Monday, April 30, 2012

Minority Status

Over at the Althouse blog we have a discussion about Democratic Party Primary Candidate Elizabeth Warren and minority hiring.  It sees that Professor Warren, at one point, put herself forward as a minority, based upon Native American heritage, but that when she was hired by Harvard she dropped that linkage.  From one Law Professor, commenting on another, we get this:
If those are the facts, what should we infer? Being on the list of minority law professors served her interest in advancement, but the claim was weak and potentially embarrassing, so it was deleted... after she achieved what was the ultimate advancement (to Harvard Law School)? I'm just guessing. Do you have a more apt inference? In any event, it's a question that goes to honesty.
And, here is the link to the original article Professor Althouse was commenting on—from The Volokh Conspiracy.

Regards  —  Cliff
at

2 comments:

  1. Anonymous4/30/2012 09:51:00 AM

    I submit that it goes more to an issue of integrity than of simple honesty. It is wrong to make sweeping indictments of groups of people simply because there are always exceptions to whatever "rule" is posed. However, when one discusses the objective facets of "integrity" in the context of today's legal profession, particularly that body within that profession who aspires to political office, the integrity track record does speak well. It suggests strongly to their almost universal sharing of characteristics found in a certain class of the lizard family.

    In the case of Warren, I would submit that she also shares characteristics found in another form of reptile.

    Seems to be a characteristic shared throughout the vaunted Hahvawd faculty.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The New Englander4/30/2012 06:06:00 PM

    This whole thing fascinates me, on multiple levels.

    First, there's the whole thing about outwardly white Americans needing to compete with each other about who had an ancestor of some-such group, and what credibility that ought to lend them [but wait, I thought superiority based on birthright was something we were supposed to AVOID here in this great breakaway from a monarchy].

    Second, there's the issue of what you're obligated to say when someone falsifies your record unintentionally. As you and I talked about today (thanks for coming by the office, by the way...was great to see you and it had been a while), there's a certain imperative to correct people that float something about you that's not true.

    At some point, she obviously had to realize it was being said as a way to identify her, regardless of whether she *started* it.

    ReplyDelete

Please be forthright, but please consider that this is not a barracks.