Brown accepts Kennedy debate with conditions But only if the widow of Edward Kennedy keeps her mouth shut until after the election...
You truly have no idea how hiring committees work and the role of peer-reviewed publications play in building up a candidate's curriculum vitae. I'm an ethnic minority and I never got a whiff from top tier schools b/c my publication record didn't match their standards. My wife is an ethnic minority and she got more than just whiffs b/c her publication record met/meets their standards. First and foremost at every step of the process (from requests for additional materials to initial phone or national conference interview to campus interview to final decision) is professional ability and achievement. Trust me. Just b/c Mr. Warmth is Native American doesn't mean he's going to get an interview for a faculty position at Harvard Law. Are you ****ing cereal? Maybe in the '60s and '70s. But today? No interview committee or even an entrance committee is going to say, "Let's not interview that N****r or Injun." What's insulting is that you pretend to have a clue about how racism works. It's rarely about legally justified (Jim Crow Laws), KKK / lynch mob bigotry but their legacy in social institutions and society.
Seeing as I never claimed that Warren was interviewed or hired due to any claimed minority status, your response doesn't address the point at all. Did Derrick Bell understand how race discrimination works at law schools?
Excuse me for calling your BS on your dog whistle. You said she "gamed the system". The context was/is the accusation that she used a claim of being ethnic to "game" the affirmative action system. How else do profs "game the system"? Thanks for illustrating my point. The guy is dead (RIP) after a long professional career in which he started out in the 60's and at the demand of CURRENT black students at Harvard for an actual prof of color. By the time I was in college, that work of his was done for the most part and the rest is/was fine tuning. The fine tuning still needs to be done, absolutely. Straight, white men disproportionately get tenure track jobs and are granted tenure compared to all other groups. But even by the mid-80's his work had entered a new stage. Damn. You'd think this was the GOP Fail Thread.
Fine tuning? I really don't think Professor Bell would agree with that characterization of the atmosphere at HLS during the early 90's. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/5/24/derrick-bell-harvard-law/ It is in the context of that boiling controversy that HLS and Warren were gaming the system. The school was using Warren as an example of how they were increasingly diverse, to respond to the criticism of a lack of diversity and particularly as to women of color, which was an issue facing not just Harvard but many other law schools across the country during that time period.
Professor Bell had already taken his protest leave of absence when Professor Warren came to HLS as a visiting professor from Penn. And while the HLS admin certainly touted Warren as a great female addition to the faculty, they never tried to claim to Bell or the CCR that she was a minority hire.
You mean like when Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn blocked Arvo Mikkanen's federal judicial nomination on supposed procedural grounds.
Was the issue dropped when Bell left? No, there continued to be sharp and very contentious division at Harvard about the subject. There is no evidence that she was a minority hire. Yet, Harvard reported her as being a minority (according to Warren based on information she had provided to them) on government reports and in journal articles. Meanwhile, Warren had removed herself from being listed as a Native American in the law school directory. It was like Harvard had borrowed Mitt Romney's etch a sketch. Okay, though there are probably like a million other examples, most far more unjust.
There are plenty, Cobell v. US come to mind, that it took Obama's Admin to settle (original case had Bruce Babbit's name attached to it), but it's kinda humorous that the GOP complains about Warren, while preventing Mikkanen from even getting an up/down vote in the Senate on the merits of his legal career, the staggering majority of which have nothing to do with Indian law or Indian/US GTG Relations
You're now straying from the point that you were trying to make and I was addressing. So let's recap. You said.... I responded that HLS did not try to tout Warren's hiring as a response to Bell's or the CCR's criticisms about the lack of ethnic diversity on the faculty.
I did no such thing. Carlos claimed that racial discrimination was an issue back in the 60's and 70's, but that I was reaching (to put it more politely) to tie it to the period in the 90's around Warren's tenure. I strenuously dispute this point, because the tense atmosphere at Havard Law over the issue of diversity and in particular minority women during that period is well chronicled and Bell was the main leader in bringing that issue to the forefront. Identifying Warren as a minority wasn't a coincidence or a trivial passing reference in an obscure publication. Harvard had a purpose and reason for wanting to portray itself as having minority women on the faculty. To try to use the date of Bell leaving Harvard (a mere year before Warren was a visiting instructor) is a very flimsy and artificial distinction. These weren't protests and controversy that happened decades prior and had been forgotten- nor was it an issue unique to Harvard Law and not faced or debated at other law schools. And it certainly wasn't a GOP manufactured situation- it was the left that was pushing the law schools concerning diversity at the time. So, Warmth might find it ironic for the GOP to be trying to make this an issue, but it is just as ironic for the Democrats to be so dismissive of what was going on at Harvard at the time to try to brush Warren's controversy under the rug. If the roles were reversed and Warren was the Republican candidate in this election, I would bet you that the reaction of both partisan groups would be completely flipped.
Sure, HLS wanted to portray itself as having minority women on the faculty. But, once again, my point is that HLS never specifically touted Warren's hiring as either a refutation of Bell's criticisms or a remedial measure in response to his criticisms. No one in the admin tried to argue "see, Professor Bell's concerns are overblown....we just hired Elizabeth Warren." And while Warren was very popular with the students, none of the CCR folks thought that her hiring was an attempt to assauge their concerns about the lack of diversity.
You are right that they didn't say such things when she was hired, but I think that's splitting hairs, because after she was hired the school acted differently. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1996/10/22/survey-diversity-lacking-at-hls-pa/
How exactly does one, very innocuous comment by a HLS spokesperson count as evidence that Elizabeth Warren did something wrong? You have to admit, wallace, this "issue" is a serious, serious stretch if you're looking to convince people not to vote for her. A Fast and Furious level of a stretch, even...
One innocuous comment? Not so much. http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-25/news/31852969_1_harvard-law-school-answer-elizabeth-warren
Again, how does this reflect poorly on Warren? If this pathetic excuse for a controversy is the worst thing Rove's character assassins can dig up on her, she's cleaner than every single politician in Washington today.
She told Harvard she was an Indian. Is she actually Indian? What if this was Sarah Palin and she had claimed to be a native Alaskan and the Republican party had been touting her as a minority to try to show the party as being more diverse, only to have it turn out later that there was no evidence that she was really a native? Democrats wouldn't be saying that it was a pathetic excuse for a controversy, they would be all over her.
You're aware that since childhood she had always thought she was Native American, right? Regarding your comparison: HLS = Democratic Party? Not so much. Warren = Palin? I literally can't think of two people with less in common, intellectually or ethically. Let's rewrite your comparison so that it's actually not complete bullshit, shall we? Answer: No they wouldn't. They'd be all over her because she's an ego-maniacal money-grubbing bitch who's never read a ********ing newspaper. People make mistakes. In the grand scheme, not only was this one tiny, it wasn't even her fault and says absolutely nothing about her qualities as a candidate, which are impeccable. I said it before and I'll say it again: Elizabeth Warren has more ethics in her pinky than Scott "I'm Wall Street's favorite whore" Brown does in his whole body. Seriously, do you buy all of the crap that the single most destructive political figure in the last 20 years of American politics sells?
If she thought she was Native American since childhood, why did she identify herself as being white and not as Indian on earlier applications prior to Harvard? Ethics shouldn't be graded on a curve.
I can't speak for Harvard, but it hasn't always been listed. I was 14 before I could select it for school
Let's just say that I hope that this terrible controversy is what the GOP attacks her with until November and leave it at that.
Nonsense. Ethics almost has/have to be graded on a curve. There is an obvious difference between Jefferson Davis and Heinrich Himmler even though neither of them would be a desirable candidate to any of us; and Elizabeth Warren, even if you think this mess has importance, would obviously be a preferable choice to, say, Rod Blagojevich or Al Sharpton.
Who cares who wins the election? There is more to life than politics. Warren isn't Himmler. Neither is Bill Clinton. Or John Edwards. Or Jesus Christ. So what?
Not sure of your point, ethics are graded on a curve. My senator lied about his military record, he got elected anyway. He wouldn't have been elected if he had spit roasted small childen over an open flame, with lime marinade.