# Is Scott Brown judging Elizabeth Warren solely on the color of her skin? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 26, 2012, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858 "2012-09-26T05:12:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/221 "2012-09-27T19:46:55Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **SC** : \*You \*made the flat assertion that what Reid said was unfounded, meaning you’re calling him either a fool or a liar. And \*that \*is your basis? Really now? > > And apparently you too need reminding that the candidate for President is a fellow named Romney. Not Reid, Romney. Who, btw, with a single mouseclick could prove all the questioners wrong, if he wanted to - and if they \*were \*wrong. Incorrect, Reid’s accusations have been proven wrong. He said that Romney paid no taxes for ten years. That his been disproven. Unless of course, Reid meant that those ten year were from Romney’s birth to his 10th birthday. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/222 "2012-09-27T19:51:21Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Warren is claiming to be a Native American but has no proof. So, for her to benefit from that is much different than simply being female. Warren has “claimed” to have Native American ancestry, by way of checking a box on a phone directory form. How do you think she has benefited from that? Are you still operating on the notion that she was hired at Harvard by virtue of some claim of Native American status? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/223 "2012-09-27T19:58:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Incorrect, Reid’s accusations have been proven wrong. He said that Romney paid no taxes for ten years. Not quite. He said that he had been told by somebody Romney had told. If you’re going to rashly accuse someone of lying, you need to be sure what the lie was. And who it was about. > [@](#): > > That his been disproven. Has it really? :dubious: And if it has, does what has been released reflect favorably on Romney? > [@Debaser](#): > > But the president of the school has admitted that they were preferentially hiring female minorities during that time. So now she’s lying about being _female_? Same advice to you too, Bub. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/224 "2012-09-27T20:36:16Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > **Debaser** , again: is any of your evidence of malfeasance on her part (rather than mushyheaded romanticizing of her past) direct evidence, rather than circumstantial evidence? If so, which bit of evidence do you think rises above circumstantial? No. I’ve admitted there is no smoking gun. There’s no memo from Harvard stating that they hired her because of her Native American heritage. But given all of the other facts that aren’t in dispute I think it’s enough to conclude what the truth is. I agree it’s not enough to prove in a court of law for instance. But it’s clear what the truth is. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/225 "2012-09-27T20:39:14Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > No. I’ve admitted there is no smoking gun. There’s no memo from Harvard stating that they hired her because of her Native American heritage. > > But given all of the other facts that aren’t in dispute I think it’s enough to conclude what the truth is. > > I agree it’s not enough to prove in a court of law for instance. But it’s clear what the truth is. I find that surprising. To me, it comes across as the same sort of string of flimsy evidence that makes up the best conspiracy theories. I don’t think there’s any business concluding someone lied or cheated on the basis of a few coincidences that have benign explanations. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/226 "2012-09-27T20:39:55Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Warren has “claimed” to have Native American ancestry, by way of checking a box on a phone directory form. How do you think she has benefited from that? > > Are you still operating on the notion that she was hired at Harvard by virtue of some claim of Native American status? I’m not going to respond to this unless you come up with something a bit more specific. Read the thread. I’ve clearly laid out my arguments. Here’s some Cliff’s notes: We know Warren put herself on the list as a minority. We know Harvard was under intense pressure to hire minority and female professors. We know the president of Harvard was giving preferential treatment to minority women in their hiring process during that time. We know Harvard and other schools used the list to identify minority and female candidates. We know Harvard promoted her as a minority professor and called her a “woman of color” once she was hired. We know Warren only stopped listing herself when she got tenure. Those are the facts. None seems to be in any dispute. Given these facts it’s reasonable to conclude that Warren’s minority status helped her land the job at Harvard. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/227 "2012-09-27T20:44:22Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So now she’s lying about being _female_? Is this going to be your shtick now? Just making up outrageous and false interpretations of my statements? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/228 "2012-09-27T20:59:19Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Meh. I’ll come out and address this absurd tu quoque of a hijack: yes, Reid was being a jerk when he made those allegations about Romney’s taxes. Whether it’s a fair case of dirty politics or an unfair case is a matter for another thread, IMO, but it was obnoxious of him. > > But even if it was terrible of him to do that, it has no bearing on whether it’s terrible for Brown to do what he’s done, and if it was great of him, it has no bearing on whether it’s great of Brown to do what he’s done. They’re different cases dealing with different dynamics, different traditions, and different contexts, and we can learn very little about one from the other. So in other words, if a Democrat accuses a Republican of something, it is up to the Republican to prove the Democrat wrong. If a Republican accuses a Democrat of something, it is up to the Republican to prove himself right. Got it now. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/229 "2012-09-27T21:01:50Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Is this going to be your shtick now? Just making up outrageous and false interpretations of my statements? Please. Who is confusing gender preferences with ethnic preferences here? You’ve had that explained to you already. Multiple times, in fact. If you want to call Warren dishonest, you do need to be at least minimally clear about what you’re calling her dishonest _about_. Is that too much to ask, as appears to be the case? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/230 "2012-09-27T21:34:13Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > That doesn’t carry much weight since if it were true, of course they would deny it. > > But the president of the school has admitted that they were preferentially hiring female minorities during that time. They just deny that she specifically was one of them. I’m sure they would similarly deny hiring any person on the faculty because of Affirmative Action and racial preferences. Much better to talk about things in the aggregate. Your choice of words is telling. He “admitted” they were following affirmative action procedures? How is that an “admission”, rather than a simple statement of fact? Apparently, you hope to achieve by insinuation what you cannot accomplish by evidence. Why would they deny that they were complying with affirmative action requirements? Do they cringe in fear of your disapproval? Could it not be simply an innocent mistake? Suppose a bean-counter goes down the list and adds up all the female faculty hires, in an effort to support Harvard’s claims of compliance with Affirmative Action. Would it be impossible that the same person, or even someone else, going down the list of faculty to note those of minority status, might innocently include her? Harvard is a pretty big place, not everybody there knows everybody else. Note well: this is to say that Ms Warren was included in the list of female faculty on fully reasonable grounds, she is female. She may have been included on the list of minority faculty in error, or perhaps an overly generous definition of minority. But none of this means she was hired for either of those reasons, gender or minority status. You insist that this is the case, and your evidence that it is so is their denial? Is it your opinion that she would not have been hired simply on the basis of being qualified and female, thus killing two birds with one stone? But that her “minority” status tipped the scales in her favor? And your proof of this is that they deny that it was so? I’m afraid you are not very good at this whole “arguing” thing. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/231 "2012-09-28T00:22:26Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > So in other words, if a Democrat accuses a Republican of something, it is up to the Republican to prove the Democrat wrong. Are you shitting me? I mean, technically, yes, those are **other words**. But you might equally have said, “In other words, hippopotamus spatula whizz bang freedom.” Your “other words” have nothing to do with what I said at all. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/232 "2012-09-28T08:37:00Z")
Since it would appear that Elizabeth Warren actually did [practice law without a license](http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warren-represented-massachusetts-client-in-massachusetts/) in Massachusetts, despite her claims to the contrary, I’m even more inclined to believe that her Native American ancestry claim was knowing bullshit. She seems like one of those people who just seems to think that the system is there to be manipulated and she’s beyond the rules because her heart is pure and her cause just. > [@](#): > > In just the last few days even more information has come forward which supports my original position. We learned that Warren represented to the Texas Bar that her “primary practice location” was in Cambridge. > > We also learned that Warren had a law practice going beyond brief writing, including being hired to provide legal advice to various creditors’ committees in bankruptcy cases, in which she represented to the Court that her “Billing Statement is in the same form regularly used by Professor Warren to bill her clients” and in which the work was performed, at $675 per hour as of 2002, from her Cambridge office. There will be more such examples detailed in coming days. > > Yet still, Warren defenders persist in defending on the basis that Warren just wrote a few Briefs for out of state cases and never did anything for a Massachusetts client in Massachusetts, much less on a Massachusetts issue of law. > > I consider that test irrelevant, but in any event, Warren did represent a Massachusetts client in Massachusetts on a Massachusetts legal issue. > > The case was an appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston in the case of Cadle Company v. Schlictmann. Details of the case at the link. The main rebuttal of the “Warren practiced law without a license” came from the “League of Ordinary Gentlemen” blog, and that author, upon seeing the new evidence, has recanted and says that the evidence now seems strong that Warren did in fact practice law without a license. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/233 "2012-09-28T12:10:15Z")
This \*Insurrection \*blog? Seems familiar. Is this that legal site so widely praised for its strictly non-partisan views? My memory seems to be a bit hazy on that, **Sam**. Perhaps you could fill it in a bit, give us some more details. Have you offered us their insights before? Seems to me you have, but I can’t quite put my mental finger on it… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/234 "2012-09-28T13:05:56Z")
And if so, so what? Is she accused of plundering the savings of widows and orphans? No doubt, this news was met with smug satisfaction in the offices of CitiGroup and B of A, whose strict adherence to ethical standards are the stuff of legend. But is there some reason anyone else should care? Will the cases she advised upon be reversed as this new outrage unfolds? Do we expect the citizens of Massachusetts to recoil in shock, horror and dismay? So far, all we have is that it tilts the opinion of one strictly partisan Canadian to accept evidence on an entirely unrelated topic as being more plausible. **Sam Stone** favors the conservative candidate. Film at eleven on this breaking story… ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/235 "2012-09-28T13:57:09Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Please. Who is confusing gender preferences with ethnic preferences here? You’ve had that explained to you already. Multiple times, in fact. > > If you want to call Warren dishonest, you do need to be at least minimally clear about what you’re calling her dishonest _about_. Is that too much to ask, as appears to be the case? I’ve laid out my case very clearly. If you have specific questions about the arguments I’ve made then ask them and I will answer. Resorting too such silly mischaracterizations of my posts isn’t something that I feel the need to respond to. If you want to know what I think about the issue, just read my posts to the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/236 "2012-09-28T14:00:02Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I find that surprising. To me, it comes across as the same sort of string of flimsy evidence that makes up the best conspiracy theories. I don’t think there’s any business concluding someone lied or cheated on the basis of a few coincidences that have benign explanations. Fair enough. I look at it from the opposite perspective. I find it extremely naive to take Warren and Harvard’s self serving claims as true without questioning them. The “coincidences” as you call them have a clear pattern with only one explanation, unless you really start interpreting things in a beneficial way for Warren’s intentions. But everyone is entitled to an opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/237 "2012-09-28T14:07:43Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Your choice of words is telling. He “admitted” they were following affirmative action procedures? How is that an “admission”, rather than a simple statement of fact? Apparently, you hope to achieve by insinuation what you cannot accomplish by evidence. The President of Harvard was careful with his words in the interview I cited. He admitted that they are using preferences to hire more females and minorities but denied that they are lowering their standards. Whenever people try to defend AA they have to balance this impossible position. You can either be hiring with the goal of finding the best person for the job, or hiring to fill racial or other quotas. You can’t be doing both at the same time. It’s simply not possible. > [@](#): > > Why would they deny that they were complying with affirmative action requirements? Do they cringe in fear of your disapproval? Because they don’t want to admit anyone was actually hired ahead of a better qualified candidate, which is almost always the case when you start making hiring decisions based on race and gender instead of who’s better for the job. This is why Harvard would never admit to any specific professor as being hired because of AA. They’d never admit that so and so was hired just to fill a quota even though there were better candidates who were white males. That’s why I say “admit”. > [@](#): > > Note well: this is to say that Ms Warren was included in the list of female faculty on fully reasonable grounds, she is female. She may have been included on the list of minority faculty in error, or perhaps an overly generous definition of minority. You say “overly generous”, I say fraudulent. If only she said she was gay. Then she’d be perfect. They can put her in a department with nine old white professors and say the dept is now 10% female, 10% minority and 10% gay. > [@](#): > > But none of this means she was hired for either of those reasons, gender or minority status. You insist that this is the case, and your evidence that it is so is their denial? They’ve admitted that at the time they hired here they were giving preference to minorities and genders, but of course they would never admit for her or anyone else that a specific person was hired for those reasons. So, yes, it’s up to us to make up our own minds about what factored in to the decision. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/238 "2012-09-28T14:09:16Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Details of the case at the link. The main rebuttal of the “Warren practiced law without a license” came from the “League of Ordinary Gentlemen” blog, and that author, upon seeing the new evidence, has recanted and says that the evidence now seems strong that Warren did in fact practice law without a license. I believe she admitted this during the debate, didn’t she? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/239 "2012-09-28T14:13:18Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I’ve laid out my case very clearly. Not if you still can’t point to the specific lie you claim she told, which you have not. And especially not if you’re still mixing ethnicity and gender - those are pretty basic concepts. If your goal here is to persuade anybody but yourself, you’re not doing a good job of it. > [@Debaser](#): > > I believe she admitted this during the debate, didn’t she? I watched it too, and heard no such thing. Where do you see that in the transcript? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858/240 "2012-09-28T14:23:41Z")
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that she purposely put NA on the form in order to get preferential treatment in hiring. Would anyone on this MB who supports her switch your vote to another candidate because of that? Let’s consider that she actually did believe, through family lore, that she had a Cherokee great-great-great-grandmother, but that she also has no contact or experience with Cherokee culture, language or whatever. I think it’s fair to say that whatever the actual situation is, she did believe that she had a NA ancestor, so she wouldn’t have been lying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-scott-brown-judging-elizabeth-warren-solely-on-the-color-of-her-skin/635858.md?page=13)