• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Elizabeth Warren - 1/32nd Cherokee? How?

Harvard uses enough tax money that they are bound by federal laws, so getting hired there because of her 'minority' status would be a benefit.

Is there any way to determine if that claim actually helped her get a job she would not have otherwise qualified for?


Good points.

Harvard, of course, denies that her "minority" status had anything to do with her gettig her current position. Still, I wonder why I suspect more Rutgers Law* graduates who can check the "Native American" box get tenure at Harvard than those who cannot claim such "minority" status?

* Rutgers, at the lower end of the second tier, is currently ranked 82nd (tied with 9 other schools) in US News law school ratings.
 
Last edited:
Harvard refuses to disclose whether Warren is the lone Native American Law Professor listed on their roster.

Harvard Law School lists one lone Native American faculty member on its latest diversity census report — but school officials and campaign aides for Elizabeth Warren refused to say yesterday whether it refers to the Democratic Senate candidate.

The problem is that there is no safe answer to that question. If Harvard admits that Warren is their token Indian, their sham commitment to diversity is made obvious and if they don't they hang her out to dry.
 
The problem is that there is no safe answer to that question. If Harvard admits that Warren is their token Indian, their sham commitment to diversity is made obvious and if they don't they hang her out to dry.


Harvard: "Diversity is important because shut up."
 
Good points.

Harvard, of course, denies that her "minority" status had anything to do with her gettig her current position. Still, I wonder why I suspect more Rutgers Law* graduates who can check the "Native American" box get tenure at Harvard than those who cannot claim such "minority" status?

* Rutgers, at the lower end of the second tier, is currently ranked 82nd (tied with 9 other schools) in US News law school ratings.

I know two Rutgers law graduates who presently work at the much higher ranked University of PA. Only one of them could be considered a 'minority' (jewish), what of it?
 
I know two Rutgers law graduates who presently work at the much higher ranked University of PA. Only one of them could be considered a 'minority' (jewish), what of it?

Looking at the Penn Law School faculty, I see only one: Louis S. Rulli. Still, this does indicate that some Rutgers Law School graduates have made it to big-time law schools, contrary to that Washington Examiner article I linked.
 
Last edited:
I know two Rutgers law graduates who presently work at the much higher ranked University of PA. Only one of them could be considered a 'minority' (jewish), what of it?


How many Rutgers law grads do you know at Harvard?
 
http://www.mediaite.com/online/eliz...ember-implicated-in-run-up-to-trail-of-tears/

"Warren is also related to a militia member who participated in the roundup of Native Americans ahead of the Trail of Tears."


Now there's some real "diversity" for you.

I wonder if Elizabeth Warren is thinking to herself, "Hey, maybe I can use this to get an even better job ... If I can show them my family has always been able to keep the natives in line, I'm a shoe in for Director of Indian Affairs."
 
Last edited:
Harvard uses enough tax money that they are bound by federal laws, so getting hired there because of her 'minority' status would be a benefit.

Is there any way to determine if that claim actually helped her get a job she would not have otherwise qualified for?

Unless one of the people who made the decision came forward, probably not with any certainty. However, if she indicated that status on her job application, that would be suggestive that she sought extra consideration on those grounds, whether or not it was granted.
 
It's looking more and more likely that Fauxcahontas has about as much Cherokee blood as an F-Troop Indian:

The slender thread upon which Elizabeth Warren’s claim that she is 1/32 Cherokee rests—a purported 1894 marriage license application—has been exposed as non-existent. Based on a review of the original marriage records found in the files of the Logan County, Oklahoma Court Clerk’s office in Guthrie, Oklahoma, and the statements of ReJeania Zmek, the Court Clerk of Logan County, Oklahoma, it is likely that the ephemeral 1894 marriage license application never existed.

“In modern times we keep marriage license applications,” she said. “The way they’re issued now, you do the application, then you do the license. We currently do keep records of marriage license applications,” she said, explaining that this practice didn’t begin until around 1950.

So how did the "electronic transcript" of the marriage license application come into being? Ah, that is a complicated tale indeed; it turns out that the entirety of the evidence actually comes from a family genealogical newsletter:

When Neoma’s son William J. Crawford married his second wife Mary LONG in Oklahoma, he stated on his marriage application that his parents were Johnathan Houston Crawford and O. C. Sarah Smith and that his mother was Cherokee Indian.

The more skeptical among us might wonder how a family genealogist (based in England, by the way) managed to locate a marriage application that the county clerk says does not exist.
 
The people of Massachussets can rest easily knowing that Republicans are elevating the public discourse and finally discussing the real issues.

Like marriage licenses from 1894.
 
The people of Massachussets can rest easily knowing that Republicans are elevating the public discourse and finally discussing the real issues.

Like marriage licenses from 1894.

You're right. The real issue is why we have affirmative action when the system benefits people who don't need it, including people who shouldn't qualify. Because even if Warren was part Cherokee, this has still demonstrated that she didn't need to be in order to claim that she was and for people to accept that claim.
 
Help me out, here. Am I supposed to be more outraged that 20 years ago Elizabeth Warren used to check a box on a form, or that in high school Mitt Romney held a kid down and cut his hair because he thought he was gay? I can't tell, because as campaign issues both stories seem absurdly pathetic.

I see election season is in full swing; the BS Brigades are out in force.
 
Help me out, here. Am I supposed to be more outraged that 20 years ago Elizabeth Warren used to check a box on a form, or that in high school Mitt Romney held a kid down and cut his hair because he thought he was gay? I can't tell, because as campaign issues both stories seem absurdly pathetic.

I see election season is in full swing; the BS Brigades are out in force.

Yep. Pathetic.
 
Help me out, here. Am I supposed to be more outraged that 20 years ago Elizabeth Warren used to check a box on a form, or that in high school Mitt Romney held a kid down and cut his hair because he thought he was gay? I can't tell, because as campaign issues both stories seem absurdly pathetic.

I see election season is in full swing; the BS Brigades are out in force.

Why would even compare the actions of an adult to that of a minor?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom