Candidate in trouble over claiming minority status

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**pretre**

Aren't women the majority?

**Melissia**

pretre wrote:Aren't women the majority?

Women have historically been underprivileged, and even today we have effective minority status, being underpaid, underemployed, and underrepresented.

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:Personally I don't really think it matters that much either way, myself. She has minority status from being a woman...

Except she wasn't claiming minority status on the basis of being a woman.

She was claiming minority status on the basis of being a Native American.

**Melissia**

Which was silly of her, I agree.

I mean once you get several generations removed, is there a point any more?

I'm probably several generations removed from several European countries, myself... but I consider myself an American first and foremost.

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:I mean once you get several generations removed, is there a point any more?

Well, apparently you are more appealing to Harvard Law because you're a "minority candidate."

**Melissia**

Which is covered by her being a woman....

Especially at a place like Harvard.

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:Which is covered by her being a woman....

No, it's not.

**Melissia**

biccat wrote:
Melissia wrote:Which is covered by her being a woman....
No, it's not.

Then Harvard holds some rather skewed definitions of what it means to be a minority.

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:Then Harvard holds some rather skewed definitions of what it means to be a minority.

Certainly skewed.

Actually I think the term is "minority women." At the time Warren was hired, Harvard Law had zero non-white female professors. Warren was the first "minority woman" professor.

1996: "Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic."
1998: "on hiring at Harvard Law School: Since 1989 the school has appointed to the faculty or voted tenure for four African-Americans, a Hispanic professor and eight women, including a Native American"
1998 (again): "Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American"

Around that time Harvard was contending with the protest (and fallout therefrom) of Derrick Bell, a black tenured professor who complained about the lack of racial diversity at Harvard.

**Kilkrazy**

If the Cherokee genealogist thinks this is a big deal and he has a strong case, he should lay his dossier before the relevant authorities.

Without doing that he just looks like a sour graper.

**pretre**

Melissia wrote:
pretre wrote:Aren't women the majority?
Women have historically been underprivileged, and even today we have effective minority status, being underpaid, underemployed, and underrepresented.

I was mostly poking at the phrase minority. I would not argue that women have not been underprivileged.

**Ahtman**

Ouze wrote:Here is the "expert testimony" which, for some reason, you guys seem able to ascertain an opinion from:

“NEHGS has not expressed a position on whether Mrs. Warren has Native American ancestry, nor do we possess any primary sources to prove that she is,” said Tom Champoux, spokesman for the NEHGS. “We have no proof that Elizabeth Warren’s great great great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith either is or is not of Cherokee descent.”

If you wish to determine a standing from that Rorschach I won't stop you, but I am not going to.

Additionally, these are the same experts that started earlier that they did have evidence, right? So I have to wonder about their competence and credibility.

That isn't the Cherokee Genealogist that was interviewed so is not the statement I was referring to that you can listen to in the OP. If I have to venture a guess, I would say that the Cherokee Genologist that has looked into the matter of Cherokee Genealogy would probably have more experience in that specific area than the New England Historic Genealogical Society. Their databases and specialty is that of New England, which the Cherokee aren't from, which may account for the fact the NEHGS originally said that it was true, then shortly after changed it's statement to the one you listed.

The reason they pulled their support was because the document that was talked about was just that: talk. The evidence was an application for a marriage license that is referred to in a family newsletter. Turns out no one has ever actually seen the application, let alone the real marriage license. When someone did go to Oklahoma and look up the Marriage Certificate itself it had both boxes for 'race' left blank. To top it all off it also seems that instead of being Cherokee her ancestors were part of the militia that rounded them up for the Trail of Tears.

**Ouze**

Kilkrazy wrote:Without doing that he just looks like a sour graper.

\

Before this day is out, I'm now resolved to call someone a sour graper. Great phrase.

**pretre**

Ahtman wrote:Turns out no one has ever actually seen the application, let alone the real marriage license. When someone did go to Oklahoma and look up the Marriage Certificate itself it had both boxes for 'race' left blank. To top it all off it also seems that instead of being Cherokee her ancestors were part of the militia that rounded them up for the Trail of Tears.

Wait, we can cite breitbart as a legitimate source with a straight face now?

In all seriousness, the reason to leave race blank in a time when indians are being rounded up and 'deported' is pretty darn obvious. As I pointed out previously in this thread, a large number of native people tried to pass as white or dark skinned europeans in an effort to escape oppression.*

It is certainly not outside the realm of possiblity as well that a captor might fall in love with a captive. That's never happened before.

*My own family changed their name to a French Canadian name and left Canada in order to find a better life. My grandmother went to her deathbed denying that she was anything than a nice french-canadian woman.

Edit: I also would reiterate that this "storm in a teacup" would not have occured if she claimed any other ethnicity.

**Ahtman**

Kilkrazy wrote:If the Cherokee genealogist thinks this is a big deal and he has a strong case, he should lay his dossier before the relevant authorities.

Without doing that he just looks like a sour graper.

One, it was a she, which makes me wonder if you even listened to the interview before having an opinion on it. Two, it is a big deal, but not illegal so I don't know who the relevant authorities would be. They have taken it to the media and presented it to us so I am not sure what else is needed as far as that is concerned.

As for Briebart, there is a scan of the license, which is a neutral piece of evidence. The point of the license isn't that it proves she isn't, but considering that it was touted as specifically stating that it was the proof she was, which it does not.

They also have links to lots of other articles and research that aren't Briebart if you so desire. It isn't hard to do a google search. If you feel better here is one from a hotbed or conservative journalism, The Atlantic.

I'm not saying she is a terrible person or that she is disqualified from running for public office. I do think lying about one's ancestry to get a leg up is certainly not something we should pretend to condone either.

The question isn't whether a person can appear to be one thing but also be another, as we all know that is possible. This isn't 'oh she looks white so she can't be a Native', but 'she seems to have profited from an untruth and is somewhat callous to it'.

I don't think there is much more to add at this point and to keep it from dragging on endlessly I'll just go ahead and bow out. I will certainly read responses and consider them I just don't want to get to caught up on one topic.

**Kilkrazy**

I didn't listen to the interview, but so what, my personal view of the supposed facts is irrelevant.

If they are strong facts they will stand up in a court of law.

If the case is worth taking, of course...

Otherwise it just looks like a pile of internet muck-raking.

**biccat**

pretre wrote:Wait, we can cite breitbart as a legitimate source with a straight face now?

People cite Huffington post pretty regularly, so yes.

pretre wrote:In all seriousness, the reason to leave race blank in a time when indians are being rounded up and 'deported' is pretty darn obvious. As I pointed out previously in this thread, a large number of native people tried to pass as white or dark skinned europeans in an effort to escape oppression.

It is certainly not outside the realm of possiblity as well that a captor might fall in love with a captive. That's never happened before.

Yes, but now you're in the realm of "total speculation."

Is it possible she is 1/32 (or less) Native American? Sure. Is there any evidence to support that? No. The only evidence she had that supported that assertion is nonexistant.

**pretre**

Ahtman wrote:They also have links to lots of other articles and research that aren't Briebart if you so desire. It isn't hard to do a google search. If you feel better here is one from a hotbed or conservative journalism, The Atlantic.

And that one is a bit more balanced. Having Native American ancestors is not uncommon and as listed in the article, a lot of people think they do when they do not necessarily have proof. The real point is, however, that if she said she had Indian (Asian) ancestors, no one would have batted an eye and asked her to prove it.

I do think lying about one's ancestry to get a leg up is certainly not something we should pretend to condone either.

Again, the Atlantic provides a much more balanced view on this. Elizabeth Warren really thinks that she is part Native American. Having met numerous 'white indians' over the years, it is not uncommon for someone to have native blood and not look it. She had no reason to think that her grandparents were liars. Why would she?

Ahtman wrote:'she seems to have profited from an untruth and is somewhat callous to it'.

The Atlantic wrote:The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution.
"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "

How exactly did she profit?

The Atlantic Again wrote:If there's no easily located evidence that Warren has Native American ancestry, there's also no evidence Warren used her family story to boost herself into a Harvard job.

**Frazzled**

pretre wrote:Aren't women the majority?

You betcha.

**helgrenze**

pretre wrote:
Ahtman wrote:'she seems to have profited from an untruth and is somewhat callous to it'.

The Atlantic wrote:The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution.
"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "

How exactly did she profit?

She claimed her heritage on her college application which, given the "diversity" push of the era, gave her an advantage over other, possibly more qualified, applicants.
I believe this is similar to the plot of the movie "Soul Man".... Though in that the main character used the claim to qualify for a scholarship.

**Piston Honda**

Makes me wish I found out I have a little bit of Mongolian in me a lot sooner.

My aunt had a genealogist trace our ancestry, found out my great, great, great, great grand father was Mongolian. What is that? 1/64?

**pretre**

helgrenze wrote:
pretre wrote:
Ahtman wrote:'she seems to have profited from an untruth and is somewhat callous to it'.

The Atlantic wrote:The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution.
"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "

How exactly did she profit?

She claimed her heritage on her college application which, given the "diversity" push of the era, gave her an advantage over other, possibly more qualified, applicants.
I believe this is similar to the plot of the movie "Soul Man".... Though in that the main character used the claim to qualify for a scholarship.

Except I quoted the guy who brought her on and said that wasn't a factor.

**Ouze**

Well, the one thing I learned form this is that the Native American tribes guard their heritage jealously, and indeed, only the most stringent of evidence is allowed to gain admission and reap the bounty of your indigenous ancestry.

**pretre**

I think you may misunderstand the idea of 'tribe'. I doubt he is getting on the rolls. It is like getting an honorary degree; you don't have a real degree, you just are being honored. They are making him part of the family, so to speak.

**helgrenze**

pretre wrote:
helgrenze wrote:
pretre wrote:
Ahtman wrote:'she seems to have profited from an untruth and is somewhat callous to it'.

The Atlantic wrote:The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution.
"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "

How exactly did she profit?

She claimed her heritage on her college application which, given the "diversity" push of the era, gave her an advantage over other, possibly more qualified, applicants.
I believe this is similar to the plot of the movie "Soul Man".... Though in that the main character used the claim to qualify for a scholarship.

Except I quoted the guy who brought her on and said that wasn't a factor.

Try again Pretre.... This was on her application to ATTEND the college.... not work for them.

**pretre**

The Atlantic article also says that the best she got for benefits was the cookbook. Both her college degrees were obtained without listing ethnicity (u of Houston and rutgers). Check the article.

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-elizabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/257415/

So sorry, I stand by my statement.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Atlantic wrote:The best argument she's got in her defense is that, based on the public evidence so far, she doesn't appear to have used her claim of Native American ancestry to gain access to anything much more significant than a cookbook; in 1984 she contributed five recipes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook published by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, signing the items, "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee."

Warren, who graduated from the University of Houston in 1970 and got her law degree from Rutgers University in 1976, did not seek to take advantage of affirmative action policies during her education, according documents obtained by the Associated Press and The Boston Globe. On the application to Rutgers Law School she was asked, "Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?'' "No," she replied.

While a teacher at the University of Texas, she listed herself as "white." But between 1986 and 1995, she listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty; the University of Pennsylvania in a 2005 "minority equity report" also listed her as one of the minority professors who had taught at its law school.

The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution. Reported the Boston Herald in April in its first story on Warren's ancestry claim: "Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995. He said he didn't recall her Native American heritage ever coming up during the hiring process.

"'It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty,' he said."

He repeated himself this week, telling the Herald: "In spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the story continues to circulate that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed some kind of affirmative action leg-up in her hiring as a full professor by the Harvard Law School. The innuendo is false."

"I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned," he added.

That view was echoed by Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her.

"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."

Just in case clicking the link is a problem.

**helgrenze**

Simply saying "No" on to the "Program for Minority Group Students" does not mean she didn't benefit from being considered as a minority for purposes of "diversity". She put it on her admittance form and application... I doing so her paperwork was automatically seperated into the "Minority" catagory for consideration. And at that time, "Minority" applicants were chosen first on that status then on test scores, usually with a lower score requirement.

**pretre**

Read it again, she denied 'the minority pile' for Rutgers as it was optin at the time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
She was also listed as white until after her college period. Seriously, RTA.

**biccat**

"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."

If anyone thinks professors, especially law professors, get hired on the basis of "teaching ability" I have a metal span crossing a river linking two disparate plots of land that you may be interested in purchasing, for a modest fee.

**Shadowseer_Kim**

Skimming through this thread, I noticed one thing that seemed off. Last I knew Cherokee nation required a minimum of 1/64th blood quantum. Which is why we have great NDN humour like;

Q: What do you get when you have 64 Cherokees in a room together?

A: 1 Fullblood.

The politician in question was an idiot. The fact we have people doing these things and checking boxes, and then affirmative action is silliness.

Harlen, host of Native America Calling radio show advocated during the last census, that we push for everyone in the country to self label as Native American.

@ pretre, I get it to be offended by the testing requirements, but that is how it is.

For those not in the know, the US Government set up the first test for tribal membership at 1/4 blood quantum, and used this for all kinds of reasons, allocation of commodities, whos children they stole to put into indian schools, etc.

Later it was left to each tribe to set its own membership standards, and most tribes kept the 1/4 blood requirement. There is constant debate about it all amongst a lot of tribes. Some wanting to lessen it to 1/8, some wanting to keep it how it is. There is a lot of warring within a tribe about who is more indian than whom, especially amongst kids.

The same is seen in the black communities, about who is black and less black, etc.

Yes a lot of people ditched thier tribal identity earlier on, so they could get the rights afforded by everyone else in the fledgling country. Black Irish, Black Danish, was the common label.

It is all a very complicated thing. The simple part is, she is an idiot, and her universities used that fact to make themselves look "diverse."