Trump mocks Elizabeth Warren’s heritage AND #metoo

[*bfine32*]

(02-08-2019, 01:57 PM)Dill Wrote: If there were no "evidence" of any wrongdoing, this thread would not exist. The question is about the quality of the evidence and what can be reliably inferred from it.  

It was the claim that Warren used her NA heritage to get a cushy job at Harvard that initiated the lying-to-advance-her-career charge. Thus for the it-says-so-on-the-internet crowd, there is plenty of "evidence" she did this in memes and statements by Brown and Trump, perhaps buttressed by "what everyone knows" about liberals and minority hiring.

But for others, a thousand racist memes could be no stronger than Brown's first hopeful guess, so not evidence at all.

However, if Warren marked the NA box on her applications to Texas, Penn an Harvard, that could be evidence that she used a claim to be NA to advance her career.   Further, if the 30+ faculty who went over her application at Harvard said they regarded her as an NA hire, and hired her with the goal of diversifying the faculty, that WOULD be evidence that the NA claim advanced her career.  Just as Brown/Trump say.  

But it appears that she did not do any of that.  It also appears she did not present herself as NA for any other job she got.

If there is "as much evidence she lied to advance her career as there is that she did not,"  then people should be able to present that other "as much" and explain how it did advance her career.  The cookbook won't do it. So far, there is evidence Penn and Harvard may have, after hiring, touted her as NA to their advantage.  The claim she "must have done it" because she identified as NA at some points in her career, is not itself evidence.


A very good question.

Lots of people with hybrid or partial identities who can change their identification often do so at different points in their life, or in different legal/social contexts. In the U.S. this may be more true of people with NA ancestry than any other demographic, and especially since many NA people reject DNA quantum as a criterion of "Indianess." If she has primarily identified as Caucasian throughout her life, has no tribal affiliation, and no desire to squeeze out a possible diversity hire, then it makes sense to go with "C" when seeking jobs. But still keep telling people the story about her ancestry that her parents told her. Contribute to a cookbook.  Register as NA for the Texas bar. Not for Massachusetts.  The evidence we have is consistent with this; career advancement would show a different pattern--NA when applying for jobs.

A reasonable question.

I think she apologized to the Cherokee nation for taking a DNA test and for marking herself NA on a bar registration card. She has not apologized for "lying" about her ethnicity so far as I know. She still maintains that her parents told her stories of NA ancestry. She believed them. If you believe you have NA ancestry and you tell people what you believe, you are not lying. You could still apologize for the test, or even for being less NA than you thought, without apologizing for lying.

I get your, CNN's, and other's desire to defend Warren at the cost of taking away opportunities for true minorities; but it's exactly what she did;according to this conservative site:
https://spectator.org/elizabeth-warren-finished-before-she-started/

Quote:“That still doesn’t mean that she gained anything from her decision to call herself a Native American on some documents,” Chris Cillizza 

Quote:writes at CNN.com. This seems a preposterous claim. Warren graduated from Rutgers Law School, not in the top 50 of U.S. News and World Report’s annual rankings. After examining the CVs of faculty at Harvard Law a few years back, I discovered that more than half of its professors and assistant professors received their law degrees from — where else? — Harvard Law. Outside of specialists who obtained degrees outside of the field of law, every professor and assistant professor at the school graduated from a law school within the top ten. A mere five graduated from a law school in the bottom half of the top ten. Harvard, which boasted of her as a minority faculty member, now insists that her pseudo-ethnicity played no role in her hiring. A laugh track did not accompany the avowal.

So a rational person has to look themselves in the mirror and decide did EW identify as NA to enhance here chances of employment or did she do it because of bedtime stories she was told.