I guess that’s one way to ignore the question.
Either the mistake was important or it was not. I think it was not. You outright said:
Which I take to mean that you think Ms. Warren’s tenure at Harvard is because of her ancestry claim.
Do you think Elizabeth Warren earned tenure or not? Do you think Elizabeth Warren would have been denied tenure if she were not classified as a minority?
Yes, of course we have the cite of the Harvard people denying they hired her because of the Native American heritage.
Obviously I’m asking for a cite on the rest of your post that “it wasn’t like there was any likelihood she needed to bolster her CV to get the job” and that “she was a shoo-in.”
So, when you said that it was “my point” that Scott Brown is a “paragon of virtue and integrity” you were just making things up and attributing them to me? Reported to the mods.
Probably she wouldn’t have been, but I don’t know for sure. That’s one reason I wanted a cite from elucidator that she was obviously qualified and a shoo-in. I hadn’t heard that, but I guess it’s possible. Of course he’ll slither around it and never provide a cite, but you are welcome to get one also.
I’d say there are many people who are qualified on paper for such a position, but only a few who actually get it. Being a minority and a “woman of color”, especially at that time for Harvard was quite a leg up.
But, it doesn’t matter what I think. If someone cheats on a test, that’s wrong, even if they could have passed the test without cheating.
Ah, see, no, you’re the one who has it backwards. She wasn’t asked to provide evidence; she was asked her race and she gave what she thought was a truthful answer. If you want to accuse her of lying the burden is on you to show she knew better.
No, I suspect the 27% mostly includes Scott Brown supporters. In fact that’s far less than the % of people who say they intend to vote for Brown, isn’t it? In other words even a sizeable number of Brown supporters don’t think this is a big deal.
I’m sure it sells papers/radio ads, but out of the MA voters who have chimed in on this thread you seem to be the only one really worked up about it.
I want to address this also. I’ve got a half dozen people against me and I’m answering every single question in every single post. Or at least trying to.
Then this blatant and over the top straw man gets thrown at me and I get accused of ignoring questions.
Typical.
You need to make yourself aware of at least the basic facts before debating about a topic. She didn’t just answer a question. She took proactive action. She put herself on a minority directory used by Harvard and other universities to make minority hires. No one asked her to do that. She went out of her way to do it.
As to whether she was asked her race by Harvard or not, it depends on when you ask her. For the past several weeks she’s claimed she never told them she was Native American. But, just today she admitted she did, but claims it was after she was hired. They certainly knew, since they reported her as one to the feds and referred to her as a “woman of color” in a Law Review.
You’re kidding, right? You are using the SDMB as a measure of what people in the real world think about something? I was on Free Republic the other day and there wasn’t a single Obama supporter! Must mean that he’s got no chance at reelection.
The article cited above clearly states that she was “recruited” by Harvard. “Recruited” is a term generally meaning that the school recruiting very much wants the subject to come teach for them. It further implies that interviews for her position will likely be cordial and friendly. Because they are recruiting her. That’s what that means.
Many local community outreach organizations can put you in touch with reliable and convenient program for remedial reading.
She claims she put herself on that list so she could connect with others with a similar heritage. As I understand it there were no strict requirements of proof for that listing. If Harvard used that as its only evidence of her ancestry that is their own fault. I don’t see this as a smoking gun that she used it to get ahead.
The front page of the Globe had an article about Mayor Menino (a democrat who has endorsed Brown) telling him to knock it off with the non-strory. Maybe the Herald is different but I never read it. The only reason it keeps coming up is because it’s all the Republicans have to attack her with. And yeah, it’s pretty weak.
Is *that *why they’ve had a front-page story about this just about every day for a couple of weeks now, and said essentially nothing about consumer financial protection or Brown’s weaseling? Because they’re shameless cheerleaders? 
Did you mean “disingenuous”, perhaps?
Well played, sir.
Incredulous refers to one’s response to a fact or assertion that one is skeptical of. In other words, he might have been incredulous at the assertion. The assertion itself would not be incredulous.
Well, there’s all the tell I need to know what to think about your argument…
In terms of admission to Harvard University, he is correct. Whether or not that discrimination is justified is another question.
That’s all you’ve got? The definition of a word from the article that I linked to?
I’ve been “recruited” before. Recruiters call me all the time from companies who might want to hire me. That doesn’t mean that it won’t be competitive once I start the interview process.
Of course, this might not at all be similar to how it works at Harvard. Which I why I was hoping you might actually add some content to the board by introducing some facts to this thread.
I should have known not to expect so much from you.
All I want to know is if she’s elected, and votes to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, can we call her an Indian giver?
I see. So, according to you, then, the term “recruited” simply means “Hey, if you would like to submit an application, nobody here will stop you. Seriously, its OK with us.”?
I provide citation, you provide your opinion. If offer a cite that says, from people in a position to know, that Ms Warren’s ancestry was not even mentioned. In rebuttal, you provide your opinion. i provide a citation that Harvard actively pursued Ms Warren for their faculty, and you provide your opinion, bolstered by a personal anecdote. With all due awe, your personal history is not data.
That would be in marginally better taste than offering her a gift of blankets.
Either way, I call her Fauxcahontas.
Somebody mentioned Howie Carr. His new column is out. It seems that Fauxcahontas has a history of helping her family prosper by flipping foreclosed properties.
The hits just keep on coming.
I’m saying that’s how it works in many industries. I have said I don’t know how it works at Harvard. I’d genuinely like to know, which is why I asked you for a cite.
Your cite touches on this very briefly, saying that they “courted her” and “pursued her”, but it’s only mentioned in passing and with no detail or explanation. There is no reference to why they were interested in her or what they liked about her other than her minority status, if there is anything.
You read into this that she was a “shoo-in” and that “it wasn’t like there was any likelihood she needed to bolster her CV to get the job”. I asked for a cite for this, and you’ve refused to provide one.
I have testimony from people who were actually there, Debaser! They said, in no uncertain terms, that her ancestry had no bearing on their decision. I’m assuming that they know something about Harvard’s hiring procedures. Which, as you admit, you don’t.
It mentions two houses. One house was owned for about six years. The other more than 10 years. I think that kind of stretches the definition of flipping. Were her family members living in the houses during that time? Did they rent them out?