Could Elizabeth Warren get the Democratic nomination?

[sunmaster14]

Exactly. The observation that the GOP is the party for Old White People is not because of the number of OWP's in the GOP, it's because the GOP policies are specifically geared to serve OWP's at the expense of everyone else.

You mean like trying to turn Social Security into a means-tested program?

 

[DavidJames]

I usually agree with your positions but ageism is silly. It should be about positions on the issues, not whether the candidate is black or white, young or old, has funny hair or not, etc.

Understood, I didn't mean to disparage them due to age, which is why I added a reference to my age (62), clearly, I didn't do a good job.

The point I want to make is I would like a variety of options, including age, political ideas, gender, race, etc.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

The point I want to make is I would like a variety of options, including age, political ideas, gender, race, etc.

Why? The only one in that list that makes any sense is "political ideas". The rest strike me as ridiculous. Who cares what race or gender someone is, it's all about ideas and political ability to promote and advance those ideas.

 

[DavidJames]

Why? The only one in that list that makes any sense is "political ideas". The rest strike me as ridiculous. Who cares what race or gender someone is, it's all about ideas and political ability to promote and advance those ideas.

The political process is not robotic and ideas, while very key, do not sell themselves. While I'm sure none of us consider race, gender, age etc. when we go about our lives, it seems some do. I'd hope you'd agree if you've ever seen advertisements.

People with a varied backgrounds and bring ideas to the table and sell them in different ways. Maybe this process should be 100% objective, but reality is different.

 

[Belz...]

A skeptics forum is a corner of the world where the word fact shouldn't be misused as synonymous with opinion.

That's a fact.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think the native American ancestry claims and the weird and deceptive way she dealt with questions about them kind of rules out the Democratic nomination for her.

I guess I'm out of the loop on this.

My memory was that she claims to have believed sincerely in her Native American heritage based on family lore, which was backed up by her family. Having known several people who have families going back generations in Oklahoma and Texas that seems entirely reasonable. Tribes often have trouble proving their membership, even among active members.

Additionally, she claims to have added it to a directory that she thought would be used internally so that she could connect with others of similar background and then she found out later that it was used externally. This sounds reasonable as well.

So, I guess my question is: what was the "weird and deceptive way she dealt with questions"?

 

[wareyin]

I guess I'm out of the loop on this.

My memory was that she claims to have believed sincerely in her Native American heritage based on family lore, which was backed up by her family. Having known several people who have families going back generations in Oklahoma and Texas that seems entirely reasonable. Tribes often have trouble proving their membership, even among active members.

Additionally, she claims to have added it to a directory that she thought would be used internally so that she could connect with others of similar background and then she found out later that it was used externally. This sounds reasonable as well.

So, I guess my question is: what was the "weird and deceptive way she dealt with questions"?

As a Democrat, obviously!

 

[Upchurch]

So, I guess my question is: what was the "weird and deceptive way she dealt with questions"?

I have a similar family lore. I'm allegedly 1/32 Native American. I've never taken any steps to verify this for a several reasons, largely because it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but also because I had a very racist grandmother who didn't tolerate people talking about it so most details (if there were any) were lost to me. That being said, I take it as probably true and include it when I breakdown my lineage to my kids, for example.

I don't take Warren's response as either weird or deceptive. I would also like clarification as to why this is even a factor, let alone a deal breaker.

 

[sunmaster14]

I guess I'm out of the loop on this.

My memory was that she claims to have believed sincerely in her Native American heritage based on family lore, which was backed up by her family. Having known several people who have families going back generations in Oklahoma and Texas that seems entirely reasonable. Tribes often have trouble proving their membership, even among active members.

Not that it matters terribly much, but her genealogy has been extensively researched, and there is no hint of American Indian blood in her. In any case, her beliefs based on family lore are not sufficient to take advantage of the racial spoils system in the US, and as a lawyer, she almost certainly knew that.

Additionally, she claims to have added it to a directory that she thought would be used internally so that she could connect with others of similar background and then she found out later that it was used externally. This sounds reasonable as well.

At the top of this page the directory in question is described (emphasis added):

The AALS Directory of Law Teachers, begun in 1922, is the most widely used “desk book” of deans and law teachers. The directory lists by school the full-time faculty and professional staff of all AALS member and fee-paid law schools, and contains biographical sketches of more than 10,000 full-time teachers, law librarians, and senior administrators. The directory also provides separate listings of faculty members by subject matter taught, by those who identify as members of minority groups, and by those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. It also lists professional staff and faculty administrators according to their professional role in academic affairs, admissions, alumni affairs, development, placement and student services.

The directory, prepared and edited by the Association staff and supported by West and Foundation Press, is distributed by AALS to all full-time teachers of member and fee-paid schools as a service to law faculty and law schools.

Is it really reasonable to think that a directory of 10,000 academic legal professionals would only be used internally? Also, she never expressed any interest in connecting with people of similar "background." Well, unless you count her background as being lily white. Despite being touted by Harvard as the first American Indian on its faculty, she never once reached out to the American Indian community at Harvard.

So, I guess my question is: what was the "weird and deceptive way she dealt with questions"?

She lied about her motivations, as well as the practical effect of her rather explicit claim that she was a member of an underrepresented minority.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

I don't take Warren's response as either weird or deceptive. I would also like clarification as to why this is even a factor, let alone a deal breaker.

Well, it's not a factor for me, nor a deal breaker. But I would expect that people who believe in the benefits of a racial spoils system have an interest in not seeing that system diluted by false claims to membership in underrepresented minority groups. As such, letting such racial fraud go unpunished removes any disincentive for future ambitious white people to attempt the same thing.

 

[DavidJames]

I would also like clarification as to why this is even a factor, let alone a deal breaker.

She's a Democrat. If it wasn't this it would be something else. Take it to the bank.

The fact that this is the issue that's has the most traction among the loyal opposition should also not be surprising. They don't want to talk about their own candidates nor do they want to talk about issues because that would require talking about their candidates issues and we all know that's a losing proposition.

So we talk about this.

 

[fuelair]

Strikes me as a little awkward, but do you like that better? My high school English teacher taught me that it was redundant to state explicitly in your prose that something is your opinion. The fact (oops) that you're writing it implies that what you write is your opinion.

Not if/when you are stating it in a way that signals your readers or listeners that it is indeed a fact*. Your English teacher misled you on that point. That is why that you should always be clear as to what of your writing is just your opinion and which is thoroughly factually.


More explicitly: if it is possible or worse, likely, that something will appear to be a fact in your writing when it is merely your opinion it is your duty as an (honest) writer to note that. Makes me wonder if an awful large number of republickers had that same teacher or another from the same place from which he/she graduated.

 

[fuelair]

Note also: when including known facts, it is good to cite the source(s) for them. For republickers, that would most often be Fox News, any Rupert Murdoch source, breitbart and similar. *

I cannot prove I do not write this with a straight face, but I did not write this with a straight face!!!!





*sources from which truth is highly unlikely - except in the rare cases when some slip up or a Democratic person really does mess up and gets caught.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Not that it matters terribly much, but her genealogy has been extensively researched, and there is no hint of American Indian blood in her. In any case, her beliefs based on family lore are not sufficient to take advantage of the racial spoils system in the US, and as a lawyer, she almost certainly knew that.

Is there any evidence of ht highlighted? Did she get some endowment or have a chair based on her claim?

At the top of this page the directory in question is described (emphasis added):



Is it really reasonable to think that a directory of 10,000 academic legal professionals would only be used internally?

My mistake, but it also is just a desk book. Maybe I'm dismissive because I've been listed in these things and had to pay for them back in the paper based days, but nobody really uses them for much other than looking people up. It would be like me putting a listing in the plumbers section of the white pages, even though I am really a lawyer who sues plumbers for their plumbing mistakes.

Also, she never expressed any interest in connecting with people of similar "background." Well, unless you count her background as being lily white. Despite being touted by Harvard as the first American Indian on its faculty, she never once reached out to the American Indian community at Harvard.

I guess I haven't seen the highlighted. As to the whole paragraph, it seems like she did just enough to get your ire, but not enough to get your disdain? What if she had done more, would that have been better or more creepy?

She lied about her motivations, as well as the practical effect of her rather explicit claim that she was a member of an underrepresented minority.

I'd like to know how you know she lied about her motivations. Do you have an admission?

As to the practical effect, I assume you have some evidence. Like a chair, endowment, promotion, or something that mentions her heritage as critical in the discussion making.

You make it sound like she was only promote based on a false racial claim and that she never published much and her works were rarely cited, is that true?

 

[Dr. Keith]

As a Democrat, obviously!

I give DR more credit than that.

 

[Upchurch]

Is it really reasonable to think that a directory of 10,000 academic legal professionals would only be used internally?

[...]

She lied about her motivations, as well as the practical effect of her rather explicit claim that she was a member of an underrepresented minority.

What practical effect could she expect by being listed as one of 10,000 (presumably minority?) academic legal professionals?

Evidence for this lie about her motivations?

 

[sunmaster14]

What practical effect could she expect by being listed as one of 10,000 (presumably minority?) academic legal professionals?

No, the list of minority professionals was in a separate section, and it was a relatively small number. I can't find an image of the list right now, but I've seen it, and it was only a few pages of names.

Evidence for this lie about her motivations?

Well, she says that she didn't do it to help her career, even though the timing is very suspicious. The late '80s/early '90s was a time when there was tremendous pressure to hire minorities in academia, and at Harvard Law School in particular. There were often student demonstrations in the law school quad, and no doubt even Barack Obama played an important role. She must have known that listing herself as a minority would have an impact on her job prospects. Also, Harvard touted her as a "woman of color" when she was there as a visiting professor (which was essentially a year-long job interview) and then later when she was given tenure in 1995. Both Harvard and her previous employer - Penn - listed her on federal diversity/equity reports as minority faculty.

She gave as her reason for listing as a minority that she wanted to meet people with a similar background. This reason of course makes no sense given that (a) the directory didn't actually identify her as a member of any particular minority, but only as a minority in general; and (b) by her own admission, she made no effort to seek out other members of her alleged background in an academic setting.

You can read more here.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You can read more here.

That was a bit tough to read, but the links provided had some pretty good information that was left out of the article:

Warren has said she has long believed she has Native American ancestry, based on family lore, but has not documented the connection and is not enrolled in a tribe. One genealogist has found evidence that Warren is 1/32 Cherokee.

So her claim is not without some merit. In fact, it may be true?

“Her appointment was based on the excellence of her scholarship and teaching. I do not know whether members of the faculty were even aware of her ancestry, but I am confident that it played no role whatsoever in her appointment,” Burbank said in a statement last week.

She seems to have excelled based on being good at her job.

“Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?” Warren answered “no.”

And she didn't even apply for the most obvious of spoils available to minorities.

If anyone benefitted from the listing it was her employer, not her directly. She seems to have earned her job based on performance.

 

[sunmaster14]

That was a bit tough to read, but the links provided had some pretty good information that was left out of the article:



So her claim is not without some merit. In fact, it may be true?

No, it's not true. That Boston Globe article reported a preliminary finding that a marriage certificate for her great great great uncle listed his mother as part Cherokee. In fact, they later tracked down the records of his mother and found out that she was listed as white in all records, as was her other child, who was Warren's great great grandparent. In fact, there is not a single trace of Indian ancestry anywhere in Warren's family tree, and her ancestral records are amazingly complete going back to the 18th century.

She seems to have excelled based on being good at her job.

She has gotten good teaching reviews, which is way down on the list of reasons for Harvard Law School (or any top flight university) to hire a new professor usually.

And she didn't even apply for the most obvious of spoils available to minorities.

I actually find the fact that she didn't apply to law school or to her first teaching job as a minority (in 1978 and 1981, respectively) to be inculpatory rather than exculpatory. She evidently didn't decide on the minority strategy until 1986 when she was having trouble advancing to the next stage of her career.

If anyone benefitted from the listing it was her employer, not her directly. She seems to have earned her job based on performance.

How would they know she was a minority? How could they list her as one without her knowledge? Do you think that she just mentions in passing at a faculty dinner that she has Cherokee ancestry, and the dean just rushes off to start boasting in federal reports (and in the student newspapers) that she is a "woman of color?" The questions answer themselves.

 

[Dr. Keith]

No, it's not true.

Yeah, the Globe does a **** job on correcting their stories. Agreed, there is no evidence of it being true, but there is evidence that it was believed within her family.

She has gotten good teaching reviews, which is way down on the list of reasons for Harvard Law School (or any top flight university) to hire a new professor usually.

Was she published? Was she cited? Those are the big reasons why someone is hired.

I actually find the fact that she didn't apply to law school or to her first teaching job as a minority (in 1978 and 1981, respectively) to be inculpatory rather than exculpatory.

Of course you do. The easiest way to use race for money is at the scholarship stage of education or early in your career when you have no work history. And she didn't do those things. And that makes her more of a mooch on the system.

She evidently didn't decide on the minority strategy until 1986 when she was having trouble advancing to the next stage of her career.

What evidence is there that she was having career trouble? Were her publications down? Were her citations down?

How would they know she was a minority? How could they list her as one without her knowledge? Do you think that she just mentions in passing at a faculty dinner that she has Cherokee ancestry, and the dean just rushes off to start boasting in federal reports (and in the student newspapers) that she is a "woman of color?" The questions answer themselves.

I'm not saying they did it, I'm saying they were the only ones who benefitted from her listing her assumed heritage. There is no evidence that she ever promoted it to get something, there are a handful of instances where her employer used it to promote the institution. You don't keep a highly competitive professorship as a "quota hire". Sorry.