The Truth About Elizabeth Warren, The Rightful Empress Of France

100 Comments

Christopher Tozzo • May 4, 2012 @7:59 am

As Marie Antoinette famously said, "Let them snort taint…"
Dan Irving • May 4, 2012 @8:01 am

/applaud.
Colonel Klink • May 4, 2012 @8:11 am

I am just wondering, setting aside the question of whether there ought to be minority preferences at all, what is the general consensus about what percent of one's ancestors need to be of minority status before one can claim minority status without lying?

1/32 seems to be a miniscule percentage, but what if one's ancestors are 1/8, 3/16, 1/4, 3/8 or 1/2 Black or Latino or Indian? At what point can one claim such status? Or perhaps the consensus is that one should only claim to be a racial minority when over 50% of one's ancestors were minorities? Thanks!
Sam Devol • May 4, 2012 @8:12 am

Whoa, pretty quick turn-around from 'she didn't lie' to 'she's a liar'. Easy there cowboy…
delurking • May 4, 2012 @8:20 am

"The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that she is no more deserving of a seat in the United States Senate than Martha Coakley."

Well, OK, but that is true of just about everyone who makes it far enough in politics to be in the running for a Senate seat in a big state.
Feb • May 4, 2012 @8:29 am

Wait. How do we know it's the truth that she listed herself as part-Cherokee in order to get hired?

This Washington Post article includes a quote from the guy who hired her; he states it was not a factor.

Warren said on Friday that she was unaware Harvard had promoted her as a minority professor and Charles Fried, the professor who recruited Warren to Harvard, said any suggestion that she got her job in part because of a claim of minority status was “totally stupid, ignorant, uninformed and simply wrong.”
Jim • May 4, 2012 @8:32 am

For what it's worth, the 1/32 portion is enough to register as a Cherokee as their is no minimum percentage. Also according to the piece, the Chief of the Cherokee Nation is the same 1/32 Cherokee. So while I have no opinion as to whether or not Ms. Warren gained anything based on bullshit, I do believe the first statement in your post is 100% incorrect thereby making your point a meaningless, factless one (of course I am dangerously relying on facts in a Times op-ed). Oh but I forgot that Libertarians (and libertarians) are always sanctimoniously right on all the issues and also have perfected the art of Snark in their discussions of said issues.
Patrick • May 4, 2012 @8:48 am

You're correct Jim. I'm not giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Warren now claims that she listed herself as a Cherokee because she wanted to be invited to social events with other Native Americans. Considering that the Native American population of Cambridge is (assuming Warren is a legitimate Cherokee) about one higher than the Native American population of Outer Mongolia, I'm not buying it.

Feb, Harvard may well say that Warren was hired solely because she's an outstanding scholar. By all accounts she is. That doesn't mean Warren didn't choose to list herself as a Cherokee because she perceived a possible advantage. It's possible that Warren simply mistakenly believed being considered a Cherokee gave her an advantage.

If so, it was an expensive mistake.
TJIC • May 4, 2012 @9:10 am

@feb:

> This Washington Post article includes a quote from the guy who hired her; he states it was not a factor.

Yeah, I totally believe all quotes from left wing Harvard professors that have the effect of helping one of their own left wingers beat a Republican in a senate race.

He wouldn't lie about that!
Bob Roberts • May 4, 2012 @9:22 am

Speaking as Napoleon XIV, the rightful Emperor of France, I deny your claims that Elizabeth Warren is the rightful Empress. That honor belongs to my wife, Josephine XIV.
Ariel • May 4, 2012 @9:26 am

If she is a direct descendant of a Western Cherokee tribal member on the 1906 Dawes roll she can apply and might be accepted. They are one of the tribes that do not use blood quantum, BTW, but Eastern Cherokee do (1/16th, so she would be SOL). I'm either 1/16th or 1/8th (forget whether it was a maternal great or great-great grandmother, but we do have the genealogy record somewhere), I may be even more given my lineage was tracked only through one grandparent.

And all of this means squat as I no more identify with NA than with the original Siberians. I doubt that she does either.
Nate • May 4, 2012 @9:59 am

I find this depressing and alarming.

It means we are all likely related to this woman.

God forbid…
Pete • May 4, 2012 @10:07 am

This is just really disappointing. I'm not super well-versed in all things Elizabeth Warren, or even many things Elizabeth Warren, but what I had seen I found refreshing.

Always skeletons, sometimes very damning skeletons.
Corporal Lint • May 4, 2012 @10:18 am

A Carolingian could only inherit titles if he was legitimate and male — the Salic law and all that — which excluded most of Charlemagne's children and their descendents, as well as Elizabeth Warren specifically. Furthermore, the Carolingians divided their inheritance among legitimate and legitimized offspring, which is why Charlemagne's grandchildren ruled three separate kingdoms. So though it'd be nice to believe that I'm the legitimate Margrave of Friuli, by Carolingian inheritance rights I doubt I'd do much better than Crown Prince of half of a field near San Giorgio della Richinvelda.
daedalus2u • May 4, 2012 @10:54 am

All I can say, as a Massachusetts resident who will vote for Elizabeth Warren over Scott Brown, that it is a good thing that people do not become Senators because they deserve to become Senators but because they are elected to become Senators.

Do the people of Massachusetts deserve a Republican Senator? Do the people of the US and the World deserve a Senator being financed by Anthropogenic Global Warming denialists? Do future generations deserve an Earth damaged by AGW?

Elizabeth Warren is not a perfect candidate. In my opinion she is a lot better than the alternative.
Patrick • May 4, 2012 @11:09 am

She's certainly doesn't have a record of killing young women, Daedalus, that I'll concede.
Craig • May 4, 2012 @11:23 am

I generally visit Popehat to read insightful articles about law and those who attempt to trample upon free-speech rights. This type of "article" seems more well suited for Free Republic or HuffPo depending upon your preference.

That said, I've been told I'm part Native American as well, and although I've never listed that on an employment application nor have I added it to my resume, I'm still under the belief that what my mother told me is accurate. Perhaps if I ever ran for Senate and people started researching my family tree I would then realize what the truth is. Then again the only reason someone would do so is if they were trying to evade the issues and focus upon something that is so entirely meaningless I feel dirty for commenting upon it.

If a political candidate running for office (any political candidate) or those which support them have no desire to speak about issues relevant to their potential candidacy and they feel the need to resort to such hackery, I can only assume they lack the spinal rigidity to actually hold public office. This is a classic distraction, and partisan hackery should not only be frowned upon, but it should be openly mocked at every turn.
Patrick • May 4, 2012 @11:32 am

I generally visit Popehat to read insightful articles about law and those who attempt to trample upon free-speech rights.

Then you're going to love the seven part series next week in which I prove, drawing upon Conservapedia and my own unique insights, that Barack Obama listed himself as a natural-born citizen of Kenya when he applied to Harvard Law School.
ttl • May 4, 2012 @12:20 pm

What's the scoop here? A lawyer/politician lied to advance her career? The truth, I suspect, is that Warren is just like all the other politicians.
Michael • May 4, 2012 @12:37 pm

The truth about Patrick is he would decided who should be a Senator on inane bullshit rather than any real consideration of policies which he is unable comprehend.
Terence • May 4, 2012 @12:55 pm

To whom it may concern, I am both shocked and appaulled by your article on proffessor Elizabeth Warren. It is untrue and completely wrong. The character assasinations are, by far, the most despicable, far fetched lies I have ever read. You don't even have enough sense to know federal indian law for goodness sakes! In the order of which i'm reading, here are all of your ignorant mistakes:

-You admit that Elizabeth Warren is a Cherokee Indain.
-You call her a liar for saying she is a Cherokee Indian, WHICH YOU ADMIT!!!
- You go to Proffessor Bainbridge for news? Your the biggest loser in the world! You must be as blind as a bat if you can't see that he is a partisan hack.
-Althouse? Who the hell is that?! She's a Scott Walker supporter dumbshit! She is NOT objective, she is a bitchey old woman,
-Scott Brown is actually a liar.
-Micheal is actually right!
-The washington Post reports, in case you didn't know, that the Dean f Harvard Law actually DENIED that Warren's being a Cherokee indian was a factor!
- This is the most uniformed and ignorant redneck article I have ever seen on popehat, and I am a longtime reader of popehat. I come here to read Ken's insiteful commentery on law and humor and public policy and free speech, not this birther nonsense.

So by far, that is the worst article ever to appear on popehat. If, in fact, this is just a sarcastic and silly joke article on Proffessor Elizabeth Warren, you sir, are an immture, ignorant, arrogant, little boy with no time on his hands so you create false articles and lies of a woman who has done more for the 99% than TEN SCOTT BROWNS EVER COULD! The truth is nothing like what you said it is like. If, in fact it is a real article, I suggest actually reading the news before you flap your lips MY FRIEND, then writting a different article because your lack of knowledge is quite appaulling. Also, if this is a real article, I suggest it would be in your best interest to not take up being a reporter as a job, as you cannot seem to get your information straight.

Thank you for your time.
firehat • May 4, 2012 @1:02 pm

I'm also 1/32 Cherokee and I went to college in Oklahoma (the brightest orange!). I certainly investigated getting on the rolls of the Cherokee Nation so that I could have access to more money. It's telling that people who would otherwise be adamantly opposed to affirmative action are up in arms because Elizabeth Warren took advantage of an absurd system and short circuited what they believe to be an immoral or inappropriate process. Under other circumstances many of them would surely be praising her civil disobedience.

That being said, Patrick has some major factual errors here that other commenters have pointed out. She has plenty right to claim her Cherokee heritage under the Cherokees' own rules.
Barry Parr • May 4, 2012 @1:03 pm

I may be naive, but I'm pretty certain the only question in the upcoming election is whether she's more qualified than Scott Brown to represent the people of Massachusetts in the Senate.
Patrick • May 4, 2012 @1:04 pm

I'm sure glad Ken attracted these many wonderful new readers with his witty and insightful commentary during my absence from Popehat.

Firehat, since you're one of our older readers, I got the 1/32 qualification for tribal membership wrong. I live in North Carolina and all of my dealings with the tribe (I occasionally appear in their courts) are eastern band. Did you spot any other factual errors, plural (as opposed to statements of opinion) in this post? Apart from Salic law, with which I'm quite familiar.
ttl • May 4, 2012 @1:07 pm

"Althouse? Who the hell is that?! She's a Scott Walker supporter dumbshit! She is NOT objective, she is a bitchey old woman,"

How objective of you, Terence.
joe schmoe • May 4, 2012 @1:34 pm

I think everyone should lie about their minority background when applying to schools… destroy the whole system.
SPQR • May 4, 2012 @1:46 pm

With daedalus2u and terence as examples, its pretty clear that Warren has the moron vote in Massachusetts locked up.

Which frankly, has always been the main way of reaching elective office in that state.

With Elizabeth Warren to explain AGW, the sea will really cease rising.
SPQR • May 4, 2012 @1:47 pm

All I know about Salic Law, I learned from Henry V.
SPQR • May 4, 2012 @1:54 pm

I love Todd Zywicki's comment over at VC:

Aside from Brian Leiter, whose contention that being Native American provides no affirmative action edge in law school hiring fails the straight-face test, it is obvious to everyone else why Elizabeth Warren self-identified as Native American all those years–which was to get an edge in hiring. Even less plausible, of course, is her own explanation–that she was looking for people to have lunch with (once she got to Harvard was it that she no longer was interested in having lunch with other Native Americans or that the strategy was so successful that she had just had too many lunches through the years?).
mojo • May 4, 2012 @1:54 pm

Massatwoshits deserves her.
Moebius Street • May 4, 2012 @1:55 pm

Given that Affirmative Action exists, I don't see what the hubbub is about. As an ancestor of American Indians, it would seem to be her prerogative. How does her own motivations enter into it?

The interesting question here, as I see it, is the futility of identity politics. As far as I can figure, the reason people are upset is due to cognitive dissonance: they feel the need to assign some cutoff in defining who or what a person is, but find it impossible to choose a meaningful threshold. How can they say that Barack Obama is our first black President, yet Elizabeth Warren is not an Indian?

Parenthetically, I have the authority to assert this as the rightful heir to the British throne. I'm descended from "the other Boleyn girl", making me the bastard great-great-great-etc-grandson of Henry VIII.
C. S. P. Schofield • May 4, 2012 @2:11 pm

I don't like Ward Churchill, and I suspect I wouldn't like Elizabeth Warren either. That said, I don't think either of them intended any fraud in claiming to be Amerindian/Native American. They belong to the academic Left, which encourages its adherents to assume the ethic identities of oppressed peoples. Since both of them know how wonderful they are, it would never occur to either of them that claiming to be Native American on the basis of wistfulness would be objectionable.

None of which excuses Churchill's multiple instances of academic fraud.
Chuck • May 4, 2012 @2:39 pm

The best read I've seen on this so far is from the NYT.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/elizabeth-warrens-birther-moment/

One thing I've noticed in most coverage of this issue, in both the blogosphere and the MSM, is the continued conflation of race and politics, in the sense that being "officially" Indian (i.e, part of a recognized tribe) is a designation totally separate from being a "racial minority." The larger culture continues to think they are one and the same, when they are not, as Julia Martinez's kids found out when they lost in the Supreme Court.
NL_ • May 4, 2012 @2:57 pm

You know racial harmony has been achieved when a campaign is totally derailed by a debate over blood quantum.
Mike • May 4, 2012 @3:45 pm

Warren has devoted her entire career to saving the Middle Class.

Fortunately the corporate-controlled media has found a way to get the very people who need her the most to hate her.

Good job, guys, for being patsies for the very people who deem your existence a nuisance.
TomB • May 4, 2012 @3:48 pm

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for your time.

Terence, perhaps the finest parody I've ever seen.

Unfortunately though, even Warren supporters aren't that stupid.

But bravo nonetheless.
TomB • May 4, 2012 @3:52 pm

Warren has devoted her entire career to saving the Middle Class.

Doing what?

Other than making almost half a million dollars a year at Harvard, of course.

Did she manage to redistribute any of that to the less fortunate?
John • May 4, 2012 @4:17 pm

My, my… Patrick sure found the hot-button for the Massholes! Good job, I say, good job. Nothing like a refresher on why I fled the People's Republic so many years ago.
Mike • May 4, 2012 @4:17 pm

Tom, do you even know what you're talking about?

Since when did saving the Middle Class have anything to do with wealth redistribution?

You are obviously unfamiliar with Warren's work – and the broader debate.

Go troll someone else.
Mike • May 4, 2012 @4:22 pm

For those of you who, unlike TomB, do not believe that ignorance is a man's highest value, I suggest you take a look at Warren's academic research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Academic_career

It should become clear why so many monied interests want to keep her out of the Senate.

When people in America talk about suffering, I now laugh.

You argue over Indian bullshit while Wall Street rapes you. You turn against the very people who want to serve your own interests.

I used to care, but now find it all very funny.
Quantum Mechanic • May 4, 2012 @4:47 pm

@tjic — while I firmly believe Warren is a hypocritical, lying fraud not worthy of governing an anthill, Charles Fried is hardly left-wing. Though like Anthony Kennedy, he probably has to keep kissing left-wing ass often enough to keep getting invited to all the kool kidz' cocktail parties.
TomB • May 4, 2012 @5:16 pm

Ooooh, academic research!

That's almost as good as being a "community organizer".

This quote is why she's an idiot:

"there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody."

Now go away.
nlp • May 4, 2012 @6:14 pm

The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that she is no more deserving of a seat in the United States Senate than Martha Coakley.

And both of them are way better than Brown, whose basic qualification is that he was a model married to a newscaster and owned a truck. Oh. And he also thinks he's better qualified to make decisions about women's health than women are, because we all know that women who are so depraved as to engage in sex are required to become pregnant as a punishment.

Why do you keep ranting about women from Massachusetts who want to run for the Senate? Do you think they should be kept at home or something? Isn't there a single other candidate in the country that you don't like?
Rangoric • May 4, 2012 @6:39 pm

@Tom, that quote is factually accurate. There are two (simplified) roads to riches. They had to get someone to give them money, to make them rich. Or that person took the riches from someone else.
Scott Jacobs • May 4, 2012 @7:02 pm

And he also thinks he's better qualified to make decisions about women's health than women are,

And Warren thinks that she is better qualified to make decisions about men's health then men are. Your point?

Why do you keep ranting about women from Massachusetts who want to run for the Senate?

Because the women the Dems keep putting up for the seat are thuggish, pathetic, worthless piles of shit who either actively support fascist behavior by law enforcement, or think that you should consider yourself lucky that the government lets you keep as much as they do.
nlp • May 4, 2012 @7:33 pm

I'm sure glad Ken attracted these many wonderful new readers with his witty and insightful commentary during my absence from Popehat.

By the way; I hadn't realized there was some sort of political litmus test involved in posting here. My apologies.
Ariel • May 4, 2012 @7:53 pm

firehat, et al,

It has absolutely nothing to do with an "absolutely absurd" system. I'm more Cherokee than you (my grandmother was from the Eastern Cherokee area and may have been part also, but no proof though she was also flat-faced and high cheek-boned) yet I would never demean the Cherokee by claiming I'm Cherokee Indian rather than white European. I don't identify with them, and I doubt she does in actuality. Well, maybe over lunch…where honesty ends.

BTW, when I was a child, the Border Patrol wouldn't let either my mother or me through until we spoke English to them. Getting a good reddish tan wasn't an advantage.
Grandy • May 4, 2012 @8:09 pm

Actually, Mike, we can argue over "Indian Bullshit" and deal with Wall Street at the same time. This is because Popehat, to a man, graduated from middle school.
Mike • May 4, 2012 @8:11 pm

TomB, you seem to know a lot about politics and economics.

How did you – personally – get rich. You must be rich, after all, based on your posts

Maybe we can learn something from you.
Mike • May 4, 2012 @8:25 pm

Grandy, it's not an intellectual argument. It's a yes-or-no vote.

So we can focus on what matters or what doesn't matter.

Given the way the economy has been going, you'd think people would grow up; focus on what matters; and leave trivialities aside.

That hasn't been the case, which is why we Americans deserve what we've got coming.
SPQR • May 4, 2012 @8:28 pm

Mike shared this hilarious bit of wisdom with us: Warren has devoted her entire career to saving the Middle Class.

The hilarity of which almost led me to choke on my dinner. Warren has done no such thing at all.

And her "academic work", Mike? Vacuous hackery when it wasn't outright fraudulent like her claims about medical bills and consumer bankruptcy.
Scott Jacobs • May 4, 2012 @9:00 pm

Don't forget her claims that you have only succeeded because of what the government has provided…
ttl • May 4, 2012 @9:04 pm

"Given the way the economy has been going, you'd think people would grow up; focus on what matters; and leave trivialities aside."

I agree. If I lived in Mass this topic (ancestors) would not influence my vote. I would not vote for her because of many other reasons. One is that as a consumer I do not want a federal agency devoted to "protecting"me. An other is that she is a politician.
JSF • May 4, 2012 @9:05 pm

@nlp:"And he also thinks he's better qualified to make decisions about women's health than women are, because we all know that women who are so depraved as to engage in sex are required to become pregnant as a punishment."

Sigh. And who is really going to be making decisions about women's health when the government runs all healthcare?

Will it be Tina or MasterBlaster running Healthtown?
Crissa • May 4, 2012 @10:36 pm

That's stupid. Only inbred people – or people with pedigree – can claim on their papers?

That's actually not true.

Are you really trying to claim that she was admitted via racial preference? What kind of stupid claim is that, though?
NL_ • May 5, 2012 @6:42 am

It's just hard to believe that being 1/32 Cherokee negatively affected her life, or that it provided her with a perspective different from anyone else. Simply holding the DNA doesn't seem like a compelling reason to offer a credit.

What pisses me off is that ethnicity, which should be a personal question, has to be incessantly politicized because of government policies.
Patrick • May 5, 2012 @6:59 am

But there's no evidence that Warren got any credit for declaring herself a Cherokee Indian on the basis of one ancestor who died hundreds of years ago NL!

She says she did it because she wanted to be invited to luncheons with all of the other Cherokee Indians at Harvard's exclusive Squanto Club!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? THIS WOMAN IS TRYING TO SAVE THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS, and you're bitching about TRIVIALITIES!!!
Dan Weber • May 5, 2012 @9:12 am

I'm baffled at the claim that Massachusetts "deserves" a Democratic Senator. What kind of Senators does Texas deserve? North Carolina? Ohio?

Also baffled by the claim that Scott Brown is some kind of conservative monster. Yes, he's more conservative than Warren, and probably a bit more than the median Massachusetts voter. He's also more liberal than nearly all Republican Senators, since he knew from the start he had to survive re-election in a pretty liberal state. Pundits have whinged about the lack of moderate Republicans — well, here is one.

The fact is that "moderates" of either stripe are the most vulnerable creatures on Capitol Hill. When the country shifts a little left or a little right, it's not the extremes that lose. It's a purple state that was leaning towards one color now leans towards the other color. We swap out the moderates in one party as soon as that party loses a little ground. And because so much of the craft in Congress is built on seniority, the extremes on both sides get more and more power.

Really, I wish the Republicans had just let Warren run the CFPB. Yeah, she's kind of nanny-statish and doesn't seem to have any limiting concept on what you can tax people. (If they wouldn't get it without government, then the government is morally clear to take 99%.) But she would have been perfectly contained in the CFPB. Something that slows down our rate of "financial innovation" is probably, on the whole, good, when you see where our financial innovations got us. And she would have no influence over tax code there like she will if she gets a seat in Congress.

(While I disagree with Warren on many many issues, she never tried to keep innocent people in jail. So there's no way she's a bad as Coakley.)
Crissa • May 5, 2012 @9:34 am

Only an idiot would claim that they succeeded despite public investment in schools and infrastructure.
C. S. P. Schofield • May 5, 2012 @10:58 am

Crissa,

Pretty much anybody who achieved any level of education in the last thirty years did so in spite of, or minimally with the inattention of, the public school system. Some lucky few did so with the assistance of a nominally public school that has not yet been transformed into a sinkhole of ignorance by assorted political activists and/or parasites.

The problem with the public school system is not money. The problem with the public school system is that, like every other social institution, it has calcified over time and badly needs to be fundamentally shaken up.

As for "infrastructure", there are too many places- Detroit springs to mind – where any actually useful work done is an oversight in the midst of a blizzard of malfeasance and misfeasance.
David Schwartz • May 5, 2012 @11:33 am

So it's immoral to lie about or distort your ethnicity to evade the harmful effects of other people's racial preferences?

"The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that she probably displaced an actual Cherokee Indian, or Sioux Indian, or Kiowa Indian, or an Australian Aborigine, from the Harvard Law School faculty when she chose to call herself a Cherokee Indian."

Why does it matter to me whether the people on the Harvard Law School faculty are black, white, Indian, left handed, or whatever? Now, if she had lied so as to displace a more qualified individual, I'd be upset.
ElamBend • May 5, 2012 @1:27 pm

The old saw is that the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women. They comprise a large group that can provide good candidates and their gender gives them a minority status, add in a non-european background all the better.

I thought the most telling thing about this was Warren's squirming around the issue. If she was so proud of it and open about it why the obfuscation? I think she perceived that others would perceive it as a white woman using a single ancestor to gain advantage on the basis of being disadvantaged. It's the cover-up that'll get you Liz.

I have no problem with people self-identifying with even a small bit of their heritage (or hey, someone else's heritage). However, I think many disapprove of the use of vague notions of background to get advantageous hiring in academia and government and then acting as if it's through merit. I wonder if her famous rant about not being successful without government help isn't a bit of projection.

The use of Indian heritage is, I suspect pretty widespread. I myself am 1/16th Cherokee, it's actually fairly common in the midwest. It was important to my Oklahoma born grandfather that we were Cherokee, but we never claimed to be "Indian." My G-G-Grandmother wasn't on the Dawes rolls, so I could not have gotten tribal membership and even if I could've, I would have been too embarrassed to use it to get into school. As it was, many of my closer college friends could tell you I was proud about that particular piece of my heritage, but I'll never forget the first time in small session for a class on Native American history at my college. We were all asked to introduce ourselves and explain why we had taken the class. Many people in the class had Indian ancestry; however, after three consecutive white people introduced themselves thusly: "I'm a Native American at Yale". I demurred from revealing my secret and copped to an interest in history in general.

I do admit to trying to use that bit of my heritage to my advantage once. I was in Talequa, Oklahoma doing some research at the Cherokee Nation's historical center. At a restaurant that night my server was an attractive Indian gal and we struck up a conversation. At one point she remarked that when I got back to school I could tell everyone that I had met a real life Indian. I cocked my eyebrow and said, "You know, I myself am part Cherokee." oh, she laughed.
AlphaCentauri • May 5, 2012 @2:35 pm

I'm finding it hard to believe that people are claiming living in under US government did not help them succeed in life. Are our rich people so much harder working than Asian rice farmers or African mine workers, who labor long hours during their short lives just to have enough food to live another year? Even if you didn't attend public schools, don't you think the fact that the police kept it safe for you to travel out of your homes, that the military kept foreign forces from pulling you out of your beds at night to slaughter you, that your teachers attended public schools or received student aid so they could afford to work in an underpaid profession despite their years of educational expenses, that the legal system enforces financial laws so you can invest money and have the real expectation that you will get it back, don't you think those advantages had something to do with your hard work creating permanent gains in wealth?
C. S. P. Schofield • May 5, 2012 @4:20 pm

David Schwartz,

What is immoral is to institute distinctions between people according to their racial/ethnic heritage. No matter how well intentioned such distinctions may be, they encourage the habit of dividing people by 'race' (really, if we were canines, we would all be mutts). The consequence is that actions taken in light of such a system which were not meant to be immoral get tainted.

Not that there's any graceful way of ending the mess now.

As I believe I suggested earlier, I think the original post that started this thread was a little hard on Ms. Warren. But she's a faculty member of Harvard's Law School. There are probably plenty of skeletons in her closet without making up new ones.

The truth about her is that she made assertions about here ethnic heritage that may or may not matter worth a damn. If the voters take one look at her and decide her claim is absurd, then she reaps what she sowed. If the voters decide that she spiced up her resume in a way they might have in her place, then it doesn't matter.
rmv • May 5, 2012 @4:22 pm

@AlphaCentauri

http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2011/09/my-dog-owns-my-house-i-dont-think-so.html
rmv • May 5, 2012 @4:41 pm

whoops, accidental early-post

The problem with Warren's rhetoric is that it boils down to your dog owning your home.

I'm just glad she's willing to let us "…keep a big hunk" of what we earn.
SPQR • May 5, 2012 @6:07 pm

AlphaCentauri, its amusing how often I hear about how much of my success is due to this "government" … and how often its always said by people who want me to pay more taxes to support the lifestyle of those who are not successful.

Why are they not successful if the credit goes to the government? They live under the same one I do.
Andrew Roth • May 5, 2012 @6:53 pm

This is exactly the sort of scandal that is to be expected in an affirmative action regime. It's inevitable. Playing up one's real or imaginary ethnic, racial or cultural background for preferential consideration is exactly what affirmative action encourages. The incentive becomes stronger as the institution becomes more competitive and prestigious, and Harvard is both to the point of absurdity.

Only a fool would expect affirmative action at elite schools not to result in exaggerated claims of minority blood on the part of applicants. Checking an ethnic status box is a lot easier than moving to North Dakota and taking up the oboe in the hopes of impressing some dolt in admissions.

When I was applying to colleges circa 2000, I got a very dignified Yale rep to admit to me that the admissions committee would see right through such a stunt. The reason I asked him about it was that I had become extremely cynical about the entire admissions process because I was inundated by advice to take on extracurricular activities in order to impress admissions committees. The entire attitude that my cohort was encouraged to adopt was disgustingly craven. The oboe player from North Dakota was merely an archetype of the sought-after applicant. I routinely heard admissions counselors speak in all earnestness about the desirability of North Dakotans and oboists, so I couldn't help annoying the Yale rep by turning them into a reductio ad absurdum.

The Harvard admissions reps who spoke to my group when I visited the campus were such immature buffoons that I decided right then and there not to apply. At least Yale had sent an adult, so I could take it seriously. The baby-faced jackasses that Harvard sent my group indicated contempt for the applicant pool, and I wasn't about to reward the bastards with an application and a fee.

One of the underlying problems that ensures scandals like Warren's Cherokee claim is that the competition at places like Harvard is cutthroat and always will be for as long as their reputations are so inflated. There is no way to stop applicants from angling for unethical advantages in such an environment. The incentive is glaringly obvious.

Worse, Harvard seems to explicitly reward bullshit artistry in applications. I recently glanced through a book of essays by successful Harvard Law applicants, Harvard allegedly one of the best law schools in the country. The essays were competently written but their content was insipid. They were little but navelgazing and self-aggrandizement about minority status and charity work abroad. I found it harder than ever to take Harvard Law seriously after that.

The solution is obvious. We need to render Harvard and its ilk irrelevant by not giving a damn about their bluebloodedness and nourishing parallel institutions that make it possible for Americans to prosper without kowtowing to old line snobs.
Graham Shevlin • May 5, 2012 @8:00 pm

I agree with an earlier commenter. This posting is mediocre, compared to Ken's usual standards. It is political drivel of the sort that leads me to avoid a number of other websites. It is a bizarre mixture of snark and childishness. I short, it's crap.
ElamBend • May 5, 2012 @8:09 pm

As a graduate of Yale, I commend your denunciation of Harvard. Sadly, I must confess that I believe Yale does the same thing, despite what the dignified gentleman said. I actually don't mind the schools giving a little lift to the proverbial North Dakotan (said the man from a rural mid-western town). The very elite schools get a chance to pull from such a pool that many of their ethnic minority students come from rarefied beginnings. That Latina may march with La Raza and scribble nasty things about Columbus on the sidewalks, but she also went to Roxbury Latin. However, except for those applying to graduate schools, such pretensions were lost by senior year and brought no kind of help applying for real jobs.

The biggest divide, I found was of class and culture. Though my family was wealthy by the time I went, we came from a different class (essentially) and many of the cultural norms at the school were new to me (and I actually got a lot of help from the minority counselors assigned to some of my friends). Warren, a childhood prodigy came from a similar background (maybe lesser, her parents didn't go to college). Maybe the background gave her a bit of unsureness about belonging in such places (hopefully not projecting here), but by the time she came to Harvard, she had the pedigree she needed to get the job without the faux ethnic boost. So, maybe she thought every little bit can help.

Again, I think its her reaction to the news getting out, rather than the revelation that matters.

Your anecdote about the
SPQR • May 5, 2012 @10:09 pm

Shevlin, I'm confident that Patrick is tres desole at not meeting your high standards.
Crissa • May 6, 2012 @12:55 am

How exactly would you remember what you wrote on which application twenty years ago?
Crissa • May 6, 2012 @12:57 am

…And I repeat my earlier assertion, how selfish you have to be, to be paying a smaller portion of your income in federal taxes but consuming more than ever before?

You did not succeed despite government investment. IF you believed that, you'd be in Somalia. You're not.
ttl • May 6, 2012 @1:02 am

Delete at will, but politicians are useless cunts(R,D,L,G,I) they are all useless pieces of shit. Have fun voting for them.
Grifter • May 6, 2012 @9:24 am

Now, I know next to nothing about Elizabeth Warren. However, it seems the central assertion of your post, that the woman fraudulently claimed heritage, was disproven by some early posters. Doesn't that basically invalidate the post?

This was a long rant on the theme of "the truth", but is not the truth that she used the system exactly as designed?
Patrick • May 6, 2012 @12:09 pm

Grifter, the first sentence of the post states that Warren is 1/32 Cherokee. What was disproven?

As to the post, I'll leave that to you to decide, though I have my own opinion as to its point. As to your point, you seem to believe that affirmative action in academia is designed to give hiring preferences to people who are neither culturally (Warren isn't) nor genetically (if that matters) members of minorities who've faced historical discrimination. If you believe that that's the system working as designed, your name is well chosen.
Scott Jacobs • May 6, 2012 @12:09 pm

Actually, there is not actual proof that she's 1/32 NA.

And circumstantial evidence suggests that she is not.
Grifter • May 6, 2012 @1:24 pm

I actually think affirmative action is plain-and-simple racism. However, it has rules, and if one has followed those rules to the letter it seems unfair to find fault. I believe the point has been that traditionally, it didn't matter how "white" you looked or acted, if it was discovered you had minority heritage you'd be discriminated against, therefore the affirmative action argument is that if there's enough in your heritage to get bigots to hate you, there's enought to get affirmative action. It's worth noting that a person who half black, half white might be able to " pass" for white, depending on genetics, and might not be "culturally black" enough for your tastes, yet I think few would fault that person for using the affirmative action benefits, neh?

But you said:

The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that she will lie about her background for professional advantage when she thinks that she can get away with it.

You haven't shown her to have lied; I thought you were saying that while she's 1/32 Cherokee, that's not enough. If another poster s to be beloved, the current head of the nation is 1/32, which would mean she meets the tribe's own criteria. If that's the case, she has not lied. If that's the case, the thrust of your argument seems, to me, to fall away. If you were not saying she was.ying about her heritage
Grifter • May 6, 2012 @1:27 pm

Blech. I hate using the stupid ipad to post. Sorry I cut the tail end off there, I meant to finish with "If you were not saying she was lying about her heritage, then what WAS she lying about, because I missed that point?"
Patrick • May 6, 2012 @1:36 pm

If you believe that calling oneself a Cherokee Indian when one is neither culturally nor genetically Native American isn't lying Grifter, again, I think your name is well chosen.
Jess • May 6, 2012 @2:17 pm

ElamBend hits on the main point “I thought the most telling thing about this was Warren's squirming around the issue.”

Indeed if she were not seeking any sort of advantage, why would she bother calling herself Native American at all
Grifter • May 6, 2012 @2:26 pm

So meeting the tribes own criteria isn't enough, she has to act more Indian for you or she's a liar? The point is, that you called her a liar despite her telling the truth. Your whole argument was not that she's twisting the system, but that she lied about her background. You contradict that with your very first sentence, though you try hard to use implications to say otherwise. I'll repeat my argument, that if it's enough for the tribe and the policy, it's unfair of you to find fault. Change the policy if you don't like it. Tell the tribe who they should count, since you clearly feel you know better than them.

And constantly referring to my SN is stupid, you know that, right?
Joe • May 6, 2012 @2:36 pm

@Terence “To whom it may concern, I am both shocked and appaulled by your article on proffessor Elizabeth Warren”

And I must say Terence I am shocked and “appalled” at your inability to spell words like “appalled” and “professor”, and “immature”. Besides, I’m sure Patrick is simply fraught with dismay that you did not care for his post. Truly, it may have ruined the digestion of his fine dinner.

As far as Elizabeth Warren having done more for the 99% than Scott Brown I would say simply what is the point of comparing average to less than average. Frankly neither of them has done anything of any sufficient measure to improve the condition of the middle class much less anyone else.
Scott Jacobs • May 6, 2012 @3:15 pm

So meeting the tribes own criteria isn't enough, she has to act more Indian for you or she's a liar?

No, the fact that she has absolutely no evidence besides old stories suggests that she is a liar.

This is supported by the fact that nearly every single Cherokee where those relatives lived were "invited" to live somewhere else, and that her relatives were not amongst those numbers.

MAYBE the relative was allowed to stay, but that is unlikely.

And while if her claim is true she could petition for membership in the tribe, she would have to PROVE her claim, and thus she would not be admitted.

Though I suppose there are genetic markers that could be looked for…
Scott Jacobs • May 6, 2012 @3:16 pm

Frankly neither of them has done anything of any sufficient measure to improve the condition of the middle class much less anyone else.

To be fair, there is little Brown can do in a Governmental body that won't even bring a budget to the floor…
Grifter • May 6, 2012 @3:34 pm

Scott Jacobs, while I have no idea whether she is or is not 1/32 Cherokee, this original post did not question the veracity. The very first sentence was: "The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that she is 1/32 Cherokee Indian."

The post then went on to find fault with the woman for claiming to be Cherokee Indian based on that, even though according to other posters not only is it good enough to be counted by the tribe itself, it is good enough for the current chief of the tribe itself. That is what I was calling out as the failure here; Patrick called her a liar, and continues to say she's not "genetically or culturally" NA enough for him, even though genetically she is, at least enough for the tribe and for the policy in question (as far as I understand it; please, if I've misunderstood, then I'm wrong). Thus, since his "genetic" argument is flatly and provably wrong(again, as far as I understand), at least in the sense of calling her a liar for it (one can fault the rule, if one wants, that says 1/32 is enough, but one cannot call someone a liar for meeting the definition as settled by the rule), that leaves only his "cultural" argument, which is to say, that he feels she doesn't act like a Cherokee, so therefore she's a liar when she filled out the form. I find that argument frankly awful, which is why I pointed out what I did. If it is not the case that 1/32 is enough for the tribe, then she is a liar, in that she doesn't meet the threshold of the definition. If it is the case, then Patrick is wrong, and as far as I can tell his entire post falls apart, since its premise was that she is someone who "will lie about her background for professional advantage when she thinks that she can get away with it." If she isn't 1/32 Cherokee at all, then Patrick is wrong, but about his very first sentence and not his larger point. Accepting the premise of that first sentence, I didn't even question the veracity of her 1/32 (like I said, I know next to nothing about her), which left the other two possibilities. And the response I've gotten so far has not been to explain how I am incorrect in my assertion that 1/32 is enough for the tribe, but rather that it's not enough for Patrick, followed by snide comments about my SN. Neither I, nor Patrick, nor indeed Elizabeth Warren wrote the policy; yet she's a liar for following it (as far as I can tell, that is Patrick's argument).
SPQR • May 6, 2012 @4:24 pm

Warren's "disadvantage" was in graduating from a law school that was ranked … what? 39th? From which Harvard had never recruited a law professor before.

Now frankly, I think Harvard's insular faculty could use some diversity, but diversity based on actual ideas not skin color. Or faux skin color applied with the metaphorical spray can of fake tan.
Joe • May 6, 2012 @4:58 pm

Grifter – I don't dispute the 1/32 Cherokee, but I tend to go back to Elam, Jess, and what I am interpreting as Patricks main point – if she were not seeking any sort of advantage, why would she bother calling herself Native American in the first place?
David Schwartz • May 6, 2012 @6:08 pm

I find the discussion over whether someone who is probably slightly Cherokee is sufficiently "Cherokee" to qualify for a benefit set aside exclusive for Cherokees as disgusting as most people would find a discussion over whether someone (who is mostly black) is sufficiently "white" enough to qualify for a benefit set aside exclusively for whites.
JEFF • May 6, 2012 @6:27 pm

Of course the real problem in this article is the false assumption that being a minority is helpful in getting hired or promoted. The reverse is true but this runs counter to the phony affirmative action narrative. I am sure they interviewed her and looked at her background and knew how white she was. I will grant you this box may have been checked to pad diversity statistics.
Patrick • May 6, 2012 @6:52 pm

That's a rather odd comment JEFF. Without addressing the societal benefits of affirmative action, why do public law schools, such as Michigan and Texas, litigate all the way to the United States Supreme Court for the principle that they should be allowed to take race into account in student admissions?

Do they do it because they wish to admit white students preferentially?
Grifter • May 6, 2012 @7:08 pm

Joe, if that is Patrick's main point, then shouldn't he say so, and should'nt he edit the original post to correct the inaccurate claim that her heritage wasn't enough to get her into the tribe?
Grifter • May 6, 2012 @7:11 pm

To be clear, I'm talking about correcting comments like: "lying about one's race".
SPQR • May 6, 2012 @7:30 pm

Of course the real problem in this article is the false assumption that being a minority is helpful in getting hired or promoted.

Oh, of course, indeed. Warren listed herself as Native American to give herself a challenge in getting hired. And so listing herself disappears after she gets the job she wanted.

You really expect anyone to take that comment as serious, JEFF? Its so stupid as to be comedic.
JEFF • May 7, 2012 @6:49 am

What is beyond ridiculous is that any potential employer would think Ms. Warren is a Cherokee based on a check box. Interviews, references, mentoring = White privilege.
egd • May 7, 2012 @7:06 am

Apparently both of Ms. Warren's great-great-great grandmother's paternal grandparents were Swedish Emigrants. While I'm unsure on the number of Cherokee Sweeds, I'm going to guess that these two individuals weren't actual Native Americans.

That means, at best, Ms. Warren's great-great-great grandmother's mother was a full Cherokee. Making Ms. Warren not 1/32, but 1/64 Cherokee.
mojo • May 7, 2012 @8:35 am

Once you go Injun, you can never go back, baby.
Elam Bend • May 14, 2012 @10:07 pm

Since no one is paying attention now, I thought I'd mention that the second (or third) most famous Cherokee, Chief John Ross was more Scotsman than Indian genetically. ( I'm ranking Seqoya ne George Gist and Stand Watie as 1 and 2 respectively )
Mass Anti Liberal • May 15, 2012 @2:24 pm

Terence, you may be the perfect example of a stupid liberal hypocrite (sorry to be redundant). First. There is still no documented proof she is even 1/32 native american, a news letter for her family from a british relative of hers (Sitting Bull Shit) in the mid 2000s speculates from family lore they may have an american indian tie, Pure Speculation! The Genealogist that said there was a link via her great great great grand mother Smith on a marriage application in 1896 just admitted that this county did not have marriage applications in 1896. She lied or fabricated in order to gain advantage with her supposed "heritage," just like Pres. Obama and Devil Patrick.(please release your grades and test scores) She claims she is not wealthy? Her net worth is between 10 and 15 million dollars (real middle class), much of which as earned from UPenn and Harvard where she gained employment through fabrications to the demise of a more qualified candidate. Her family had 3 cars in the 60's when she was growing up (one an MG), sound so tough. I am surprised she even made it off the reservation. She is such a phony carpet bagging liberal. She lies just like OBama lies. He lists himself as a Kenyan national on his Harvard Law Application (whatever is convenient). Liberals suck and are communists not patriots and have no understanding of how this country started because most of them were not born here (Obama) or are all too busy devising ways to achieve more efficient voter fraud or how scam more welfare dollars for their EBT cards from those who actually work and produce. I live in Massachusetts and it is filled with hack liberals. The last three speakers of the house of representatives are all convicted felons. Thank goodness Devil Patrick just got the secure communities rammed down his throat by his Good pal Barry. Take care Terry
Joe • May 15, 2012 @7:49 pm

@Mass anti liberal – RE Terence. He also similar nonsense only sligtly altered under the "Thanks for the Memories MCA" thread under the moniker Jerryskids. No idea who he is other than he clearly didn't make it out of the third grade and hasn't got two brain cells to rub together. Probably flies in here once in a while, drops a load of crap and then flies back out again. No sense wasting your energy on such idiots.