Remember that old Cher song, “1/32 Breed”?
If Scott Brown wins re-election as a Republican Senator from Massachusetts this fall, he will go on record as one of the luckiest political candidates since, well, Barack Obama. Brown won an upset victory in the special election in 2009 (any time a Republican wins in my home state, it’s an upset) in part because his inept Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley, showed herself to be unforgivably ignorant on the one topic most state residents really care about—the Boston Red Sox. Now he has the latest contender for his job, Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, on the ropes because of her own self-inflicted wound, Warren’s dubious claim of minority status as a Native American between 1986 and 1995.
Warren listed herself as part Native American in the Association of American Law Schools desk book, she says, in the hope of meeting others in her field with similar backgrounds. She did not, she insists, do so to gain any professional edge. Yet in 1992 she was hired to teach at Harvard, and when she became a permanent faculty member in 1995, Warren dropped the minority claim from her profile in the directory. Harvard, meanwhile, began counting Warren as a Native American in its diversity statistics, just as her previous employers had at the University of Texas and the University of Pennsylvania. Whatever her intent may have been, a former chair of the AALS confirms that minority listings in the organization’s directory were used in hiring decisions by members.“In the old days before the internet, you’d pull out the AALS directory and look up people. There are schools that if they were looking for a minority faculty member, would go to that list and might say, ‘I didn’t know Elizabeth Warren was a minority, ” George Mason University Law professor David Bernstein, a former chairman of the American Association of Law Schools, has told reporters.
When Native American groups and others challenged Warren’s campaign to prove her bona fides as a minority, Warren’s campaign ultimately produced records from 1894 that list her great-great-great grandmother as “Cherokee,” making Warren 1/32 American Indian if “O.C. Sarah Smith” was full blooded. If Smith was claiming to be Cherokee based on the same degree of lineage that Warren used to justify her claim, of course…well, you see the problem. Now conservatives are mocking Warren. Here’s the Boston Herald’s Michael Graham:
“On the long list of “Stuff More Indian than Liz Warren” — which includes Indian pudding ice cream, 1/6th of the Village People and anyone who’s ever played professional baseball in Cleveland — you can add . . .Me. My grandfather Ray Futrell, a hard-drinking World War II vet and one of my life heroes, was also the grandson of a Cherokee Indian woman born in the Oklahoma territories. As a college student in Tulsa, Okla., I visited her daughter — my Great Grandma Fields — at the nursing home. Which makes me the great-great-grandson of a Cherokee — a full generation less pale face than Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, aka: Faux-Cahontas.”
Liberals and Democrats, in contrast, are shrugging off the controversy as a tempest in a teepee. From an editorial in the New Jersey Star-Ledger:
“…the kerfuffle provides a great piece of political theater for people who savor the inanities our campaign season: The same wing-nuts who hysterically claim Obama is Kenyan-born and not American are apoplectic about Warren proclaiming her connection to the first Americans. There’s no pleasing some people.”
That pretty much frames today’s Ethics Alarms Quiz, my friends.
Your question is:
Which is it? Does Warren’s dubious claim of minority status implicate her character, honesty, and fitness to serve Massachusetts (a Native American name, I believe) as a U.S. Senator, or are the allies of Sen. Brown just waiving another blood sock* as a distraction from the real issues?
My non-definitive answer is: It’s both.
Yes, I think it is depressing that so many elections in the U.S. are decided by old mistakes, “gotchas” and evasive responses to embarrassing incidents. I think Warren might have largely de-fanged the issue had she answered the initial queries about the incident by saying something like:
“It’s true. I listed myself as a minority back then, because it was within the rules to do so, and being a minority gives you an edge in hiring decisions in academia. It’s a competitive field, and I saw nothing wrong with taking advantage of every possible enhancement of my credentials, as long as it was honest, as it was. My family always talked about our American Indian heritage. Frankly, I didn’t know how distant it was. I wish I hadn’t done it, and I regret it.“
Or maybe not. The problem Warren has is that she is a vocal and self-styled opponent of privilege, one of the intellectual parents of the Occupy Movement. She is, by any normal measure, a WASP; she has never suffered from racial discrimination. Affirmative action and diversity hiring is supposed to, in theories that Warren herself has championed, balance the scales of bias and oppression and reduce the inherent edge white, privileged individuals have in seeking professional employment. For Warren to game the diversity spoils system to not only take advantage of a remedy never intended to help people like her, but also to perhaps take away the job of a legitimate diversity candidate by doing so, shows hypocrisy and dishonesty….if that was her intent.
The episode also has meta significance in the campaign, because it exposes the absurdity and unfairness of a beloved liberal concept that Warren champions: forced equalization of results rather than opportunities. What possible significance does being 1/32 Cherokee have to assessing someone’s teaching ability? Why should it be a factor at all? Warren is a card-carrying member of the liberal social architects union that has inflicted diversity requirements on schools and government, and it is delicious, and illuminating, to see her tripped-up by her own foolishness. Harvard, conveniently, helped make the point vivid by its own gaming of the system. It was disgraceful for the University to use the WASPish Warren as a minority slot-filler, showing that the piously liberal Ivy League icon also talks out of both sides of John Harvard’s mouth on the issues of diversity and affirmative action. If the school really believed in these things, would it be cheating to achieve the appearance of seeking them?
The same goes for Warren. The incident itself is trivial; what it suggests about her integrity as well as the seriousness and sincerity of her ideological posturing is not.
* Red Sox legend Curt Schilling’s heroic pitching despite a freshly sutured ankle tendon–which produced a much photographed blood sock as he pitched— during the 2004 Red Sox post season run the World Championship is a part of Boston lore, and when Schilling’s campaign criticism of Coakley prompted the candidate to dismiss him as “a Yankee fan” on a local radio show, her defeat was probably sealed.
____________________________________________
Pointer: Dave Burelli (Thanks, Dave!)
Facts: Boston Herald (1)
Sources:
Graphic: MySpace
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
I agree: both. At least that’s the case based on what we know (or think we know) now. If there’s a credible response to the allegations, it would be useful to hear it. But the charges could be anything from a legitimate critique of Warren’s veracity and integrity to so much hot air belched forth to muddy the waters because Senator Brown is unlikely to win re-election in Massachusetts based solely on his voting record and positions on the issues. And Warren’s “claim” may have been anywhere from self-serving and hypocritical to (almost) completely innocent.
I can also claim a 1/32 Native American heritage… or at least I think I can. That’s what my parents told me. But, other than thinking it “cool” to have such lineage, I’ve done nothing about it, including verifying the facts of the case. It sounds like Elizabeth Warren may be a little more informed about her own bloodlines.
But ultimately we come down to a question about the question. Allow me to illustrate by including my own answers to a series of similar but discrete queries:
1. Do you self-identify as Native American? No.
2. Do you self-identify as having Native American heritage? Yes.
3. Do you have a tribal affiliation? Depends on what you mean by the question, but I’m going to say “no.”
4. We’re looking to promote our school’s diversity. Are you willing to let us publish your Native American heritage? Well, that’s kind of weird, but OK.
5. Given the fact that you have some Native American heritage, are you interested in meeting other academics with similar backgrounds? Sure.
6. We’re compiling a list of minority faculty. If you should be included, please include particulars. N/A
I don’t know which of these five questions Elizabeth Warren was answering in the affirmative. If it’s #3 or #6, she’s got a problem. If it’s #2, #4, or #5, probably not. #1 is a battle-ground.
It could be that Warren is being falsely accused, but it doesn’t look like she’s completely devoid of culpability. It could be that the Brown campaign might have a point, but they very well might be over-reaching.
La la, how the life goes on.
According to Wikipedia (always the most reliable source), Warren is the daughter of working class parents (her father was a janitor who died when she was twelve and her mother got a job answering phones). While this, of course, is neither here nor there as to whether she is a Native American, it probably means that she is not from a “well-to-do family”.
As for trying to hire a diverse faculty, is the point to give prospective minority hires an advantage to make up for discrimination or is it to give students access to a wide variety of viewpoints? A Native-American professor, for example, might have an interesting take on native self-government issues, treaty rights, etc. that someone else might not have. Of course, hiring Warren probably wouldn’t further this aim, unless there is some distinct perspective on bankruptcy law belonging to people who are 1/32nd Native American.
I’m well acquainted with the theory, and it has some validity. I’ve even taught it. This incident shows that in exceution, it’s a lot of hooey.
Sounds like Warren was not from a well-to-do family—my source was full of beans. Thanks, I’ll fix that.
If Zimmerman was constantly called a “White Hispanic”, should we call her a white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-white-native-american?
Thanks, Fred…I resisted bringing the Zimmerman issue up, but I was confident someone astute would.
Good God. I could claim that myself. (Winnebago in my case.) So could any number of people. So what? This is what happens when we allow people to be legally divided up by ethnicity and grant special status to this one or that due to political expediency. One can be proud (or not) of one’s ancestry, but that has little to do with that person’s own worth and character. This woman might well first ask herself the question, “Will my descendents be proud of me?”. In Mz. Warren’s case (assuming a sane future) I rather doubt it.
Say, Jack. Who’s this kid in the the new bordering photo who appears to be dressed up like Little Orphan Annie?
and grant special status to this one or that due to political expediency.
Replace “political expediency” with “a history of oppression of that minority” and then it actually makes sense, though the meaning is completely changed.
If you’ll just get that “oppression obsession” out of your mind, you’d be a lot happier.
I didn’t say that quote, so you must be saying that there’s no such thing as “oppression obsession”. You accidentally used sarcasm to make a good point.
You’re just playing word games again, TGT. And rather silly ones at that.
Does she have a tribal membership card? She isn’t Indian without a card. Indian is different than claiming to be black or Hispanic. There are legal rights and privileges (real, treaty decided ones) associated with Indian status. If your relatives (like my great grandparents) didn’t register with the Dawes Act or aren’t a member of a federally recognized tribe, you aren’t an Indian. You can look at a picture of my grandfather and see he is Indian. There are (probable) relatives in the Cherokee tribe right now. I am a member of an Indian church. None of this makes me Indian. It just makes me another mongrel American. Just because Harvard (as well as others) was desperate enough for minorities to look past any dubious claim of minority status, doesn’t mean Elizabeth Warren had to take advantage of their ‘lax oversight’. This turns her professional history into the plot from ‘Soul Man.’.
Don’t call yourself a “mongrel”, Michael. That, like the term “minority”, is largely a state of mind which should have no legal recognition. A person is a person and he should be defined solely on his own merits.
But I am a mongrel. I’m Scottish-French-German-American Indian-Irish-English-other stuff I don’t know about. That is what an American is and it allows us to shrug off the legacies of hatred that permeates many parts of the world. My ancestors were trying to kill each other on so many fronts at so many times throughout history. It is easy for me to let it go because, in a way, I am on all sides of these conflicts.
It also makes it too much trouble to figure out who you are supposed to hate ;’)
I’m all of those things myself, Michael. Plus some Norse pirates, Scottish brigands and a Dutch sea captain thrown in for good measure! But I would never use the term “mongrel” for another person except in jest. Dogs, who are members of well-defined artificial breeds derived from the wolf, can thus be so labeled. People are not that. Thus many would rightfully take offense. I’m not thin-skinned about such things and, obviously, neither are you. Some are, though; for personal and/or cultural reasons. No use borrowing trouble when it’s not necessary, sayeth I!
You’re equivocating. I’m Irish, but I’m not an Irish citizen. The same goes for Native American.
Personally, I’m just an American. Unhyphenated.
And I consider myself American, too, but I have the good fortune of being of a race that isn’t discriminated against.
Which is whom, Tiggy?
Pretty much everyone who doesn’t look like they’re from western europe. You know history, why are you playing dumb, here?
So everybody whose ancestors came from western Europe is privileged? That’s sure news to me!
“not discriminated against” != “privileged”.
Nice try, though.