Of course not-- it didn't fit the narrative being developed. BTW did you know, Obama is helples swithout teleprompters; oh, and and voter fraud is a threat to our way of life?
I think it is a rather silly issue, but aside from it as a political football I am interested in it from a different perspective as it impacts the legal profession. The issue to me isn't whether it helped Warren herself, but how it impacted or potentially impacted other people. Racial diversity is an issue in the legal profession and in law schools in particular. Did any of the schools she worked for count her as a minority for other purposes- i.e. statistics in marketing to prospective students, hiring decisions of other professors, reporting diversity statistics to other bodies? Because if you treat white people as minorities, it can make your school or your professional field appear to be more diverse than it is in reality. This is even more of a statistical issue when you have a smaller population size and when many people (as is often the case in America) have some degree of mixed ethnicity. A person can skew the stats by making arbitrary determinations about which category to put individuals.
FWIW I think this works for a lot of potential Brown voters (just by looking at my immediate circle) My mother, a formerly very liberal woman who voted for Obama, is a big fan of Brown, and thinks this is a "huge deal" even when I tried to explain the nuances of native American identity etc, it didn't matter. She disingenuously advanced her career and "took a spot" from someone else. To her all Warren's accomplishments are invalidated. (Insignificant as they were to someone like my mother) And all the tea-partiers in life think she is (i'm quoting) "scum" for it. And the right-leaning local TV media is making it a big deal as well.
Well, it's bigger than that, even though I agree with you in principle. I think this whole issue comes back, as it always does, to affirmative action. Conservatives, and I'm not trying to tar the Republican party only here, have always been threatened by affirmative action because it threatens the old guard, the old ways, the old pathways, more than anything program in the past 50 years. There's a certain order to the world when Biff and Buffy are able to hold the same place and have the same prestige as their parents did. It reflects the success of their breeding. But, when you have people from outside their circle breaking in, well, that is a threat. To their very way of life. I think it is more than just character assassination in the political season. It represents what they feel is a threat to their vision of America.
Yeah, well... their vision of America is shit, much like the actual areas of the country where they hold power.
What a crock. AA is a system intended to make things fair by making them unfair. The idea of "whites need not apply" being a threat to an incorrect vision of America is nonsense.
Damn shame. Before we had affirmative action, we had a true and pure meritocracy. It was not the least bit unfair, unlike now.
Not at all. Replacing unfair with unfair doesn't make a system fair. It might make you feel better but it doesn't promote equality.
Keep them all down, all colors, all genders. Labor costs are killing me. Dog watchers, roofers, babysitters, house cleaners, hookers, college professors, they all want too much money. More supply, less demand please.
You're thinking about it incorrectly. You're not replacing unfair with unfair - you're offsetting unfair. Semantics solve problems. Also, the true beneficiary of affirmative action isn't the preferred candidate, but the organization as a whole, which benefits from the likelihood of disruptive ideas that would come from going outside the usual recruitment pool. For education institutions, diversity in and of itself provides added value to the overall educational experience. And no one is punished - you don't worry whether a candidate A has a GPA that's 0.01 higher than candidate B - either they're qualified or they're not. Plus, I don't see too many anti-affirmative action warriors complaining about how rural candidates get preferred treatment over urban and suburban candidates, and how the emphasis on class rank punishes kids who are merely middle of the road at competitive schools. Why do these people single out race? Why the bigotry against racial preference? Anyway, all of this diaper-soiling over AA misses the point - whether or not Elizabeth Warren benefitted from affirmative action is immaterial. Clearly, she turned out to be a pretty excellent adult human. We don't know if this theoretical applicant that Warren displaced would have been on a path to greatness. But we do know that Warren was.
A friend of mine talked last year to a soccer coach at an elite university. The coach said that the test scores that kids need to be admitted to his college vary by geography as well as race. He said that a kid from South Dakota was on the same footing as a black kid from Illinois, they both needed an ACT of about 25 to get past the admissions office. Whereas a white kid from Illinois had to be in the low 30s. Then the people in South Dakota bemoan affirmative action.
The part that bothers me is that Warren doesn't add racial diversity in the way that the concept of affirmative action was intended. So, the problem isn't that she's taking a spot away from a white person, it is that she should be considered to be white and by listing her as a minority it potentially has a negative impact on the candidacy of other people who might add actual diversity to the school.
That and she sought an advantage by claiming a heritage she had no right claiming. Her entire family story was based on lies.
First Warren is in trouble for not being a real American, and now the National Review has caught her in the act of plagiarism from the book “Getting on the Money Track” by Rob Black. She's sinking like a stone.
She is definitely the target du jour on the right this election season, isn't she? Sure sign she's doing something right if you ask me...
Yep. But she is also the poster child for why I wouldn't consider running for dog catcher. Who would want to subject themselves to the type of attacks we have in politics these days. What do you want to bet a significant portion of the MA electorate will forever respond positively when asked if Warren is a plagiarist because they will only recall the initial story that her book copied someone word for word when in actuality, she was the victim?