As I recall, the question arose as to her claiming Native heritage in order to secure advantage in relation to “diversity” of faculty appointments, on the presumption that her academic creds were not adequate to the task. From what I’ve read, it would seem that Harvard may have used her to “puff up” a somewhat paltry commitment to diversity. However, this was more or less “after the fact”.
Myself, I attribute her advancement to a combination of intelligence and an overpowering sexual magnetism. But maybe that’s just me. Probably.
The claim against her isn’t that she obtained some “political advantage”, but that she gained some “career advantage” at Harvard. I’m sure that some NAs have benefited from Affirmative Action over the years. But again, there is no evidence that Warren used her alleged NA ancestry to gain a career advantage. And as I noted earlier, there is no evidence she would even need to-- her resume is about as solid as it gets.
As I recall, the whole thing derives from a Harvard functionary who was tasked with making Harvard’s lily-white image appear more diverse. Said drone heard about her ancestry in passing, and included her in a roster of “diversity”. It was a minor kerfuffle at the time, of vast insignificance, but was resurrected during the Warren/Brown Massacre as a means to embarrass her.
Good question, either Elizabeth tried to gain some sort of an advantage, has been lying just for the sheer fun of it, or is delusional.
Either way, getting a parental scolding from, quite likely, future US President, should sober her up and prevent her silly fantasies from rearing their ugly heads again.
I can offhand think of a suggestion I find more plausible than any of your proposed three, though I’ll certainly consider withdrawing or modifying that assessment if presented with evidence that I should do so.
It wasn’t just something the drone heard “in passing”, it was what the drone read in a document in which Warren listed herself as Native American. Perhaps EW never thought she’d be running for public office, but it seems like an odd thing for a “brilliant lawyer” to do.
Sounds like “In passing” to me. The Association of American Law Schools clearly had some sort of form which she or an admin filled out. It would be interesting to see the wording of that questionaire. I’m guessing that a high powered law professor (which is what Warren was: she authored a number of seminal articles) wouldn’t track this sort of stuff too closely. At every juncture when she could have taken advantage of her alleged NA heritage, she passed it over.
She isn’t a career politician. Indeed, she would have never run for public office if the elected Republican finance industry representatives had not blocked her appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
“Heard in passing” sound like you overheard something at a cocktail party. Part of the drone’s job was specifically to know what the diversity of the staff looked like. I saw a link a while back to what the form looked like that was filled out, but it was simple enough. Just one page with a list of 5 or so ethnicities and you checked the box you thought best applied to you. I’ll see if I can relocate it.
As I perceive it, a form was filled out in 1985 which nobody cared about. Her alleged ethnicity was mentioned in a student newspaper in 1996. Shortly afterwards, her ethnic category was adjusted so that the 1996 edition of the AALS directory no longer listed her as Native American. I’m a little surprised she took the effort to correct the record: it’s not like this stuff mattered to her professionally at the time. Except insofar as it permitted Harvard to give a lame defense of their record on diversity.
I really don’t think this reflects poorly on her legal savvy. It does underline the improbability of her political career back in 1985.
Since we’re talking about a directory, it stands to reason that she could change it. Whether she did change it is strictly speaking unknown.
Did she even fill out the form herself in 1985? Beats me. I’m guessing she filled out both forms and didn’t spend too much time thinking about it. Mainly because they didn’t affect her one way or another. I also assert that “Not thinking about it”, was the correct decision at the time. Hell, it could have been an uncorrected transcription error in 1985. Or the form could have looked different and permitted multiple check marks. Or it was filled in by an admin somewhere.
John: Let me know if any of the above conflicts with your impressions of the form you saw.