on her heritage, a perfectly legitimate way to end a meaningless conversation that a small number of reporters found irresistible. Don’t worry, they’ll find something else, while they complain that candidates “don’t talk issues.”
Brooklin Bridge,
I’d guess that the other guest bloggers and most people who frequent this blog are skeptical of all–or most–politicians. I was skeptical of Obama–and did not vote for him in the Democratic presidential primary in Massachusetts.
I believe I can’t trust Scott Brown to hold big banks/Wall Street accountable for their actions. That concerns me greatly. There are a number of other things Brown has done/positions he has taken on issues that concern me too. At the moment, I trust Elizabeth Warren way more than I do Scott Brown to represent the interests of women, college students, middle-class people like me, and those who are less fortunate than I.
Brooklin Bridge,
No politician, or even rookie, walks on water for me after Obama. It’s just that simple. I became legitimately skeptical when I learned about her position on Iran and Israel and I reamain so. I note that her web-site also remains the same even though she has had weeks to modify it. She has been questioned on the subject and has avoided answers. That strikes me as just possibly pandering for votes, or as signaling acquiescence to Obama’s militaristic bent, or both. I find arguments that her integrity will pull her through hopeful, but unsubstantial. They echo hopes of 4 years ago.
==========================================================
Haven’t looked at her web site. Think I will.
Few here are saying one should be skeptical of Warren because of this basic 1/32nd of a non issue. I spent the first part of this comment thread lamenting that non issues such as this are the ONLY ones we are allowed to talk about. Warren’s position on Iran and on Israel is not so trivial, however, and in spite of gender or race, one is absolutely within their right to question it.
Bettykath, I think you (and Elaine M.) have valid point(s) about how Warren (I assume you meant Warren and not Edwards) handles adversaries. I’m hoping it’s a VERY valid point because as I said up-thread, I’m hoping she wins.
No politician, or even rookie, walks on water for me after Obama. It’s just that simple. I became legitimately skeptical when I learned about her position on Iran and Israel and I reamain so. I note that her web-site also remains the same even though she has had weeks to modify it. She has been questioned on the subject and has avoided answers. That strikes me as just possibly pandering for votes, or as signaling acquiescence to Obama’s militaristic bent, or both. I find arguments that her integrity will pull her through hopeful, but unsubstantial. They echo hopes of 4 years ago.
BB
Ho hum!
McCarthy707, seer or sneer of signs, anyone who is skeptical about any woman or African American; you got words to fix them right up and then scurry behind for safety, don’t you, you brave little soul.
Sorry, the quote was from ElaineM.
“The news media never cease to amaze me with the stories they choose to write about/perpetuate rather than covering subjects of true import.”
It seems to have induced a peculiar state of mind.
Fear, bread and circus satiation, info overload, sensory overload, yellow journalism from all levels of media (although cleverly garbed), and a constant drumbeat of threats from every direction. Mental health would be unlikely except among small segments.
Even here we see signs.
With all the rotten incumbents, including Brown, and that some people get so pissed at the idea that a woman will be given a job that she is more that qualified for, is astounding to me. The eternal prejudice against women.
It is based on pure and simple fear, fear in having to compete with a lesser person and face being defeated by her. The ultimate defeat for a “MAN”. Yee gods. And they think Godship goes with the equipment. Another damn fool idea.
Mike S.,
“Our country is falling apart around us. Our Constitution has been shredded and we are involved in bullshit.”
Ain’t that the truth?!
The news media never cease to amaze me with the stories they choose to write about/perpetuate rather than covering subjects of true import.
Elaine,
Where are Bill Clinton and Monica, now? Ask Hillary. Buddy’s dead. He got ran over by a car in New York.
Matt,
“Tell Bill Clinton to stay away from Monica while he’s talking to Yasser Arafat on the telephone. And he should keep his cigars to himself.”
Yasser Arafat is dead. If Bill Clinton’s talking to him on the phone, it’d be a miracle.
Bad news for Scott Brown- Mass. voters actually have brains!!!
May 26, 2012
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/26/1094976/-Bad-news-for-Scott-Brown-Mass-voters-actually-have-brains-
Excerpt:
Poor Scott Brown. He thought that Elizabeth Warren was some kind of manipulative, dishonest, hateful racist who “gamed” the system and only got onto Harvard’s faculty as a poor beleaguered minority. In this case as a native American.
Actually, I am not sure if Scott really believes this himself, but we do know that it is what he wants Massachusetts voters to think. And that is why he has been focused on this non-issue for three weeks now.
It’s a non-issue of course because Warren did no such thing. She had already been hired by Harvard, and not because she was 1/32 Cherokee. She had checked off the “Native American” box on a Harvard survey completely unrelated to her hiring, as the unversity’s Charles Fried adamantly attests:
“That’s totally stupid, ignorant, uninformed and simply wrong,” Fried, also a Harvard Law School professor, told the AP on Monday. “I presented her case to the faculty. I did not mention her Native American connection because I did not know about it.
Elaine M. 1, May 26, 2012 at 11:36 am
Michael Tomasky on the Media’s Foolish Elizabeth Warren Witch Hunt
by Michael Tomasky
May 26, 2012
The press is obsessed with Elizabeth Warren’s Cherokee heritage. Too bad it’s the biggest media-manufactured story since the Lewinsky scandal nearly brought down a president.
===========================================================
Tell Bill Clinton to stay away from Monica while he’s talking to Yasser Arafat on the telephone. And he should keep his cigars to himself.
Michael Tomasky on the Media’s Foolish Elizabeth Warren Witch Hunt
by Michael Tomasky
May 26, 2012
The press is obsessed with Elizabeth Warren’s Cherokee heritage. Too bad it’s the biggest media-manufactured story since the Lewinsky scandal nearly brought down a president.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/26/michael-tomasky-on-the-media-s-foolish-elizabeth-warren-witch-hunt.html
Excerpt:
So now Elizabeth Warren has to prove that she’s 1/32nd Cherokee? The temperature on the story is rising. There was a huge article in the Boston Globe on Friday written to raise a number of questions and suggest that Warren used the minority designation to get her job, or get ahead—exactly at the same time that a poll was released (PDF) showing that 69 percent of Bay State voters don’t consider her heritage to be a “significant” story. It reminds me of nothing so much as Monica Lewinsky, and of the media’s need sometimes to get a grip.
Why Lewinsky? The situations are in fact almost precisely the same. You had then a press pack that had decided that whether Bill Clinton was telling the truth about Monica was a question on which the fate of the republic hinged. The press became self-righteously consumed with its search for The Truth. Meanwhile, outside the Beltway, and outside of Wingnuttia (it existed then, just at about half of its current GDP), nobody cared what the truth was. The media kept producing revelations; surely, now, swore Maureen Dowd and Michael Kelly, America will see this man for the reprobate he is! America looked, yawned, told the press to start acting like grownups, and continued to approve of the job Clinton was doing as president at rates near 70 percent and to oppose impeachment at similar levels
The appearance Thursday morning of this Suffolk University poll (linked to above) made me think: Well, this story line is about to wrap up. If more than two-thirds of voters don’t care, then that’s that. But no—still going strong! And now it’s not the loopy, right-wing, and pro-Brown Herald, which pushed the story first, but the Globe trying to play catch up. Yes, yes, it’s all in the public interest. What, you say, the public says it isn’t interested? Well, we’ll teach them what’s in their interest!
This is close to embarrassing. True, Warren’s story is a little cheesy. No let’s back up even further. It’s hard to see why someone who is 1/32nd anything can be called that thing. But those are the Cherokees’ rules, and the United States of America for all moral and legal purposes accepts them as the rules. As you may have read when this story broke, the current head of the Cherokee nation, Bill John Baker, is also just 1/32nd Cherokee. He is also, by appearance, completely white. You could mistake him for a Tea-Party Congressman.
So if Warren’s mother told her there was Cherokee blood, and if one little rivulet of Cherokee blood going back generations makes one a Cherokee, which legally it does, then she’s Cherokee, at least as far she knows. Now she has to prove this? You have to go back five generations to get to 1/32nd. It’s entirely possible that such a thing can’t even be proven.
bettykath,
Are you going to answer the questions? If she already knew the answers, why did she need to ask? So she wouldn’t have to be responsible for the answers?
Elaine, I probably meant consonance, but then, I was shitfaced at the time, so who knows?
You’ll note I didn’t call you out by name re: Fauxcahontas, because most of the uses here were quotes. I just don’t think that outside of quoting some douchebag using it, we should refer to it that way ourselves.
Am I wrong about this? Does this name not seem racist to you?