Clay Jones for May 28, 2016

The eternal Trump sensitivity. It was acquired with the silver spoon he was born with. Scott Adams did point out a valid point on his insulting names being well planned, by the, good writers working for him to make it look off the cuff.

Chicken Trump is in no position to be calling anybody names. He bailed on a debate with Sanders

Here’s what wiki says about this controversy:“In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that from 1986 to 1995 Warren had listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories.67 Harvard Law School had publicized her minority status in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity, but Warren said that she was unaware of this until she read about it in a newspaper during the 2012 election.676869 Scott Brown, her Republican opponent in the Senate race, speculated that she had fabricated Native American heritage to gain advantage in hiring.707172 Former colleagues and supervisors at universities where she had worked stated that Warren’s ancestry played no role in her hiring.68697273 Warren responded to the allegations saying that she had self-identified as a minority in the directories in order to meet others with similar tribal roots.74 Her brothers defended her, stating that they “grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage”.75 In her 2014 autobiography, Warren described the allegations as untrue and hurtful.76 The New England Historic Genealogical Society found a family newsletter that alluded to a marriage license application that listed Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great grandmother as a Cherokee, but could not find the primary document and found no proof of her descent.727778 The Oklahoma Historical Society said that finding a definitive answer about Native American heritage can be difficult because of intermarriage and deliberate avoidance of registration.79"And other searches show that in her extended family others also know the story of their native ancestry.So it seems that (1) her claim to have native ancestry could well be true(2) She did not use any such claim in order to gain any position(3) Her claim did not in fact play any role in her hiring.There’s nothing here, and anyone who spreads this is either ignorant or biased.

I can sympathize, also having Cherokee ancestors (Crawford County, GA). I have often stated mixed ancestry as witness to the hybrid vigor that made this country great and protesting the Aryan Meisterraßeprincep currently popular in some political circles that are trying to destroy that greatness. I have never been required to give my genealogy in a job application, and if I had, would have protested I was not applying as breeding stock.

Good toon. Trump is a school yard bully.

Herr Dumpf declares the California drought is a liberal hoax.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/28/donald-trump-tells-californians-there-no-drought/85082174/

And people want to vote for this megalomaniac

The really offensive part is that Republicans/Fox “news” viewers believe that the ‘Pocahontas’ stuff is a real response to the criticism that she leveled at Trump.

If you were paying attention, you’d notice that he had no counter to her criticism. Zero.

In a speech he said he’s a businessman and is supposed to make money off other people’s misery. He left that last part out, knowing that the poorly educated are unable to make that kind of connection.

Trump’s bigotry is not an unfortunate side-story. He has no other story. It’s the only reason he’s so popular. Many bigoted white people are tired of having to show politeness to people who are so much lesser than them, and Trump tells them that it’s okay, even admirable, to mock people for their heritage, the color of the skin, their ancestral origin, or the way they walk. He’s a vile, ignorant character, and a perfect example of modern American conservatism. .

If her notion of Liawatha’s ‘ancestry’ had any relation to reality and wasn’t the basis of a career advancing affirmative action fraud, then DT would be remiss. I would think the depicted audience member would be pleased at the sobriquet as heroic.

I know, but the lack of a reply in itself has meaning.

I strongly suggest you remove that crude and uncalled-for comment.

Northern RedmanOr at least use her white master race name, Ms Rebecca Roulfe.

“Pocahontas??? Where did that come from? Back in her home town they call her by her real Native American name – Grey Beaver.”

Your basic Trump voter refuting criticism of Trump.

Here’s a paragraph from the first article you cite:“Two key people who recruited her to Harvard have said they did not know of her purported heritage or take it into account when hiring her. The school did not promote her as a Native American when she was hired, despite the fact that it was under intense pressure to diversify its faculty with more minorities.”

I’ve read what you cite, and I don’t find that it changes anything that I said. In fact, I read them before I posted anything, so there was nothing new to me.I think we can agree that Warren has claimed to have native ancestry, specifically Cherokee. I don’t dispute that. It seems clear that she did not make this up. The story is widely, though not universally known, among both her immediate and her extended family. It may well be true, though it is undocumented. Big deal so far. Probably most families have undocumented stories about their ancestors, some true, some false, some true but undocumented. I can tell some from my family, but who cares?When would this become a deal? If Warren had invented this story in order to gain some benefit, or perhaps, though at a remove, if she had obtained some benefit without asking for it. What seems to be missing from anything that I have seen is any evidence that Warren ever tried to use this story to gain a benefit, or that she ever did gain a benefit from it. Now if it happens to be true and she or someone else legitimately obtained a benefit, then that also would be No Big Deal. My judgment is that the story probably is true but that she did not attempt to obtain any benefit from it.So my question is simple and direct: Do you have evidence that she attempted to obtain a benefit from this claim? Nothing that you have posted so far says so.

I don’t see any evidence that she received a benefit or tried to receive a benefit from claiming that she had native ancestry. I’ve been on academic hiring committees, in fact a couple of times I’ve been the Affirmative Action Officer for hiring, and we require first a formal statement by the applicant if the applicant wishes to claim membership in an Affirmative Action Category, and then we have to make a statement to the Dean, in writing, about any applicant who makes such a claim, and we have to make a written statement about why we did or did not hire anyone who makes a claim. All this is part of the record. So far as I know no one has been able to produce such a record for Warren. On the contrary, people who were on the hiring committee have said that they were not aware of any such claim and that no such claim had any bearing on her hiring. If you don’t have the evidence, you have nothing. If you are able to show me some actual evidence that she made the claim as part of her application or that the claim had a bearing on her hiring, then I will look at it. If you don’t have that evidence, then there’s no point discussing the point any further.

Well, since you ask, I taught at Harvard in 1992-94, but not in the law school. Where in the article does it say that she checked the box?

Here are some passages from the article you cite:

“At some point after I was hired by them, I . . . provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard,’’ she said in a statement issued by her campaign.

In a May 2 interview with the Globe, Warren suggested that she did not list her ethnicity on applications because she was personally recruited by the universities where she taught. Asked how the issue first came up or how she first reported herself as a minority, she said, “But that’s what I’m trying to say – there was no, there is no reporting for this. It came up in lunch conversation once with faculty, after the fact.’’

Before Warren’s time in the Ivy League – in the early 1980s – she indicated on an official University of Texas form that she was white. She also had the option to indicate Native American heritage at that point, but did not check that box.

On Wednesday, Breitbart.com reported that Robert Clark, former dean of the law school, said that to the best of his recollection, he was unaware of her purported ancestry when she was offered the job in February 1993, but learned of it before she joined the faculty in 1995.

Professor Charles Fried, who sat on the committee that recruited Warren, reiterated to the Globe on Wednesday that he was unaware of Warren’s minority status when she was hired. He said that the committee never discussed it and that he does not consult the legal directory in which Warren had listed herself as a minority.

However, Fried acknowledged Wednesday to the Globe, it seemed strange that the issue of her heritage would not come up during the hiring process since she was recruited in the early 1990s, when the school was under intense pressure to diversify its faculty.

Fried added that he learned of Warren’s purported heritage only later, when he visited her home during a party and asked her about a family picture.

All that is direct quotes from the article. So she says that it was only after she was hired that she mentioned her ancestry, and there is no indication in the article to contradict her. Her version is supported by Charles Fried, who says that he learned of her purported heritage later, when he went to a party at her home. In addition, Robert Clark, former dean of the law school, said that he was not aware of her claim when she was hired. If one of the members of the hiring committee says he only learned about it after she was hired, and if the dean of the law school says much the same, then where is the evidence that it helped her get the job? As for “checking the box”, the only mention of that in the article you cite is that she didn’t check the box at the University of Texas.

I might add that I know something about the hiring of tenured professors at Harvard. You don’t call them, they call you. They know who they want, and they let you know if they want you. They invite you to apply. If they haven’t invited you, there’s no point applying. They wanted her, and they offered her the job twice before she took it. She was a rising star, and they knew it. That’s why they hired her.

When did she tell them? According to your source, AFTER she was hired. She didn’t check a box, she told someone at a party after she had been hired. You quote very selectively.

Warren was tenured at the University of Houston in 1981. She took a position as full professor at the University of Texas in 1983. Full professors have tenure, so she must have had tenure at Texas. She became a full professor at the University of Pennsylvania in 1987; again, since she was a full professor, she had tenure. She received an endowed chair there in 1990. Only distinguished scholars get endowed chairs. She was a visiting professor at Harvard in In 1992; in 1995 she went to Harvard as Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law; that would certainly have been a tenured position; that is, she was hired with tenure. I have personal knowledge of the hiring practices at Harvard. They generally recruit full professors who have already established themselves as distinguished scholars at other universities. When Harvard hires a full professor, tenure at hiring is part of the deal. There is no evidence that Warren was hired or got tenure because she claimed to have native ancestry. She was a star in her field. She had been in tenured positions for ten years already when Harvard hired her. Unless you have other evidence, your argument has no basis. If you have more evidence to provide, I will look at it, but if not, I’m done here.