Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Elizabeth Warren v. Scott Brown thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Green Monstah View Post
    I did have friends growing up in Maine who looked as caucasian as the rest of us (one who even had blonde hair/blue eyes) who were affiliated with a tribe and received tribal benefits. Because their tribal populations were decimated a good 120 years before L&C even thought about going west, and they were the point of first contact, many of the New England Tribes are basically indistinguishable on their face from the rest of the Euromutts walking around.
    ...or they are really White Nephites who survived. I've lived in Maine and it's about as land Northward as one can get.

    Now, I'm going to have to get a crakin' on my wife's genealogy. Her father's line are Sooners from Oklahoma and there's been mention of Native American ancestry. Never know if one of my kids will opt for a career in law. I mention this only so my kids can meet others and maybe get invited to a luncheon. Maybe they can form a club: "White Nephite Future Attorneys (WNFA)"
    “Not the victory but the action. Not the goal but the game. In the deed the glory.”
    "All things are measured against Nebraska." falafel

    Comment


    • #32
      I realize there's an offensive term here, but this is still funny.

      Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

      Comment


      • #33
        An update. Elizabeth Warren's great-great-great grandmother, from whom she inherited her supposed Cherokee ancestry, was listed on the 1860 census as being white.

        Her great-great-great grandfather, from whom she derives another 1/32nd of her ancestry, apparently served in the East Tennessee Mounted Infantry Volunteer Militia which removed the Cherokees from North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia.

        Of course, IMO, the second fact makes it plausible that the great-great-great grandfather married the great x3 grandmother while he was busy carrying on his duties of setting the Cherokees out on the Trail of Tears.
        Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Color Me Badd Fan View Post
          An update. Elizabeth Warren's great-great-great grandmother, from whom she inherited her supposed Cherokee ancestry, was listed on the 1860 census as being white.

          Her great-great-great grandfather, from whom she derives another 1/32nd of her ancestry, apparently served in the East Tennessee Mounted Infantry Volunteer Militia which removed the Cherokees from North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia.

          Of course, IMO, the second fact makes it plausible that the great-great-great grandfather married the great x3 grandmother while he was busy carrying on his duties of setting the Cherokees out on the Trail of Tears.
          While I'm not sure if there is any evidence of this, I'd say this is a very plausible, if not probable, conclusion.

          While I have some skeletons in my ancestral closet just like Warren, she deserves to be vetted over this given how she used that heritage to climb the academic ladder.
          "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Moliere View Post
            While I have some skeletons in my ancestral closet just like Warren, she deserves to be vetted over this given how she used that heritage to climb the academic ladder.
            Is there actually any evidence that she benefited from this at all? I mean, if I were on an admissions board, and I set up an interview with an American Indian, and Ms. Warren showed up for the interview, I would probably consider her claim of minority status a strike against her, unless she had a damn good explanation. I would definitely ask her to talk about the significance of her claimed heritage, to see what it meant to her. If her response were to be the same that she has given recently, I would neither hold it against her nor would I count it as a benefit in my scoring of the applicant. But that is just me, giving her the benefit of the doubt. I'd bet most people would hold it against her.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Moliere View Post
              While I'm not sure if there is any evidence of this, I'd say this is a very plausible, if not probable, conclusion.

              While I have some skeletons in my ancestral closet just like Warren, she deserves to be vetted over this given how she used that heritage to climb the academic ladder.
              Ironically, to the extent she used this for her career advancement, she may have kept out someone that genuinely was a minority and was subjected to various forms of discrimination.

              I'd be curious to know how someone like, say, Larry Echohawk would have thought about something like this. (I doubt he actually thinks very much about this kind of stuff right now).
              Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
                Is there actually any evidence that she benefited from this at all? I mean, if I were on an admissions board, and I set up an interview with an American Indian, and Ms. Warren showed up for the interview, I would probably consider her claim of minority status a strike against her, unless she had a damn good explanation. I would definitely ask her to talk about the significance of her claimed heritage, to see what it meant to her. If her response were to be the same that she has given recently, I would neither hold it against her nor would I count it as a benefit in my scoring of the applicant. But that is just me, giving her the benefit of the doubt. I'd bet most people would hold it against her.
                That would go over well
                "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                Comment


                • #38
                  So there is no evidence that she benefited from the claimed heritage, and people agree with me that it could have easily been held against her?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
                    Is there actually any evidence that she benefited from this at all? I mean, if I were on an admissions board, and I set up an interview with an American Indian, and Ms. Warren showed up for the interview, I would probably consider her claim of minority status a strike against her, unless she had a damn good explanation. I would definitely ask her to talk about the significance of her claimed heritage, to see what it meant to her. If her response were to be the same that she has given recently, I would neither hold it against her nor would I count it as a benefit in my scoring of the applicant. But that is just me, giving her the benefit of the doubt. I'd bet most people would hold it against her.
                    The thing with Warren is that she was a professor of some renown at Harvard. I knew about her long before her Senate campaign and long before her inane comment last year about the rich not paying their fair share. While her education credentials put her as an outlier on the Harvard Law faculty, her publications and her notoriety in her field certainly made her worthy of her position at Harvard.

                    In other words, she was the opposite of Barack Obama in that he had superior education credentials but never published anything and probably wouldn't have ever approached Warren's level had he stayed in academia.
                    Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Whenever I heard Ms Warren speak she sounded bright, but also with the "my shit don't stink" attitude. She was brighter than everyone else and a gift to the public.

                      With that attitude it doesn't surprise me she could do some borderline things and not have a twinge of guilt. After all, the result is the public has her and all her talent and that is more important than any little discrepencies in her past.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
                        So there is no evidence that she benefited from the claimed heritage, and people agree with me that it could have easily been held against her?
                        Do you want direct evidence? Do you think the law schools will come out and say "yeah, we hired her because she checked off the box that she was minority and we needed to demonstrate some diversity"? Sorry, you're not getting direct evidence.

                        But I think it's silly to deny that universities aren't trying to look at least ostensibly diverse. It carries some major cachet in their world.
                        Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Color Me Badd Fan View Post
                          Do you want direct evidence? Do you think the law schools will come out and say "yeah, we hired her because she checked off the box that she was minority and we needed to demonstrate some diversity"? Sorry, you're not getting direct evidence.

                          But I think it's silly to deny that universities aren't trying to look at least ostensibly diverse. It carries some major cachet in their world.
                          When schools have affirmative action programs in place, it is not a secret. The school is typically proud of it. Has it even been established that affirmative action programs were in place when she applied for these positions?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
                            When schools have affirmative action programs in place, it is not a secret. The school is typically proud of it. Has it even been established that affirmative action programs were in place when she applied for these positions?
                            It's been established that Harvard listed her as a minority professor.

                            But given that she was hired in the mid 90s, I think it's safe to say that Harvard was looking for diversity. BYU's law school tries to seek out diversity.
                            Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Color Me Badd Fan View Post
                              Do you want direct evidence? Do you think the law schools will come out and say "yeah, we hired her because she checked off the box that she was minority and we needed to demonstrate some diversity"? Sorry, you're not getting direct evidence.

                              But I think it's silly to deny that universities aren't trying to look at least ostensibly diverse. It carries some major cachet in their world.
                              Do you have any reason to believe that Harvard would lie about an existing affirmative action program?

                              Anyhow, HERE is some evidence that she was NOT hired as a part of an affirmative action program:
                              Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried, who served as U.S. Solicitor General under President Reagan, said Warren was recruited to be a tenured professor because she was pre-eminent in the fields of bankruptcy and commercial law. Fried, a member of the appointments committee that reviewed Warren, said the subject of her Native American ancestry was never mentioned.

                              Fried, who has donated $250 to Warren's campaign, said the notion that Warren "attained her position and maintains her reputation on anything other than her evident merit is complete nonsense."

                              "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," Fried wrote Monday. "The innuendo is false."

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
                                Do you have any reason to believe that Harvard would lie about an existing affirmative action program?

                                Anyhow, HERE is some evidence that she was NOT hired as a part of an affirmative action program:
                                LOL! That sounds like an objective person to make this claim.
                                "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X