Elizabeth Warren

[TBird41]

So, on the heels of (the possibility of) Warren using her 1/32 ancestry as a way to advance her career through affirmative action (if you disagree w/ this, that's fine--I'm trying to move the discussion a bit) and the Census' finding that minority babies are the new majority www.washingtonpost.com/local/census-minority-babies-are-now-majority-in-united-states/2012/05/16/gIQA1WY8UU_story.html

what is the effect on affirmative action? And how should affirmative action change with the rise of mixed race people? Is it time (or approaching the time) to scrap race as the proxy for "a person that could use some help due to their background"? Should it be replaced with something else (like parents' income level)? If we're going to keep race as a proxy, how do we determine who is "enough" of a minority? Should the cutoff be 1/8th? 1/16th? 1/32nd?

I can think of two real world examples that illustrate the approaching problem--I know a person who is 1/8th African American, but has the skin color of a Northern European (aka pale, doesn't tan so much as burn, etc) and who grew up in an upper middle class family. Should they be considered an African American for affirmative action purposes? My future kids are going to be 1/16th Arab. Barring something going wrong with my career, they're going to grow up in an upper middle class household and no one will know that they are anything but European unless they tell them--they aren't going to have any problems w/ discrimination b/c of their looks. And best I can tell, my wife's family hasn't really kept their Arab cultural heritage to pass along, so its not like these kids will bring any "exposure to diversity" benefit. But they're going to be more Arab than Warren claimed to be Native.

These examples might be rare now, but that's only going to change. So what then?

And how do we determine what minorities should be helped? Should Arab/Asian/Hispanic/Native American/African American all receive the same treatment? How do we determine when one minority group doesn't need any help anymore (or shouldn't get any help)? And should the cut off point for different minorities be different? (ie you qualify as an African American if you are 1/32nd, but you have to be 1/8th Arab to count). Should we scrap bloodlines as a way of measuring minority status?

[Elvado]

The moral/ethical gymnastics of the Left never cease to amaze. I now await the claims of racism against those who dare criticize a woman pretending to be a minority.

[TC]

Guess what? Warren and Brown are still tied because :

- no one cares
- there's no smoking gun here - if Warren took a minority scholarship, or was granted admission to a school having declared herself a minority, that'd be one thing - but I've yet to see any preferential treatment here

I'm sure the Herald is going to be running stories on this from now until November, but Josh Beckett and Curt Schilling are the ones who are taking all the MA scandal heat right now.

[rosslynhoya]

May 17, 2012 10:27:43 GMT -5 TC said:

- there's no smoking gun here - if Warren took a minority scholarship, or was granted admission to a school having declared herself a minority, that'd be one thing - but I've yet to see any preferential treatment here

Of the 97 professors and assistant professors at Harvard Law School, apparently 96 of them earned their J.D. at a top-10 law school (not a single GULC grad on Harvard Law's faculty).

Would you care to guess which one is the Rutgers grad? (UPenn, her home before Harvard, also doesn't have a single craptacular law school grad either ... since 1995 anyway).

Insane coincidences are even better than smoking guns.

[TC]

Guilt by elitism is a new one, especially coming from conservatives.

[Boz]

"Guilt by elitism"?

Who are you, David Brooks??

I think it's more guilt by lying...a misdeed not exclusive to either party.

[hoyaclap]

May 17, 2012 10:21:39 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

So, on the heels of (the possibility of) Warren using her 1/32 ancestry as a way to advance her career through affirmative action (if you disagree w/ this, that's fine--I'm trying to move the discussion a bit) and the Census' finding that minority babies are the new majority www.washingtonpost.com/local/census-minority-babies-are-now-majority-in-united-states/2012/05/16/gIQA1WY8UU_story.html

what is the effect on affirmative action? And how should affirmative action change with the rise of mixed race people? Is it time (or approaching the time) to scrap race as the proxy for "a person that could use some help due to their background"? Should it be replaced with something else (like parents' income level)? If we're going to keep race as a proxy, how do we determine who is "enough" of a minority? Should the cutoff be 1/8th? 1/16th? 1/32nd?

I can think of two real world examples that illustrate the approaching problem--I know a person who is 1/8th African American, but has the skin color of a Northern European (aka pale, doesn't tan so much as burn, etc) and who grew up in an upper middle class family. Should they be considered an African American for affirmative action purposes? My future kids are going to be 1/16th Arab. Barring something going wrong with my career, they're going to grow up in an upper middle class household and no one will know that they are anything but European unless they tell them--they aren't going to have any problems w/ discrimination b/c of their looks. And best I can tell, my wife's family hasn't really kept their Arab cultural heritage to pass along, so its not like these kids will bring any "exposure to diversity" benefit. But they're going to be more Arab than Warren claimed to be Native.

These examples might be rare now, but that's only going to change. So what then?

And how do we determine what minorities should be helped? Should Arab/Asian/Hispanic/Native American/African American all receive the same treatment? How do we determine when one minority group doesn't need any help anymore (or shouldn't get any help)? And should the cut off point for different minorities be different? (ie you qualify as an African American if you are 1/32nd, but you have to be 1/8th Arab to count). Should we scrap bloodlines as a way of measuring minority status?

TBrid, I agree that we are fortunately getting to a point in society where we are able (and need) to have much more sophisticated, honest conversation about what race means, beyond simply "physical traits" and "blood lines." There is a small sense of irony to me that opponents of affirmative action often cite the ambiguous and arbitrary construct nature of race as a reason why Affirmative Action programs are misguided. i do not completely disagree with this line of contention, but to me, it's a very strong reminder of the ridiculously ambiguous and arbitrary racial laws that have been in place for most of the history of the United States. Two wrongs certainly do not make a right, but I do think there is a reasonable discussion to be had about what should the government's role be in correcting institutional discrimination. Also as a minor point of contention, skin color is only a piece of what traditionally has been used in this country to determine one's "race" as some laws have explicitly allowed for interpretations of facial features and hair to draw racial lines. But like i said, that's only a minor point

I agree that there are people that have, and will continue to technically a member of a "race" but will not face typical discrimination, oppression and or negativity due to it. I am African American, and there is no doubt of this, but I also have close relatives that look White/European. One example is a female cousin of mine that passes as White (i guess you could say that she looks Italian), and was a police officer in NJ in the late 80s. She never misidentified herself, but she was not enthusiastic about discussing her race and/or family with her colleagues but when her colleagues found out that she was black, she was harassed off of the force. This is to say, that my cousin initially benefited from a reverse-ish situation from EW, and that whenever these things come up they just seem to further expose how foolish race is as social characteristic.

I think a pretty prominent example that has been used by President Obama himself is his own daughters. There is no doubt about where they fall on the racial spectrum, but their lives, due to their powerful and famous parents is much more privileged than most other children, regardless of race. When Sasha and Malia eventually apply to college, they will have the opportunity to check the Black box on their apps, and when they are admitted, those colleges will include these girls in their inclusion statistics and tout their diversity. But it would be more courageous of a college to admit a low income/working class student from a difficult background, regardless of race, and probably benefit the ultimate goals of diversity better.

I dont really have a cohesive conclusion to all of this, but if there is a point i would like to make, i believe that diversity is important and should be actively promoted. i don't believe that the best way of going about promoting diversity is by checking off boxes, filling quotas, and waving it around like a victory flag. It needs to be done intelligently, but at the end of the day, race/class/sexuality etc are so personal and individualized that there is no real way to compartmentalize it for the sake of positive intentioned diversity... although we've seen it to be pretty easy to compartmentalize it for the forces of evil.


Re: Elizabeth Warren, I do think she's in a bit of hot water, and I understand how politics work (It's how i make my living) but ultimately i'm not sure if this dust up reflects poorly on her, but rather poorly on the ultimate value of racial classification systems. I choose to accept Elizabeth Warren at her word for her Native American heritage and "upbringing," and feel that there doesn't seem to be much evidence that she received any unmerited advantages for it. If anything, her employers have benefited more from it. I don't think any aspect of this calls into question her ability to serve the people of Massachusetts, which should be the most important consideration for voters

[kchoya]

Update for Dan :

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/18/did-elizabeth-warren-plagiarize-pow-wow-chow-recipes

[DanMcQ]

Pierre Franey was a hell of a cook but he used way too much pepper.

[jerseyhoya34]

What accomplishments is Scott Brown running on? Two years ago, Tea Partiers, self-styled as Brown Shirts, overran Massachusetts to elect this guy. Nowhere on his website is any listing of legislation he has passed (or even supported). Among the comedic high spots is how he is a "fighter for jobs." Put "French" in front of that label, and you would come closer to describing his undistinguished Senate career.

[Boz]

May 24, 2012 21:01:36 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

What accomplishments is Scott Brown running on? Two years ago, Tea Partiers, self-styled as Brown Shirts, overran Massachusetts to elect this guy. Nowhere on his website is any listing of legislation he has passed (or even supported). Among the comedic high spots is how he is a "fighter for jobs." Put "French" in front of that label, and you would come closer to describing his undistinguished Senate career.

On the other hand, we elected a guy President a couple years back who had even less to run on.

[kchoya]

May 24, 2012 21:01:36 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

What accomplishments is Scott Brown running on? Two years ago, Tea Partiers, self-styled as Brown Shirts, overran Massachusetts to elect this guy. Nowhere on his website is any listing of legislation he has passed (or even supported). Among the comedic high spots is how he is a "fighter for jobs." Put "French" in front of that label, and you would come closer to describing his undistinguished Senate career.

Because there's been so much legislation and activity that's come out of the Senate the past two years.

[jerseyhoya34]

That is a choice made by Scott Brown and the other Senate Republicans. It now takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate - something our Framers never envisioned. And, after it was thrown into the Rules, it was not used as a matter of routine.

Since the Senate flipped in 2006, this procedure has been used more times than in all other years of its 135 year history combined.

[kchoya]

May 25, 2012 11:12:59 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

That is a choice made by Scott Brown and the other Senate Republicans. It now takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate - something our Framers never envisioned. And, after it was thrown into the Rules, it was not used as a matter of routine.

Since the Senate flipped in 2006, this procedure has been used more times than in all other years of its 135 year history combined.

A "choice" by the GOP? As if Reid and the Democrats are mere bystanders, helpless to do anything lest they upset the Republican bullies.

I don't know if your repeated attempts to frame everything to fit in to your biased narrative are laughable or sad.

[DanMcQ]

May 25, 2012 11:12:59 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

That is a choice made by Scott Brown and the other Senate Republicans.

Perhaps you should ask John 96% Kerry what he thinks of party line voting in the Senate.

It found that Brown voted with his fellow Republicans just 54 percent of the time, the second-most bipartisan ranking in the chamber.

Perhaps you should save the tar for the "other Senate Republicans" and JFK.

[jerseyhoya34]

During Brown's tenure, there have been 53 votes on cloture where there was a majority in support of the legislation/measure, and Brown voted against cloture more than 2/3 of the time. It is more likely that he just bandwagons on noncontroversial measures (or measures that stand ready to pass the 60 vote threshold) than anything else. When push comes to shove, he is another voice for obstruction.

In a calculation involving all measures, Brown would benefit from voting with the President on things like naming post offices. While Brown distinguishes himself from his colleagues who filibuster such things these days, I am not sure how helpful it is as a measure of partisanship.

[EasyEd]

For important measures why don't the Democrats just let the Republicans filibuster? That's the best way to break one.

[DanMcQ]

www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220527warren_shuts_door_on_heralds_inquiry/srvc=home&position=2

[kchoya]

May 14, 2012 11:28:04 GMT -5 Boz said:

Someone really needs to teach Elizabeth Warren the first rule of holes.

dailycaller.com/2012/05/14/elizabeth-warren-im-proud-of-my-native-american-heritage/#ooid=dkcG9vNDofr_GPTJV76tyV4giUA7O2mM

What did you say about holes?

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/what-elizabeth-warren-did-wrong/2012/05/31/gJQAou8S4U_blog.html

When the Boston Herald first reported on the fact that Warren was listed as a Native American in a faculty directory, she said that she had no previous knowledge of that fact and had not authorized Harvard to list her as a minority.

"At some point after I was hired by them, I ... provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard,” Warren said in a statement to the Boston Globe.

[rosslynhoya]

I love the notion that "what Elizabeth Warren did wrong" is potentially cost the Dems an easy Senate pickup. It's not the fact that she falsely claimed to be a minority for 30+ years whenever it was convenient for her career, nor the fact that she's spent the past month lying about that lie.