Why do you think people are ignoring that question? I have no issues with people doing research into Warren’s history and proving or disproving her heritage. I don’t expect any smoking guns to be found. There is no evidence she intentionally lied to advance her career as Brown has been claiming.
Brown got up in front of camera’s with Warren and claimed she is not native American and asked the viewing public to look at her to confirm his claim. This is deplorable and racist. It should be called out for what it is.
Maybe I’m reading too much into this, maybe Brown was asking us to look at something other than her skin color, Do you think she was wearing a pin that said ‘I am not native American’ that none of us could see from the available camera angles?
Brown has asked us to judge the content of Warren’s character by the color of her skin in the year 2012. I hope the voters of Massachusetts see that, even if they aren’t willing to vote for Warren, and understand voting someone with the racial beliefs of Scott Brown sets the advancement of civil rights back years
This is Brown blowing a dog whistle to the white people out their that believe that laws protecting minorities somehow wrong them.
Warren without a drop of native American blood is still incredibly qualified for her job. Claiming she could have only gotten it because a minority status is ridiculous on it’s face. She’s one of Harvard’s most nationally known Professors and a leading expert in her field. Harvard has been glad to have her.
A complete aside. Should the ‘native’ in ‘native American’ be capitalized?
I completely disagree with your analysis, but just as a starting point: She is currently claiming #2. She’s got ads on TV right now where she says she’s part Cherokee and part Delaware.
As to the rest of your points:
#4 is irrelevant, and improvable in any case. We can’t know what she believes in her head.
#1 is certainly true and is far from minor. I’d break it out into 1a and 1b.
1a: She makes comments or statements about being Native American. This I would classify as minor and, while obnoxious and ignorant, not a dealbreaker for elected office.
1b: She puts herself on a law directory used by Universities to make minority hires. This is certainly over the line and there is no excuse for it. It also goes to proving your point #3.
She might have. I’ve already posted a cite that on the very same day she came to interview at Harvard there were protests going on that there weren’t enough minority and female professors.
She should have. It would give her some credibility.
We still haven’t really gotten to the bottom of this. I’ll address this in a later post. I haven’t seen anything yet indicating exactly how one gets on this minority directory. Do you have a cite that she was asked for information vs she proactively provided it?
It would be crazy insignificant if she checked English when she is in fact French. Neither of those groups gets preferential treatment in hiring decisions. The president of Harvard has admitted that during the time she was hired they were using affirmative action in their hiring decisions to increase the number of female and minority professors. You can’t just ignore that away.
You read cites now? You must have upped your game while I was gone.
Quotes can be made up. Would you trust an Obama quote provided by the KKK?
The NY Times is a liberal source.
Everything in the cite I quoted is true as far as I know. Most of it I’ve seen in multiple places and I’ve never seen any of it questioned. If you have a specific item that you can refute I welcome you to try.
Otherwise, you are just howling because a cite on this thread didn’t come from a left wing source.
So for nine years she was on the directory. This includes when she got hired by Harvard, which was desperately looking for minority professors and has admitted that they were giving preference to them during that time period.
She only stopped listing herself when she got tenure at Harvard.
This is vague. How do people get on the list?
So individual teachers provide themselves to be on it. It sounds like this is how Warren got there.
So it seems that it’s not true that Warren simply “checked a box” passively to a question that she was asked. It seems to me that she had to take action to add herself to this directory, which she knew was used to give preferential treatment to minorities by Universities such as Harvard.
I haven’t seen the ads, but I did read the news coverage, which had quotes. The ads are an attempt to address the issue. She only indirectly makes the claim you are stating, and hedges her bets by saying she never asked for verification from her parents about the supposed NA ancestry. In her words: “What kid would?” She then goes on to state that here parents had to elope because he father’s family didn’t like that her mother was part Cherokee and Delaware. Maybe she should have said something like “family lore had it that…” rather than stating it as a known fact. But it’s hard to slight her for that. She’s responding to attack ads by Brown that try to smear her over what I can only see as a minor offense, at worst.
Yes, of course she’s responding to Brown and other critics in those ads.
But LHoD’s statement that “she’s not” … “currently making the claim in the political arena” is false.
Stating it in a political ad, for whatever reason, certainly is making the claim in the political arena.
What would convince you that Harvard hired her at least in part because she was on the list as a minority?
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. Do you dispute any of this? If not, I don’t know how anyone could agree that it’s at least very likely that her minority status helped her land the job.
We will never know if her “minority status” helped her land the job, although the folks who hired her said it didn’t. But the fact is, she was eminently qualified for the job, so IMO it doesn’t matter. If she had some lackluster career and was plucked out of mediocrity for the Harvard position, you could probably make a case. But that is not what happened.
I don’t see how qualifications have anything to do with it.
One can be qualified to be a policeman, but it’s still wrong for them to claim to be a minority to get a job as a cop.
The same can be said of any profession. Getting a position based on a minority status that you have no right to claim is wrong. It doesn’t matter if you are qualified or not for the position.
Plenty of people are qualified to teach at Harvard. I’m sure they can take their pick. But, at the time Warren was hired they were preferentially hiring female minorities.
If there was an equally qualified white male being considered for the same position as Warren do you think he would have gotten the job over her? Any honest assessment would say no.
How many times are you going to ignore the fact that she didn’t get the position based on any claimed or unclaimed minority status? Your gut feeling that that’s what happened, despite the people who hired her saying it isn’t, doesn’t mean shit, you know?
That’s great, but Oklahoma is still not the South. In this case that’s actually significant because Oklahoma used to be the U.S. Indian Territory, although of course Native Americans lived all over.
I think you can assume whatever you like, but this is not a solid basis for a conclusion about Warren specifically.
I agree. The story may be untrue or simply unsubstantiated, but she’s actually in a similar position to Romney regarding his taxes: whether she did anything wrong or not, it’s not in her interest to spend more time on this. And even if it turns out she’s wrong with a good-faith basis, she’ll get the same amount of flack as if it turned out she was deliberately lying.
I’ve made my case. I’ve cited my facts. They don’t even seem to be in dispute. If you choose to believe her claim that’s fine. But, you can’t hand wave away all the evidence that exists to back up my argument.
Unfortunately, they fall short of your desired conclusion. You want to claim she’s a liar, but the facts don’t support that claim. Do you not realize that?
Is any of the evidence whatsoever not circumstantial? If so, which pieces?
Moreover, your own claims undermine your claims. You say that Harvard was actively looking to hire women and minorities at the time Warren was hired, and suggest that they hired her because they thought she was a minority.
Oklahoma is actually an odd mix. Northeastern Oklahoma, (specifically Tulsa) has a midwestern big city feel to it. Oklahoma City, where Warren is from, is much more of a western city. Everything west of Oklahoma City is just like the rest of the American Southwest. Southeastern Oklahoma is very much southern. If you went there, you’d swear you were in Arkansas or Louisiana.
Which raises the possibility that her being female was the most important factor in her hiring. But you want us to believe that it was because she claimed American Indian heritage. This, despite the fact the people directly and personally involved in the decision say otherwise. Have you any evidence to offer that they are not telling the truth?
And this…
That implies something not in evidence, which is that she actively decided to list herself so repeatedly. Have you some evidence that such is the procedure? Isn’t it at least as likely if not more so that her original listing simply stood? Or do you have reason for us to believe she affirmed that listing on a frequent basis?
Isn’t it at least as likely that the listing simply remained as it was written, because nobody bothered to change it? Or does the listing agency review every single entry on a regular basis? That would entail a lot of work, wouldn’t it? Why would they do that?
I think Ibn Warraq is largely correct on this point.
As much as Indian Territory can be said to have an orientation during the War, it was certainly with the Confederacy. There were formal Confederate treaties with and recruitment of Cherokee, Choctaw, and others.
Modern Oklahomans I have met counted themselves Southerners.
