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.
So Elizabeth Warren is the reason Harvard was not diverse?
Elizabeth Warren's LIE is the reason Harvard Law School CLAIMED to have a diverse faculty :
Quote:
"Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is thatthe Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American."
Would listing German advance your career? What did she gain?
Based on his comments, it sounds like Trump has an issue with Native Americans too.
It wouldn't, why am I listing German when I believed I was English Royalty, and then waited until I wanted to advance my career to start using my English Royalty as an advantage?
And what did that mean to Warren or the University and how did she lie? If she shared what her parents and grandparents told her as a child along with her siblings, how is that a lie? It's simply her sharing what her parents told her. It's not a lie if you are raised being told that throughout your childhood. A lie is saying something knowingly untrue. I'm sure you know this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64
It wouldn't, why am I listing German when I believed I was English Royalty, and then waited until I wanted to advance my career to start using my English Royalty as an advantage?
How would it advance your career? How did Elizabeth's heritage advance her? What did she gain?
And what did that mean to Warren or the University and how did she lie?
Job for Warren at Harvard Law School. Harvard Law School subsequently claimed a diversity of faculty they didn't actually have, and Harvard Law School reported to the federal government they had a minority female faculty member when they actually did not.
She believed she was Native American but listed herself as white until she wanted to advance her career then she listed herself as Native American.
I was fitting it into your analogy.
What did she gain? She was already hired and checked a box for a directly, probably thinking it was an interesting thing. She believed it, was told it throughout her childhood as confirmed by her siblings and other family members. She gained nothing from it and both universities confirmed that, saying her heritage had nothing to do with her hiring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Job for Warren at Harvard Law School. Harvard Law School subsequently claimed a diversity of faculty they didn't actually have, and Harvard reported to the federal government they had a minority female faculty member when they actually did not.
FAUXcahontas.
Her parents and grandparents raised her with stories of her Native American heritage along with her brothers and other family members. That is not a lie at all. It's believing her parents and grandparents. Should she dig up their bodies and ask them? Would you like their corpses so you can call them names?
If you think about this logically, the question is whether she knowingly lied as opposed to being factually mistaken, right?
Quote:
Her brothers defended her, stating that they "grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family's Cherokee and Delaware heritage". In her 2014 autobiography, Warren described the allegations as untrue and hurtful. The New England Historic Genealogical Society found a family newsletter that alluded to a marriage license application that listed Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great grandmother as a Cherokee, but could not find the primary document and found no proof of her descent
You are faulting her because she didn't cross-examine her great-grandmother? Or conduct a DNA analysis before it was even available? Or researched Ancestry.com before it existed? How the hell would she verify the claim, when the record keeping by the Native American tribes was not complete at all, and there is no compelling reason to do so.
If she had a reasonable basis in believing her family lore about Indian bloodline, the fact that she might have been mistaken doesn't matter, does it? Is it plausible for perfectly honest people to believe that they were 100% Italian, after being told by grandparents that they were a full Italian for many decades, even though a DNA analysis finally shows that they are 90% Italian and 10% German?
You are faulting her because she didn't cross-examine her great-grandmother? Or conduct a DNA analysis before it was even available? Or researched Ancestry.com before it existed? How the hell would she verify the claim, when the record keeping by the Native American tribes was not complete at all, and there is no compelling reason to do so.
If she had a reasonable basis in believing her family lore about Indian bloodline, the fact that she might have been mistaken doesn't matter, does it? Is it plausible for perfectly honest people to believe that they were 100% Italian, after being told by grandparents that they were a full Italian for many decades, even though a DNA analysis finally shows that they are 90% Italian and 10% German?
Mick
EXACTLY. This. People are using measures that didn't even exist and why wouldn't a child believe her parents and grandparents?
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.
:
