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.
You could have fooled a number of the people in this thread.
I don't know if the poster bridgerider is a Trump supporter, or a Republican, or both, or neither but, as I mention often, I am not a Trump supporter/voter, and I am not a Republican (and everything isn't Us. vs. Them). Not being either, I am under no obligation to defend anything Trump does, nor what other Republicans do.
I'm not a Republican, never have been. I lose the right to vote in primaries because my beliefs do not align enough with any one party that I would join one of them....I voted for Trump (and probably will In 2020) with sadness and a bit of anger that once again, I was left with crappy choices. I no longer use the write-in option or vote 3rd party & accept that it comes down to two candidates... and even that system misrepresents many of us.
That said, even if I were an ardent supporter of Trump - or any politician - I will never be obligated to defend any of them. I find it entertaining to read and comment on C-D since I rarely get into political riffs with family, friends & colleagues. How amusing that 2sleepy says I'm "obsessed" with Warren, when it really comes down to laughing at her foolish rationale. During membership on this forum, I've averaged one post every 2 days - some days more, some days less. 2sleepy has averaged about 6 per day, some days I assume are more or less as well. But I'm the one who's obsessed. That's cute.
"Warren had actually been identifying as a minority for nearly a decade in an official national law school directory, the Association of American Law Schools desk book. And the Boston Globe also reported that for at least six years, Harvard University reported to the federal government that it had a Native American law professor. It was a statistic the paper argued was probably reported by Warren herself to the school."
Identifying as NA and using it to her advantage are two different things, the fact that she claimed to be NA is not in question. The Boston Globe did a rather in-depth article back when she ran against Scott Brown, the fact that she appeared in the directory doesn't mean she was hired an affirmative action. One of the administrator's on the selection committee at Harvard indicated he was unaware of her heritage. There was also a copy of her application to Rutgers where she checked not to be considered a minority and the University of Penn she applied as white yet the university listed her as a minority. The University of Texas also listed here as white.
Funny how the Cherokee Nation gets all bent out of shape about Chief Wahoo but are just fine with Trump besmirching Pocahontas by using her name in a derogatory manner.
Would you please drop the Trump stuff and stick to the topic?
Yet Harvard has ALREADY said she wasn't given any special consideration. So there goes that argument.
Of course they did. To say otherwise would bring them a world of pain. They are already facing a discrimination suit before SCOTUS that may not only slap them down but affirmative action programs everywhere.
One has to wonder what all those on the left who are defending Warren would say if it were Trump who made the same exact claims and had less than 1% NA blood?
Identifying as NA and using it to her advantage are two different things, the fact that she claimed to be NA is not in question. The Boston Globe did a rather in-depth article back when she ran against Scott Brown, the fact that she appeared in the directory doesn't mean she was hired an affirmative action. One of the administrator's on the selection committee at Harvard indicated he was unaware of her heritage. There was also a copy of her application to Rutgers where she checked not to be considered a minority and the University of Penn she applied as white yet the university listed her as a minority. The University of Texas also listed here as white.
I never said she was hired on affirmative action. However, even to mention it in any professional capacity means she expected to get something out of it, and Harvard has claimed her as a minority hire.
I never said she was hired on affirmative action. However, even to mention it in any professional capacity means she expected to get something out of it, and Harvard has claimed her as a minority hire.
So did Penn in their faculty awards publication. The claims from both colleges were in the context of describing hired faculty.
160 pages dedicated to a Democratic Senator from a deep blue state's 20+ year old claim that her family told her that she has some modicum of Native American heritage (which is seemingly corroborated by a DNA test) when she neither asked for nor received any tangible benefit as a result?
160 pages dedicated to a Democratic Senator from a deep blue state's 20+ year old claim that her family told he that she has some modicum of Native American heritage (which is seemingly corroborated by a DNA test) when she neither asked for nor received any tangible benefit as a result?
Why is this a thing?
Both Penn and Harvard have clouded the issue by listing her as a minority faculty member. That's why.
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.
