Elizabeth Warren claims Michael Brown was "murdered"

[Derec]

Exactly what benefits did she get?

Teaching job at Harvard.

 

[Toni]

Exactly what benefits did she get?

Teaching job at Harvard.

*SHE* didn't benefit. Harvard did. It could claim to have hired a woman of color. With the added benefit that said woman of color was blonde and blue eyed and wouldn't scare away any donors or students or alumni who might have been put off by actually seeing a woman with dark hair and skin in front of a classroom as a professor. It was quite enough that she was a woman and had attended PUBLIC universities.

She was well established and well accomplished in her career when Harvard hired her. She didn't need the designation. Harvard did.

 

[Derec]

*SHE* didn't benefit. Harvard did. It could claim to have hired a woman of color.

Which is why they hired her and not somebody else who did not claim that granddaddy had high cheek bones.

She was well established and well accomplished in her career when Harvard hired her.

That is beside the point. I am sure plenty of people who were "well established" in their careers applied for that slot. Being a claimed "woman of color" helped her get hired.

We know affirmative action is real. People on here, including you, have defended basing admissions and hiring on race and gender. So why is it so hard for you to admit that being listed as "woman of color" gave EW an advantage?

 

[Toni]

*SHE* didn't benefit. Harvard did. It could claim to have hired a woman of color.

Which is why they hired her and not somebody else who did not claim that granddaddy had high cheek bones.

No: she was already hired. Her 'designation' as a woman of color came from a casual conversation when someone asked her if she hadn't mentioned before that she was part NA. She said yes and they asked her to amend her paperwork so they could make the claim.

She was well established and well accomplished in her career when Harvard hired her.

That is beside the point. I am sure plenty of people who were "well established" in their careers applied for that slot. Being a claimed "woman of color" helped her get hired.

Yes, even small, obscure universities get bombarded with applications. I believe that she was put forth or head hunted for the Harvard position, but I can't find the source I think I read to link.

We know affirmative action is real. People on here, including you, have defended basing admissions and hiring on race and gender. So why is it so hard for you to admit that being listed as "woman of color" gave EW an advantage?

In this case, Elizabeth Warren was hired BEFORE Harvard was told that she was (according to her family) part Native American.

You've let your animosity towards Warren cloud your memory. We've had this discussion before.

 

[Derec]

No: she was already hired. Her 'designation' as a woman of color came from a casual conversation when someone asked her if she hadn't mentioned before that she was part NA. She said yes and they asked her to amend her paperwork so they could make the claim.

That's what Harvard is saying now. But then again, they are saying they are not discriminating against Asian applicants, so take what they are saying with a grain of salt.

We know EW claimed to be an Indian long before 1995 because her Texas bar card from the 80s lists her race as "American Indian".

You've let your animosity towards Warren cloud your memory. We've had this discussion before.

The reference to her Indian claims was an aside. The main purpose of this thread was her (and Kamala Harris, who is actually part Indian, just dot not feather) libelous claims that Michael Brown was "murdered". It was mostly laughing dog who chose to focus on the Indian aside.

However, I do not think it likely Harvard did not know she claimed to be an Indian. Do you want to tell me they headhunt professors without thoroughly vetting them first, including their legal bar history?

 

[laughing dog]

Exactly what benefits did she get?

Teaching job at Harvard.

You conflate correlation with causation. That is not evidence that Ms. Warren was hired because of her ethnicity. IN fact, the Boston Globe reported (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html) that Ms Warren was not hired because of her ethnicity.

 

[Derec]

IN fact, the Boston Globe reported (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html) that Ms Warren was not hired because of her ethnicity.

Oh my sweet summer child, can you really be that naive?

 

[laughing dog]

IN fact, the Boston Globe reported (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html) that Ms Warren was not hired because of her ethnicity.

Oh my sweet summer child, can you really be that naive?

The Globe reports

In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.

The Globe cites actual reports from the faculty and documents. Your evidence is a conflation of correlation with causation. If that is all you have, then while you entitled to your misogynistic opinions but no one else has to accept them as fact.

 

[blastula]

Exactly what benefits did she get?

Teaching job at Harvard.

Then Brown was murdered since Wilson killed him.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Globe reports

In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.

The Globe cites actual reports from the faculty and documents. Your evidence is a conflation of correlation with causation. If that is all you have, then while you entitled to your misogynistic opinions but no one else has to accept them as fact.

I am fairly certain this was pointed out before to Derec. Not sure why he is bringing up debunked points...

 

[Toni]

IN fact, the Boston Globe reported (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html) that Ms Warren was not hired because of her ethnicity.

Oh my sweet summer child, can you really be that naive?

Don't be so motivated by right wing rags.

Warren was recruited for her position as visiting professor, as is customary for those who hold such positions. No one knew, because it sure isn't obvious by looking at her or by her name, that she had made any claims to NA ancestry or that it was her family legend.

https://www.apnews.com/4d83eff785f146c6a20754a61f5fa503

 

[Toni]

The Globe reports

In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.

The Globe cites actual reports from the faculty and documents. Your evidence is a conflation of correlation with causation. If that is all you have, then while you entitled to your misogynistic opinions but no one else has to accept them as fact.

I am fairly certain this was pointed out before to Derec. Not sure why he is bringing up debunked points...

Warren is doing well enough to be a contender. That's reason enough.

 

[ZiprHead]

My father claimed to be 1/16th Pontiac Indian.

Was he a Chief?
View attachment 23196

That would be some good genes!

My wife's great great grandfather was actually an Ojibwa/Chippewa Indian chief. They have a room dedicated to him in the Indian Museum in St. Ignace.

 

[Gun Nut]

*SHE* didn't benefit. Harvard did. It could claim to have hired a woman of color.

Which is why they hired her and not somebody else who did not claim that granddaddy had high cheek bones.

She was well established and well accomplished in her career when Harvard hired her.

That is beside the point. I am sure plenty of people who were "well established" in their careers applied for that slot. Being a claimed "woman of color" helped her get hired.

We know affirmative action is real. People on here, including you, have defended basing admissions and hiring on race and gender. So why is it so hard for you to admit that being listed as "woman of color" gave EW an advantage?

I concede Derec's point with the assumption that the quoted text from Harvard is real. Her being categorized as a "woman of color" is a nail in the coffin, in my opinion.
She likely benefited. My mind has been changed.

That said, my point was not about benefiting, but about her intent and degree of honesty. So I ask again, what do you, Derec, know about your family that wasn't simply dictated to you by your family? It is a fair question that speaks to anyone's "innocence" in that type of "mistake".

 

[Derec]

No one knew, because it sure isn't obvious by looking at her or by her name, that she had made any claims to NA ancestry or that it was her family legend.

It's BS to say that nobody knew since she listed "American Indian" as her race on her Texas bar card.

 

[Derec]

My wife's great great grandfather was actually an Ojibwa/Chippewa Indian chief. They have a room dedicated to him in the Indian Museum in St. Ignace.

The real question is: are you getting any of that sweet, sweet casino revenue?

 

[Derec]

That said, my point was not about benefiting, but about her intent and degree of honesty. So I ask again, what do you, Derec, know about your family that wasn't simply dictated to you by your family? It is a fair question that speaks to anyone's "innocence" in that type of "mistake".

I already said, I have not tried to verify any family lore, but then again, it is not the kind or lore that gives you benefits.

 

[Derec]

Your evidence is a conflation of correlation with causation. If that is all you have, then while you entitled to your misogynistic opinions but no one else has to accept them as fact.

I am not conflating anything. I am merely aware of the reality of so-called "affirmative action" in contemporary academia.

We have had many threads where you, Toni et al defend gender and racial preferences in academia ad nauseam. But now you do not even want to acknowledge they exist. Curious.

 

[ZiprHead]

My wife's great great grandfather was actually an Ojibwa/Chippewa Indian chief. They have a room dedicated to him in the Indian Museum in St. Ignace.

The real question is: are you getting any of that sweet, sweet casino revenue?

Since my wife turned sixty, she gets $500 per year from the tribe from their elder fund. The vast majority of tribal funds go to the community for health and welfare care and infrastructure.

 

[Gun Nut]

That said, my point was not about benefiting, but about her intent and degree of honesty. So I ask again, what do you, Derec, know about your family that wasn't simply dictated to you by your family? It is a fair question that speaks to anyone's "innocence" in that type of "mistake".

I already said, I have not tried to verify any family lore, but then again, it is not the kind or lore that gives you benefits.

well how convenient for you, then, . What if it did, though? Would you verify by DNA sampling your family's claim of being a part of a protected group prior to claiming an associated benefit? I am not saying that it would be unreasonable of you not to. Maybe it would be unreasonable on a purely humanistic level to be skeptical of what you grew up "knowing as a fact". How can you blame her for the same? Personally.. truth or not.. I couldn't stand up in front of the public and claim to be something that I look nothing like... even if I was, without evidence... and I would approach it like, "you probably wouldn't believe it by looking at me, but...".

Incidentally, my wife is "very white" looking, despite being a first generation American on her father's side, who was from Africa (mom was from Brooklyn). My wife is MUCH more African-American than almost every black person I ever met, by genetics and generations removed. She certainly does not go around claiming she's "more black" than others... even though it is true on some level. She does not identify as African American, even though she probably could (and get targeted with great hostility for it).