Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think its a safe bet she has taken a DNA test & has no native blood. If she could prove it, she would have by now.
I think she probably does, but it's a relatively insignificant percentage.
Personally, I think one should have to be either born a native American, or born to native American parents currently living on a reservation in order to qualify for certain ethnic/racial privileges. This 1/16th native American blood thing is ridiculous... there's no logical connection between that small association and hardships to justify needing the privileges.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,615,202 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanst530
I think she probably does, but it's a relatively insignificant percentage.
Personally, I think one should have to be either born a native American, or born to native American parents currently living on a reservation in order to qualify for certain ethnic/racial privileges. This 1/16th native American blood thing is ridiculous... there's no logical connection between that small association and system hardships due that would justify needing the privileges.
It mattered 150 years ago if you remember learning about the one drop rule. Maybe not today, but it did matter
I already indicated the selection committee wasn't even aware of her ethnic background, she taught at several other universities and was respected for her work on bankruptcy law.
Then, how did it magically appear in her employment file so that they could tick her off as a token minority hire?
Penn’s 2005 "Minority Equity Report" specifically identified Warren (she taught there from 1987 to 1995) as a minority.
Elizabeth Warren = Rachel Dolezal, plain and simple. They both did the exact same thing: impersonated a minority for pofessional opportunity and personal gain.
Yo, fellow GOPers, enough with the politics of personal destruction. It's time to let the Pocahontas thing rest. If we turn her into a martyr there's going to be a sympathetic backlash.
I doubt it. I don't see anyone turning Rachel Dolezal into a martyr. She's lost her jobs and has been pretty much shunned by everyone.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,615,202 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Then, how did it magically appear in her employment file so that they could tick her off as a token minority hire?
Penn’s 2005 "Minority Equity Report" specifically identified Warren (she taught there from 1987 to 1995) as a minority.
Elizabeth Warren = Rachel Dolezal, plain and simple. They both did the exact same thing: impersonated a minority for pofessional opportunity and personal gain.
No, the bolded is simply false. Again, Dolezal claimed to be full black and used it to go to a traditionally black college AND to then work at the NAACP. Warren only claimed to be PART Native American, and didn't do it for employment purposes, her job could have gone to anyone with the academic and professional qualifications she has!
Honestly who cares? If she weren't qualified for her position, she would have been fired almost immediately. That's all that matters!
To be strictly honest about it...the only qualification needed for being a member of a law school faculty is merely being an unemployed lawyer. In the case of Harvard Law, the candidate would usually have to be an unemployed lawyer who had been on some other law school faculty, but the core prerequisite remains: if you're an unemployed lawyer, you're a law school professor in waiting.
If Elizabeth Warren wants to pretend she's of Native American extraction, it doesn't really matter except to the extent that her pretense prevents a similarly situated unemployed lawyer who *is* in fact a minority from obtaining the position that went to her because she told Harvard she was a Native American when she obviously wasn't.
The written evidence that a) Warren claimed minority status when applying to Penn and Harvard and b) Harvard was all too willing to rely on Warren's misrepresentation both serve to belie the later claims of both that Warren's spurious claim had no bearing on her hiring. Warren and Harvard can deny it all they want, but the written record is clear: for a time, Harvard was using Warren to check off the "female" and "Native American" EEOC checkboxes, and they did so on the basis of Warren's willing and eager misrepresentation regarding her background.
I think she probably does, but it's a relatively insignificant percentage.
Personally, I think one should have to be either born a native American, or born to native American parents currently living on a reservation in order to qualify for certain ethnic/racial privileges. This 1/16th native American blood thing is ridiculous... there's no logical connection between that small association and hardships to justify needing the privileges.
No she does not. Ancestry has been traced to the early 1800s well before Oklahoma. She is white white white and white.
Then, why did BOTH publicly count Warren as a "minority" faculty member? Why not just... a female faculty member, which she actually was?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She's lost her jobs and has been pretty much shunned by everyone.
