I have a busy day, & am heading out the door but, wanted to comment on this quickly before I bounce.
Uh..... getting in to, or becoming faculty at Harvard ...? Many big time Universities favor minorities in their recruitment. It certainly didn't hurt her, to claim she was Native American. They in fact, referred to her as a minority.
See your making massive amount of unsubstantiated assumptions though. She was included in some article about minority professors after already being a teacher at Harvard. You have to first establish she labeled or was considered that during hiring and that it made an impact, which you have not.
In fact that University of Houston application shows her specifically choosing "Other" and not other minority classifications, basically choosing what a White person would choose. It says nothing about whether she was Native or not consequently.
As to Harvard, I'm guessing you didn't read the article I mentioned which includes a wealth of investigation on the subject:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html
----
The 60-plus Harvard Law School professors who filed into an auditorium-style room on the first floor of Pound Hall on that February 1993 afternoon had a significant question to answer: Should they offer a job to Elizabeth Warren?
The atmosphere was a little fraught. Outside the hall, students held a silent vigil to demand the law school add more minorities and women to a faculty dominated by white men.
The discussion among Harvard professors inside that room is supposed to remain a secret, but it’s still being dissected a quarter of a century later because the resulting vote set Warren on her way to becoming a national figure and a favored target for conservative critics, among them, notably and caustically, President Trump.
In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.
The Globe examined hundreds of documents, many of them never before available, and reached out to all 52 of the law professors who are still living and were eligible to be in that Pound Hall room at Harvard Law School. Some are Warren’s allies. Others are not. Thirty-one agreed to talk to the Globe — including the law professor who was, at the time, in charge of recruiting minority faculty. Most said they were unaware of her claims to Native American heritage and all but one of the 31 said those claims were not discussed as part of her hire. One professor told the Globe he is unsure whether her heritage came up, but is certain that, if it did, it had no bearing on his vote on Warren’s appointment.
----
They continue in a lengthy article documenting and citing this.
I'll do more work for you (what you should have done before making assumptions on a claim without any backing):
----
The Globe also reviewed, for the first time, a Harvard University human resources form showing that Warren first listed her ethnicity as Native American nearly five months after she started her tenured position at Harvard and 2½ years after she was there as a visiting professor and first offered the job.
----
As I mentioned in my very first response on this topic, she used the Native American label on a later form, not included with her hiring. She didn't know how that form would be used. This is what resulted in that article you were talking about.
I already listed this article and this article came out a year ago, but let me do more work for you:
Nope, didn't apply as a minority here either
let me repost the one you did where she chose the option any White would choose, the non-minority option
----
Warren went to the University of Texas in 1981 as a visiting professor, essentially a yearlong job interview. She was hired full time in 1983.
Records from Texas show that Warren was consistent when asked to indicate her ethnicity: The box “white” is checked on personnel forms from 1981, 1985, and 1988.
----
So when did she mention it elsewhere, that's documented too
----
IN WHAT WOULD be her final year at the University of Texas, Warren made a decision that would come to haunt her: She listed herself in the Association of American Law Schools annual directory as a minority law professor.
The organization debuted its list of minority law professors in the 1986-1987 edition, and Warren’s name appears in bold on page 1055 of the volume. It was listed the same way in each of the next eight editions.
----
Did that drive her next job offer, the less researched have claimed yes, but clear evidence shows no
----
Penn, records show, had been courting Warren for some time. In 1984, before she was listed by AALS as a minority, the school had offered to have her visit for a year, according to a document reviewed by the Globe. She declined. By November 1986, Penn had lost several of its legal history professors, which is Mann’s specialty, so it asked again, this time inviting the couple to come for a year.
But they said no. They weren’t interested in uprooting their lives just for a one-year opportunity, even if it was the Ivy League.
----
She had already turned them down before that minority directory.
Even more as I already mentioned she was included in documentation that she was "white" where they had to justify not going for a minority hire
----
As Penn recruited Warren, one thing that was not a consideration was her race.
The Globe reviewed a never-before-reported 10-page faculty equal opportunity compliance statement form filled out by Penn’s law school’s affirmative action officer and the dean in April 1987. The form described the extensive efforts the school made to find a black, Hispanic, Asian, or American Indian candidate for the commercial law position Warren had landed.
The document, which was shared with the Globe by Stephen Burbank, a law professor at Penn who kept it for three decades in a box with other personnel files, concludes that Warren was the best for the job despite being, as they put it, “white.” Burbank was, at the time, a member of the appointments committee and on a subcommittee charged with reviewing all minority prospects.
...
The form includes a chart showing that 424 candidates were considered. Sixty-three were females. And 16 were minorities — all black. The university reported that it didn’t consider a single Asian, Hispanic, or American Indian for the job.
The form includes a written defense for the decision. “The members of the appointments committee, in discussing the appointment of Elizabeth Warren with external referees, specifically asked whether there were any minority candidates of equal or better stature,” according to a paragraph on the form. “None of the persons indicated that there was an equal or better minority candidate.”
----
They also cover when she started identifying as such, as cited her she did after being hired so it wasn't part of her hiring, so why do it? Surprise surprise it wasn't about getting hired, it was about her believing stories about her heritage. Like other people, say us Confederate descendants, she believed family stories and started associating herself with that heritage. A bit naively for sure, but this naivety is common.
----
Nearly three years after Warren accepted the job at the University of Pennsylvania, university records show that she asserted her Native American heritage again: She had Penn switch her listed ethnicity from “white” to “Native American.”
It is a move that, especially for her critics, raises the question: If Warren didn’t make the change to get ahead professionally, then why do it at all?
The senator, in the interview with the Globe, offered to fill out this part of her personal story. Yes, her career was taking off, she said, but she was also losing her family.
Warren said she had always identified closely with her mother’s side of the family: a sprawling and rowdy group with scant resources who looked after one another, and who, according to family lore, have Cherokee and Delaware blood.
When her grandmother died in 1969, Warren’s mother and three aunts led the family and further impressed on her their proud Cherokee connection.
....
----
It goes further on more specifics. How being from the West she felt out of place in the East Coast Ivy League, so she focused on her Oklahoma heritage (which included those Native stories), etc. I won't cite it all here, not even sure if you care since you clearly did so little to look into this before proclaiming it from the mountain tops.
As early mentioned there is ample evidence this was not a factor in her hiring at Harvard, here's some more
----
Perhaps most telling was the role of Randall Kennedy, a law professor who was on the Harvard appointments committee at the time, and was in charge of recruiting minority candidates.
“She was not on the radar screen at all in terms of a racial minority hire,” Kennedy told the Globe. “It was just not an issue. I can’t remember anybody ever mentioning her in this context.”
This view is shared by those on the faculty who aren’t close with Warren, ideologically or personally.
“This is a made-up issue,” said Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor emeritus and occasional Trump defender, when asked if her heritage played a role. “This is not an issue that’s worthy of the president or anyone else.”
Others sounded a note of exasperation that the Globe was examining this question again.
“It had nothing to do with our consideration and deliberation,” said Charles Fried, the former solicitor general to president Ronald Reagan and a member of the Harvard Law School appointments committee at the time. “How many times do you have to have the same thing explained to you?”
----
I'll leave the rest of the details for you to research. This is all stuff you should have researched before making strong claims!
Do I agree with her various times identifying in her past as Indian. Personally no. Legally you are wrong, "race" is a non-specific identity. There's no law for example for when a Black person has to call themselves Black. 23andme did a survey and they found that people with 25% or more African DNA usually identified as Black, below as White. It's a self identification thing. Yes there are legal qualifications for these identities for
specific benefits. Which you have to have at least some evidence that person gained that benefit and didn't fit a specific qualification. For race like black or Native American this often gets specific to the benefit too. Much like tribal membership is different per tribe.
That White looking guy in that video I posted only 1/32nd, but he was the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation for 8 years. Again John Ross who was the Chief during the trail of tears was only 1/8th and likewise his pictures look just White. Even then facial features are an
inaccurate way to judge native ancestry. Certain European ethnicity can produce similar features, also certain mixtures of Black and White blood can produce those same features (like long straight black hair).
Personally I don't think she should have identified as Native American, though as a White person what ownership do I have on racial identity for people. I'll ding her appropriately, these claims changed into Native heritage in anything close to recent times. This is why your citation of DNA is especially flawed. The claims along with the DNA are accurate and fit the qualification you said you are fine with. Likewise as federally recognized tribes like the Cherokee Nation don't require a specific blood percentage it's a particularly weak basis to argue on (even if you had cited her Native DNA correctly, which you didn't).
This is why I said what I said
"You pulled these stock propaganda lines on the wrong person man"
If self identifying in a way that doesn't have any evidence it influenced her being hired or other specific benefits 20-40 years ago is enough for you to harp on it as a big deal. Sure. Go for it. The evidence doesn't support anything more than that though, unless you have some secret stash somewhere that's not available in other investigations.
Personally I'll ding her on that. It's not the largest thing I don't like about her personally, though I do like her for various things as well. Also plenty of liberals do in fact not like her and criticize her for this, but again for bigger things than this. It's just not a big deal with the current evidence out for most people. There is
far more false representation of all that is listed above by those attacking her than all of her cases of representing herself as Indian. So I'll hold stronger criticism for those spreading false information to a greater degree.
I generally tire of doing work for other people though. If you haven't done the research to back up a claim (such as yours that it influenced her hiring at Harvard) then just don't make the claim, or do the work to validate it. No ones forcing you to say these things.
