So what? You need proof. There are rules about required documentation for minority hiring that both Warren and Harvard ignored, to both of their benefit.
I applaud that you are honest enough to admit this. It seems that according to your cite 45% of MA voters aren’t. Sadly, it’s not surprising. Like I said: It’s Massachusetts.
Well, I guess it would be more accurate to say that “she lied for six years to get into Harvard”.
Better?
Can you provide a cite for these rules of proof that are required?
I admit it because I don’t see anything wrong with it. Harvard has an interest in having a diverse faculty. Warren had an interest in an academic position. She believed she was 1/32 Native American or whatever (and there’s been no proof she isn’t). I don’t see any scandal here. If she was wrong about her heritage it seems like an honest mistake.
Not unless you can show that she knowingly lied, and specifically targeted Harvard. I haven’t seen any evidence of either.
I don’t know that she lied. Perhaps it was just being sloppy. I believe that her “family lore” includes NA ancestry. She should have checked more closely before listing it as part of her resume (or however she was using it professionally), but I think a lot of people can relate to having incomplete knowledge of ancestry.
She needs to just admit the error and focus on the issues. We all make mistakes, and this wasn’t a huge one. Harvard is just as much at fault for not asking for actual documentation.
From the Boston Globe, who are shameless cheerleaders for Warren:
“both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet.”
She didn’t meet the definition. She has no proof. It’s her making the claim to be Native American. She needs to prove that. To say otherwise without proof is a lie.
As to specifically targeting Harvard, I have no doubt she would have taken a position with Yale as well. 
Since I don’t think this has been stated yet: Her original claim was that she put her name on the directory to meet interesting people with Native American heritage to do lunch with. She also first claimed to not have told Harvard about it at all. Recently, just in the past day, she has admitted that she did tell Harvard she was Native American, but denies that it was before being hired. But she admits she was on the directory, which is what they use to hire minorities, so I’m not sure what she thinks she’s gaining with that distinction.
It could be chalked up as a mistake if she didn’t benefit from it. A mistake is usually something that hurts you, not helps you. In the early 90’s when Harvard was under intense pressure to hire minorities she had to know that putting her name on that list was the factor that got them to hire her.
Agreed. Harvard is guilty in this as well.
That doesn’t say anything about rules that require proof. Try again, please.
???
Uh, yes it does.
Are you really going to play silly semantic games? I said there are “rules” that require “proof”. The Globe says there are “guidelines” which lay out a “specific definition”. Tomato, tom-a-to.
It is heartening, nonetheless, to see such advances in sexual tolerance amongst the tighty right. Was a time, if the Democrat candidate for office had posed nude for a widely circulated magazine, the Pubbies would have been falling all over themselves to denounce this sort of pornography.
Now, they are more advanced, more understanding of the need for a young man to make a bit of money any way he can. Perhaps they should read a Cosmo or two, become more acquainted with what their wives and daughters are thinking about. On second thought, perhaps not. Cardiac arrest is not to be flirted with.
We are? I didn’t get the memo.
I’m hardly outraged. A little bit bemused, but I don’t think such a ‘scandal’ disqualifies someone from office.
No, that would be more like tomato, pitchfork.
A requirement that something be specifically defined says nothing about proof. If I tell you I want a cookie that is three inches across, weighs 18 grams, and has no less than seven chocolate chips, that is a specific definition. What do you see in there about proof?
Brown seems to want her to prove she did not benefit. Not sure how she is supposed to do that. I think it’s on him to prove she did. If he has hard evidence that she knowingly lied for personal gain he should expose it. If all he has are these vague claims he has made all the point he has and should shut up already.
This is already old news. In Massachusetts we have moved on to making fun of Curt Schilling for his excuses that it’s the Rhode Island governments fault that his business failed. Seriously, that is hilarious.
My understanding is that the listing she put herself in as a Native American did not have strict guidelines but Harvard went by that information when they made their claim. They didn’t look into it any more than that. So yeah, someone screwed up but I still see no evidence that this was all some diabolical plot by Warren.
It sounds like Harvard was lazy then, if they were supposed to be getting documentation before counting her as a minority hire.
The bottom line is, was Warren being intentionally deceptive to further her career? I don’t see any evidence that she was. She believed in good faith to be part Cherokee and that she therefore met the requirements to register on the database as a Native American. Did she do it because being a minority helps get a university job? Probably, but I certainly don’t blame her for taking any allowable advantage available in a competitive field. If I had honestly thought I had enough Native American blood to qualify for a college scholarship, would I have applied for one? You bet. Then it’s up to the institution to follow their guidelines as to how much they will take my (well intentioned) word for it or require proof.
Yep, another Mass resident here. Not outraged. A tad disappointed, but as far as ethical lapses go, this one seems fairly modest. I still like her take on current issues and that’s what I’m going to pay attention to when it comes time for voting.
Did she say “Cherokee”? That adds a whole element of murk. Among Native American activists, the part Cherokee white person is a subject of contempt and amusement. Cherokee history is a case study in the perils of assimilation. Cherokees accepted just about anybody as a tribal member, and the white/indian distinction became hopeless. By the time of Trail of Tears, the top leadership of the Cherokee Tribe, men like Sam Houston, were often less than half Cherokee themselves. Nobody much cared.
If you are white and from Texas, Oklahoma, or Arkansas, and your family has been there more than two or three generations, you are odds-on to have some Cherokee ancestry. Scots-Irish and Cherokee lies thick upon the ground, especially in Texas. But how much? There, the question gets really murky. Your grandfather was half-Cherokee, your grandmother one quarter, your father married a totally white woman with the merest smattering of Cherokee blood, how much a Cherokee are you? Or Elizabeth Warren, for that matter.
I’m just glad she turned down that offer from Playboy. We certainly couldn’t have anyone who stooped to such as a United States Senator! I mean, dignity!
If the Federal Government says that a cookie must be three inches across, weigh 18 grams and has no less than seven chocolate chips, you can’t point to a brownie and say it’s a cookie. Not without proof that it meets the criteria. The proof is obviously needed, or what’s the point? Why have guidelines if you don’t need to establish proof that you meet them?
I’d ask you this: If no proof or evidence of any kind is required, why doesn’t every applicant for a teaching position at Harvard claim to be a minority? Why doesn’t Harvard simply claim they are in the reporting?
'Luce, your posts remain as content free as they were ten years ago. Congratulations on the consistency.
She was being intentionally deceptive. That much is clear. She’s still changing her story as of a few hours ago.
It did advance her career. That’s obvious also. There’s plenty of smart white women from Oklahoma that didn’t get tenure at Harvard.
But you seriously need evidence that the one led to the other? That it isn’t just a happy coincidence for her?
Amazing.