Bontesla: Apocalyptic Inferno: Bontesla: Dusk-You-n-Me: ace in your face: I don't know anything about this race right now, but all that aside, claiming to be native when you might possibly be 1/32 native is incredibly disingenuous and weird.

Bill John Baker is only 1/32 Cherokee, and he's the Cherokee Nation Principal Chief.

This CANNOT be repeated enough.

Repeating it once was pointless because it's irrelevant. It's not just the number 1/32 that's the problem. She is white, not just by majority ethnicity, but culturally. She has no cultural or societal ties whatsoever to the native tribe. Apart from "hearing stories" growing up, she in no way identifies with the native tribe, nor has she made any effort to involve herself in the culture or in issues relevant to the Cherokee. She is socially, culturally and traditionally white and nothing else. But, she checked the box, legally, and that allowed Harvard to tout their diversity. It is disingenuous.

Bill John Baker, on the other hand, while also being 1/32 Cherokee is quite obviously the opposite and identifies with the Cherokee culturally and has been immensely involved in the tribe. I'm only 3 generations removed from Germany, but don't call myself German because it's ridiculous.

You do realize that identifying one's self, culturally, does not sufficiently meet the requirement to be considered a member of the Cherokee nation.

You must also realize that your personal preference does not qualify as standard-setting.

Warren fits the minimum requirement. Her fulfillment of this qualification has been commonly accepted by other institutions and organization (Harvard, for example).

While you may disagree with the common practice of recognizing someone this far down the line as having Cherokee heritage - perhaps there is a reason for this practice (a genocide and general "whitening" of the tribes).

Obviously Warren understood her heritage enough to claim and self-identify with it. Is it not entirely possible that sh ...

I acknowledged that what she did was legal, and yes it does fit the current minimum requirement. However, as I stated before, I think it's still disingenuous. She is in no way Cherokee nor, apparently, has she ever made an effort to involve herself with the Cherokee. She is culturally, traditionally and socially white and always has been. What she did was perfectly legal, but I would not do the same.

This is such a non-story, it makes my head hurt to think about.

EyeballKid: Debeo Summa Credo: The New York Post had a poll today showing Romney up 1%. Maybe its because I spend so much time on Fark and Fark these days is about 90% liberal, but how could these races be so close?

I'm sorry, I misread you and now understand that you are an intellectual beyond compare, not like these common rubes.

Now, would you be interested in a once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity that involves a limited number of magic beans I was able to obtain?

Sigh. Forget the NY Post. Here's a link from politico:

Link

There's a national poll there conducted by George Washington University that has Romney up a point. Understanding there's margin of error and it's only may, but how is it even close to even at this point?

Yesterday I visited Breitbart and noticed right at the top (along with Big This and Big That) was Big Peace.

Big Peace gonna come git ya. Make your shiat all peaceful. Be very afraid.

Big Peace!!

I don't have a GED in psychology, but I detect some issues here.

keylock71: liam76: A professor should be alittle mor ehonest about these things than a students.

Again, as far as I can tell, she is 1/32 Cherokee. I don't think she's claiming to be a direct descendant of Wilma Mankiller, so big deal... She got listed as a minority professor to pad the University's "diversity numbers".

She didn't "get listed" she chose that.

And if you think "diversity" is important (as I am pretty sure she does) then that is very dishonest.



Azlefty: liam76: I hands down want her to win over Brown, but claiming minority status based off being 1/32 something is at best a stupid thing to do. And her claim of "wanting to be invited to events with simliar people" is complete BS.

I know of tribes who have lowered their Blood Quantum down to 1/128 in order to have more than 3 tribal members, in California 1/64 is not uncommon

I think those "tribal members" do a bit more then say, "hey I am part Indian".



Jackson Herring: liam76: prove

Oh, I see, you believed the lie in the article.

Oh, I see. You are going to pick one word out of my post and expect me to chase down answers for you when you are too lazy/stupid to get the post.

We get it. She's Indian.

keylock71: liam76: She didn't "get listed" she chose that.

And if you think "diversity" is important (as I am pretty sure she does) then that is very dishonest.

I couldn't care less, to be honest with you.
She also stopped listing herself in that manner back in the 90s, apparently.
Of all the issues in this particular campaign, as a MA resident living in an area of the state with some of the highest unemployment numbers and poverty rates, this issue is so far down on my list of concerns, it means almost nothing to me.

you don't care about integrity? interesting.

So she took the Clarence Thomas route?

Shelly Lowe, executive director of Harvard University's Native American Program (HUNAP), told Breitbart News today that U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren had not, to her knowledge, participated in the program's events while Warren was a professor at Harvard.

Based on their track record I'd assume she actually told Breitbart that Warren had extensive interest and attended events regularly.

Wow, some people get REALLY worked up about the precise details of other people's racial history.

Dear GOP: If don't want people to think that you're racist, you need to stop bringing up your opponents' races as a campaign issue. This sort weird Pavlovian response to the merest hint of non-european ancestry is really creepy to everyone else.

Theaetetus: skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: Apocalyptic Inferno: I acknowledged that what she did was legal, and yes it does fit the current minimum requirement. However, as I stated before, I think it's still disingenuous. She is in no way Cherokee nor, apparently, has she ever made an effort to involve herself with the Cherokee. She is culturally, traditionally and socially white and always has been. What she did was perfectly legal, but I would not do the same.

I can't believe you actually think a Breitbart.com story about a Democrat is actually true.

what's not true about it?

Subby's headline, which has nothing to do with the article.

The only thing it the headline that isn't in the article is the "extra paycheck money."

As you are no doubt aware, Fark headlines are often not totally in line with the article.

But then again, the headline is not the Breitbart.com story either.

cameroncrazy1984: Apparently in order to "be white" I need to stop going to hip-hop events and basketball games, since to be genetically a race, I have to attend white people activities.

No, but you probably shouldn't put down on any official paperwork that you're 1/32 African-American.

Apocalyptic Inferno: She is in no way Cherokee nor, apparently, has she ever made an effort to involve herself with the Cherokee. She is culturally, traditionally and socially white and always has been. What she did was perfectly legal, but I would not do the same.

Shorter white guy: Minorities should act exactly how I think they act, otherwise it doesn't count.

keylock71: I couldn't care less, to be honest with you.
She also stopped listing herself in that manner back in the 90s, apparently.
Of all the issues in this particular campaign, as a MA resident living in an area of the state with some of the highest unemployment numbers and poverty rates, this issue is so far down on my list of concerns, it means almost nothing to me

It speaks to her integrity.

I agree in terms of issues, who gives a fark, and I would still vote for her, but you are burying your head in the sand and rooting for your "team" if you don;t see a problem here.


Jackson Herring: liam76: one word out of my post

right, I just picked a random word from your post, completely out of context. not a word that you bolded for some reason

You did pick it out of context. It wasn't even something I said.

You also ignored the other bolded requirement.

Did she have proof in 1963, and did she apply for membership in that tribe? No. So according to the standard presented she isn't Indian.


Jackson Herring: liam76: if you think "diversity" is important (as I am pretty sure she does)

ah I see, you are going down this river of shiat again

The river of shiat where you clip what I say and ignore the context?

The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: Apparently in order to "be white" I need to stop going to hip-hop events and basketball games, since to be genetically a race, I have to attend white people activities.

No, but you probably shouldn't put down on any official paperwork that you're 1/32 African-American.

even if it's true?

yourgodsucks: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: Apparently in order to "be white" I need to stop going to hip-hop events and basketball games, since to be genetically a race, I have to attend white people activities.

No, but you probably shouldn't put down on any official paperwork that you're 1/32 African-American.

even if it's true?

yeah, that and the earth being more than 6000 years old.

mark rathburn
2012-05-08 12:15:06 PM
keylock71: You've got a strange definition of "ass kicking", my friend:

Massachusetts Senate - Brown vs. Warren


Yeah...your link has Brown winning in almost every single poll - us right-wing pussies are scared shiatless, 'my friend'

3 out of the 5 polls listed are a statistical dead heat, and the other two are split. An incumbent should be much further ahead than that. You should be scared.

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: That's a nice wall o' text there, but do you have any actual proof Warren ever used affirmative action?

She was listed as a minority candidate in the AALS directory from 1986 to 1995, which was at the time the primary recruiting tool used by law schools to hire new professors. It is impossible to know if Warren was interviewed or hired by a law school based on her listing as a minority, because the law schools do not (and should not) report the details of how they make their hiring decisions. She was also counted as minority faculty at both Texas and Pennsylvania for purposes of reported 'faculty diversity' which is tracked by both AALS and US News and is used in their ranking scheme. That certainly benefits those employers, which also means that if those employers had a 'diversity goal' they were trying to reach (which most law schools do) then Warren took a spot that was intended to go to an underrepresented minority.

So there certainly is some evidence, though it's not overwhelming by any means. It won't convince anyone on FARK who has already made up their mind that this is all just a Breitbart manufactured scandal. Never mind the fact that the story was originally reported by the Boston Herald and has since been followed up both there and in the Washington Post, which are hardly sources that can be dismissed as having a conservative bias.

This isn't a criminal trial, I'm not trying to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not even trying to win a civil case by preponderance of the evidence. I'm trying to establish that there is at least the appearance of impropriety sufficient to warrant further explanation, contrary to the general opinion on FARK that this is a non story or something completely made up by a conservative conspiracy.

For what it's worth, people in Massachusetts have been fired for behavior analogous to Warren's in the past. In 1992 two brothers who were firefighters in Boston were fired for claiming to be black on employment applications. Both cited as support for their black ancestry that they had a single African American great grandmother. They were fired after an administrative hearing concluded that they didn't qualify as black. The hearing applied a test that looked at their physical appearance and how they held themselves out in the community, in addition to the family documentation. Cite.

Also, my original post was roughly 450 words. I realize that's too long for a single tweet, but if that's a 'wall of text' to you then I am genuinely sorry for both you and whoever had the grim task of trying to educate you.

mark rathburn: Libs, please save some of your butthurt for November. You're going to need it

What do you know about libs? You just got here less than a week ago.

Talondel: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: That's a nice wall o' text there, but do you have any actual proof Warren ever used affirmative action?

She was listed as a minority candidate in the AALS directory from 1986 to 1995, which was at the time the primary recruiting tool used by law schools to hire new professors. It is impossible to know if Warren was interviewed or hired by a law school based on her listing as a minority, because the law schools do not (and should not) report the details of how they make their hiring decisions. She was also counted as minority faculty at both Texas and Pennsylvania for purposes of reported 'faculty diversity' which is tracked by both AALS and US News and is used in their ranking scheme. That certainly benefits those employers, which also means that if those employers had a 'diversity goal' they were trying to reach (which most law schools do) then Warren took a spot that was intended to go to an underrepresented minority.

So there certainly is some evidence, though it's not overwhelming by any means. It won't convince anyone on FARK who has already made up their mind that this is all just a Breitbart manufactured scandal. Never mind the fact that the story was originally reported by the Boston Herald and has since been followed up both there and in the Washington Post, which are hardly sources that can be dismissed as having a conservative bias.

This isn't a criminal trial, I'm not trying to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not even trying to win a civil case by preponderance of the evidence. I'm trying to establish that there is at least the appearance of impropriety sufficient to warrant further explanation, contrary to the general opinion on FARK that this is a non story or something completely made up by a conservative conspiracy.

For what it's worth, people in Massachusetts have been fired for behavior analogous to Warren's in the past. In 1992 two brothers who were firefighters in Boston were fired for claiming to be black on ...

Very good post. The point here is that she decided to list herself as Native American even though she was 1/32nd native american and had no links to the tribe, for some reason. She says the reason was to meet people, but it's pretty clear that she did it because it could have potentially worked to her advantage. Only a minor issue IMO, but a bit embarrassing and funny.

One comment on your post, the Wash Post isn't conservative, but the Boston Herald definitely is.

andersoncouncil42: mark rathburn
2012-05-08 12:15:06 PM
keylock71: You've got a strange definition of "ass kicking", my friend:

Massachusetts Senate - Brown vs. Warren


Yeah...your link has Brown winning in almost every single poll - us right-wing pussies are scared shiatless, 'my friend'

3 out of the 5 polls listed are a statistical dead heat, and the other two are split. An incumbent should be much further ahead than that. You should be scared.

A democrat in Massachusetts should be far ahead of a truck driving republican. You should be perplexed.

I_C_Weener: What scares you about Brown?

He is a republican...

Debeo Summa Credo: One comment on your post, the Wash Post isn't conservative, but the Boston Herald definitely is.

Thank you for the correction.

"What do you know about libs?
You just got here less than a
week ago."

because it's impossible to read Fark unless you are registered to comment?

actually smarter then many comments I've read here. I know all I need to know about liberals, thanks anyway

phritz: Wow, some people get REALLY worked up about the precise details of other people's racial history.

Dear GOP: If don't want people to think that you're racist, you need to stop bringing up your opponents' races as a campaign issue. This sort weird Pavlovian response to the merest hint of non-european ancestry is really creepy to everyone else.

One more time for the 100+ posters in this thread who can't seem to understand why this might just be an issue. It has nothing to do with whether or not she lied (she didn't) and nothing to do with whether or not she should be allowed to self identify as Native if she wishes.

It has everything to do with whether or not Elizabeth Warren is the person that affirmative action hiring programs are intended to benefit. Warren knew perfectly well what it meant to check the 'minority' box on her AALS profile. It meant she would receive preferential treatment from law schools for purposes of hiring, and that those law schools would report her as a minority candidate for purposes of tracking their diversity.

We (as a society) give preferences to certain minorities in higher education. The rational for these racial preferences is that certain groups have been historically disadvantaged, and therefore the system should compensate them in order to promote racial diversity. See, Grutter v. Bollinger. Warren knows full well that she's not the intended beneficiary of law school affirmative action programs, yet she checked the box identifying herself as an underrepresented minority anyway, and she allowed her employers to report her as a minority anyway. This behavior completely undermines the intended purpose of AA programs. They don't exist to benefit Warren, and she knows that. EVERYONE who works in legal academia knows that.

The test for whether or not race based discrimination is constitutional is that it must be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest. In the case of higher education, the compelling government interest is remedying past institutionalized discrimination. What past institutional discrimination does Warren need help overcoming? The Supreme Court has said recently that affirmative action programs are acceptable because they are narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of remedying past discrimination. If Elizabeth Warren and her higher education employers are counting her as a minority candidate for purposes of affirmative action, then it's pretty clear that the programs aren't actually 'narrowly tailored' at all.

If anyone's behavior in this story is harmful to minorities, it's Warren's.

/If you really want to stop making race an issue, stop allowing the government to give people preferential treatment based on race.

rufus-t-firefly: Thune: LordJiro: Thune: You guys are pathetic.

Is there ANYTHING of any level of depravity that a progressive can do that you won't instantly start deflecting for?

...Says the idiot deflecting for Breitbart. Which, I shall remind you, is a site so well-known for lying that its name has become a synonym for lying.

Is this a lie?

No. She has already admitted to it.

SO what is your excuse now?

Please cite.

Oh, wait, you can't.

A record unearthed Monday shows that Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has a great-great-great grandmother listed in an 1894 document as a Cherokee, said a genealogist at the New England Historic and Genealogy Society.

The shred of evidence could validate her claim that she has Native American ancestry, making her 1/32 American Indian, but may not put an end to the questions swirling around the subject.

Link

Original documents of that were never found. The claim is still under investigation.

cameroncrazy1984: Apocalyptic Inferno: I acknowledged that what she did was legal, and yes it does fit the current minimum requirement. However, as I stated before, I think it's still disingenuous. She is in no way Cherokee nor, apparently, has she ever made an effort to involve herself with the Cherokee. She is culturally, traditionally and socially white and always has been. What she did was perfectly legal, but I would not do the same.

I can't believe you actually think a Breitbart.com story about a Democrat is actually true.

Nothing I said was based on anything Breitbart.com had to say on the subject.

mark rathburn: "What do you know about libs?
You just got here less than a
week ago."

because it's impossible to read Fark unless you are registered to comment?

actually smarter then many comments I've read here. I know all I need to know about liberals, thanks anyway

1. There is a quote button so you everyone knows who you are quoting.
2. Then vs. Than. Learn it, love it, live it.

/ not a scary liberal...

biological ali, I think what talondel is saying is that the whole affirmative action scam has run its course, is now doing more harm than good because of the potential for fraud and abuse (see Warren, Elizabeth), and should be scrapped

JusticeandIndependence: mark rathburn: "What do you know about libs?
You just got here less than a
week ago."

because it's impossible to read Fark unless you are registered to comment?

actually smarter then many comments I've read here. I know all I need to know about liberals, thanks anyway

1. There is a quote button so you/everyone knows who you are quoting.
2. Then vs. Than. Learn it, love it, live it.

/ not a scary liberal...

Not sure what happened to some of my post.... FTFM