With liberals pining for a Clinton challenger, ambitious Democrats get in position

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I don't recall anyone trying to play the gender card with Palin and you miss the point as always. Dems and Obama have made it so that any criticism of him is portrayed as being racist, thereby silencing critics. Now some people on the democrat side made a point to criticize her for having a baby that was going to have developmental problems. Her policies are open for discussion as are Obamas. She never attempted to use the fact that she is a woman to shield herself from criticism. Can we say that Obama and his buddy Eric Holder have not used their race to try make people afraid to criticize? Nope.

So that's why you never hear anyone criticize the President? Now it makes sense.

[DKW 86 7,431]

A Boston Globe profile of the Democratic candidate's teaching career noted that her "law degree from Rutgers University made her THE ONLY TENURED Harvard Law School professor trained at an American public law school."

You have zero evidence she received her job based on claimed lineage. ZERO. I give you evidence to the contrary and you just dismiss it. All rant, no facts.

I dont have to prove it.

I feel that the very FACT that SHE WAS THE ONE AND ONLY PUBLIC LAW SCHOOL TRAINED PROFESSOR THAT GOT TO TENURE AT HARVARD kind of speaks for itself.

She is a pretty good prof by any measure. Is she really Harvard Grade Excellent? Was EW THE BEST CHOICE ON MERIT? I seriously doubt even she feels that way.

Did portraying herself as a minority help her get a job she was very likely not the best qualified applicant? The rest of the world probably thinks so...

Is that not the very definition/reason for making Minority Hiring Laws in the First Place?

To give a chance to those people that might not be the best qualified so as to add to the number of Minority Applicants?

Why yes, yes it is...

Some logic:

EW considers herself to be a marginal hire at Harvard.

How to boost that herself? Claim she is a minority that her own family will not backup.

She takes the bonus of the Minority Hiring Rules, and with pretty good but not great credentials gets the gig at Harvard.

She gets a very good rep within the academic community for being very much on the cutting edge with some ideas and she is very eloquent in making her case.

She runs for office at the behest of friends and other Progressives. Her little fib blows up all over the Internet when her DEMOCRATIC primary challenger digs it up and buries her with it.

Scott Brown and the Republicans made it even more famous.

All this being said: I still like support many of her ideas. All i wish is that she would do the right thing and admit the obvious: IE She is not nor has ever been a Native American.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

A Boston Globe profile of the Democratic candidate's teaching career noted that her "law degree from Rutgers University made her THE ONLY TENURED Harvard Law School professor trained at an American public law school."

You have zero evidence she received her job based on claimed lineage. ZERO. I give you evidence to the contrary and you just dismiss it. All rant, no facts.

I dont have to prove it.

I feel that the very FACT that SHE WAS THE ONE AND ONLY PUBLIC LAW SCHOOL TRAINED PROFESSOR THAT GOT TO TENURE AT HARVARD kind of speaks for itself.

She is a pretty good prof by any measure. Is she really Harvard Grade Excellent? Was EW THE BEST CHOICE ON MERIT? I seriously doubt even she feels that way.

Did portraying herself as a minority help her get a job she was very likely not the best qualified applicant? The rest of the world probably thinks so...

Is that not the very definition/reason for making Minority Hiring Laws in the First Place?

To give a chance to those people that might not be the best qualified so as to add to the number of Minority Applicants?

Why yes, yes it is...

Some logic:

EW considers herself to be a marginal hire at Harvard.

How to boost that herself? Claim she is a minority that her own family will not backup.

She takes the bonus of the Minority Hiring Rules, and with pretty good but not great credentials gets the gig at Harvard.

She gets a very good rep within the academic community for being very much on the cutting edge with some ideas and she is very eloquent in making her case.

She runs for office at the behest of friends and other Progressives. Her little fib blows up all over the Internet when her DEMOCRATIC primary challenger digs it up and buries her with it.

Scott Brown and the Republicans made it even more famous.

All this being said: I still like support many of her ideas. All i wish is that she would do the right thing and admit the obvious: IE She is not nor has ever been a Native American.

She actually turned Harvard down the first time they offered. Try again.

[DKW 86 7,431]

A Boston Globe profile of the Democratic candidate's teaching career noted that her "law degree from Rutgers University made her THE ONLY TENURED Harvard Law School professor trained at an American public law school."

You have zero evidence she received her job based on claimed lineage. ZERO. I give you evidence to the contrary and you just dismiss it. All rant, no facts.

I dont have to prove it.

I feel that the very FACT that SHE WAS THE ONE AND ONLY PUBLIC LAW SCHOOL TRAINED PROFESSOR THAT GOT TO TENURE AT HARVARD kind of speaks for itself.

She is a pretty good prof by any measure. Is she really Harvard Grade Excellent? Was EW THE BEST CHOICE ON MERIT? I seriously doubt even she feels that way.

Did portraying herself as a minority help her get a job she was very likely not the best qualified applicant? The rest of the world probably thinks so...

Is that not the very definition/reason for making Minority Hiring Laws in the First Place?

To give a chance to those people that might not be the best qualified so as to add to the number of Minority Applicants?

Why yes, yes it is...

Some logic:

EW considers herself to be a marginal hire at Harvard.

How to boost that herself? Claim she is a minority that her own family will not backup.

She takes the bonus of the Minority Hiring Rules, and with pretty good but not great credentials gets the gig at Harvard.

She gets a very good rep within the academic community for being very much on the cutting edge with some ideas and she is very eloquent in making her case.

She runs for office at the behest of friends and other Progressives. Her little fib blows up all over the Internet when her DEMOCRATIC primary challenger digs it up and buries her with it.

Scott Brown and the Republicans made it even more famous.

All this being said: I still like support many of her ideas. All i wish is that she would do the right thing and admit the obvious: IE She is not nor has ever been a Native American.

She actually turned Harvard down the first time they offered. Try again.

So you think she really is a Native American, even though her own family deny it?

[TexasTiger 12,961]

A Boston Globe profile of the Democratic candidate's teaching career noted that her "law degree from Rutgers University made her THE ONLY TENURED Harvard Law School professor trained at an American public law school."

You have zero evidence she received her job based on claimed lineage. ZERO. I give you evidence to the contrary and you just dismiss it. All rant, no facts.

I dont have to prove it.

I feel that the very FACT that SHE WAS THE ONE AND ONLY PUBLIC LAW SCHOOL TRAINED PROFESSOR THAT GOT TO TENURE AT HARVARD kind of speaks for itself.

She is a pretty good prof by any measure. Is she really Harvard Grade Excellent? Was EW THE BEST CHOICE ON MERIT? I seriously doubt even she feels that way.

Did portraying herself as a minority help her get a job she was very likely not the best qualified applicant? The rest of the world probably thinks so...

Is that not the very definition/reason for making Minority Hiring Laws in the First Place?

To give a chance to those people that might not be the best qualified so as to add to the number of Minority Applicants?

Why yes, yes it is...

Some logic:

EW considers herself to be a marginal hire at Harvard.

How to boost that herself? Claim she is a minority that her own family will not backup.

She takes the bonus of the Minority Hiring Rules, and with pretty good but not great credentials gets the gig at Harvard.

She gets a very good rep within the academic community for being very much on the cutting edge with some ideas and she is very eloquent in making her case.

She runs for office at the behest of friends and other Progressives. Her little fib blows up all over the Internet when her DEMOCRATIC primary challenger digs it up and buries her with it.

Scott Brown and the Republicans made it even more famous.

All this being said: I still like support many of her ideas. All i wish is that she would do the right thing and admit the obvious: IE She is not nor has ever been a Native American.

She actually turned Harvard down the first time they offered. Try again.

So you think she really is a Native American, even though her own family deny it?

Once again, several family members did report hearing the same family lore she did about a distant kin being Native American. I heard similar lore in my family growing up, although I don't know how provable it is. I suspect if you interviewed my family members you'd get a similar result-- some would remember, some wouldn't. What I haven't seen is actual evidence that she tried to gain any tangible benefit from it-- e.g. Scholarship or employment consideration. Harvard went after her when she was at Penn based on her scholarly accomplishments-- she didn't apply for a job and check a box like a civil servant. She didn't take a job from someone as you assert-- there is zero evidence of that. If you want to hate her anyway, go ahead.

[DKW 86 7,431]

Once again, several family members did report hearing the same family lore she did about a distant kin being Native American. I heard similar lore in my family growing up, although I don't know how provable it is. I suspect if you interviewed my family members you'd get a similar result-- some would remember, some wouldn't. What I haven't seen is actual evidence that she tried to gain any tangible benefit from it-- e.g. Scholarship or employment consideration. Harvard went after her when she was at Penn based on her scholarly accomplishments-- she didn't apply for a job and check a box like a civil servant. She didn't take a job from someone as you assert-- there is zero evidence of that. If you want to hate her anyway, go ahead.

I do not hate her. I have a whole thread going proving that right now.

What i just cannot grasp is why would someone that is provably, ie genetics testing, still asserting things we all know to be crap? Her claims are laughed at by even her most staunch defenders. It's like Al Sharpton. AS has been found guilty in a court of law and has had the fines paid, for committing libel and slander against the cops in the Tawanna Brawley mess. He is still interviewed and asked to clear the air about the lies. AS just simply could not swallow his pride and do it.

Sharpton still trying to sell the crap sandwich: "She was missing for 4 days, something had to have happened..."

If Al Sharpton, who everyone knows lied and is still lying, i dont have much hope for Warren. She was never a Native American, but if she wants everyone to just keep blowing past the good she could do rather owning up to the obvious, well, that tells most of the adults n the world just what kind of person she really is.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Once again, several family members did report hearing the same family lore she did about a distant kin being Native American. I heard similar lore in my family growing up, although I don't know how provable it is. I suspect if you interviewed my family members you'd get a similar result-- some would remember, some wouldn't. What I haven't seen is actual evidence that she tried to gain any tangible benefit from it-- e.g. Scholarship or employment consideration. Harvard went after her when she was at Penn based on her scholarly accomplishments-- she didn't apply for a job and check a box like a civil servant. She didn't take a job from someone as you assert-- there is zero evidence of that. If you want to hate her anyway, go ahead.

I do not hate her. I have a whole thread going proving that right now.

What i just cannot grasp is why would someone that is provably, ie genetics testing, still asserting things we all know to be crap? Her claims are laughed at by even her most staunch defenders. It's like Al Sharpton. AS has been found guilty in a court of law and has had the fines paid, for committing libel and slander against the cops in the Tawanna Brawley mess. He is still interviewed and asked to clear the air about the lies. AS just simply could not swallow his pride and do it.

Sharpton still trying to sell the crap sandwich: "She was missing for 4 days, something had to have happened..."

If Al Sharpton, who everyone knows lied and is still lying, i dont have much hope for Warren. She was never a Native American, but if she wants everyone to just keep blowing past the good she could do rather owning up to the obvious, well, that tells most of the adults n the world just what kind of person she really is.

Odd comparison. All she has said is what she heard growing up which several family members confirm hearing the same thing. I also heard about Native American ancestors. I've seen no proof of any real benefit she gained from it.

[Tigermike 3,039]

But when she checked the box on the application "Native American" she didn't qualify it with, "so say some in our family".

[TexasTiger 12,961]

But when she checked the box on the application "Native American" she didn't qualify it with, "so say some in our family".

She didn't submit an application and hope to get noticed. She was actively recruited and initially turned Harvard down to stay at Penn.

[homersapien 11,393]

TT you are apparently pulling apart their straw man paradigm about Liz. They are determined to hold to it regardless of the facts.

BFD. She checked a box. Was she really trying to pass herself off as a full blooded Native American? I seriously doubt it. Maybe she just wanted to take some pride in the possibility - even though it was only through family heresay. What real benefit did she expect to receive other than bragging rights? What real benefits did she receive?

If that's the best thing you can come up with to oppose her, then I suggest you are actively looking for a reason to do so.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

TT you are apparently pulling apart their straw man paradigm about Liz. They are determined to hold to it regardless of the facts.

BFD. She checked a box. Was she really trying to pass herself off as a full blooded Native American? I seriously doubt it. Maybe she just wanted to take some pride in the possibility - even though it was only through family heresay. What real benefit did she expect to receive other than bragging rights? What real benefits did she receive?

If that's the best thing you can come up with to oppose her, then I suggest you are actively looking for a reason to do so.

IF she checked a box, it was after she was recruited.

[DKW 86 7,431]

TT you are apparently pulling apart their straw man paradigm about Liz. They are determined to hold to it regardless of the facts.

BFD. She checked a box. Was she really trying to pass herself off as a full blooded Native American? I seriously doubt it. Maybe she just wanted to take some pride in the possibility - even though it was only through family heresay. What real benefit did she expect to receive other than bragging rights? What real benefits did she receive?

If that's the best thing you can come up with to oppose her, then I suggest you are actively looking for a reason to do so.

IF she checked a box, it was after she was recruited.

At the very least i am asking WHY someone would claim something that is demonstrably BS?

[DKW 86 7,431]

But when she checked the box on the application "Native American" she didn't qualify it with, "so say some in our family".

She didn't submit an application and hope to get noticed. She was actively recruited and initially turned Harvard down to stay at Penn.

Actually, she wrote it into her biography in a listing FOR RECRUITMENT in academic circles.

From your link:

Her unorthodox career trajectory has been scrutinized since she became a candidate for Senate, particularly after the revelation that for years she had listed herself as a Native American in a professional directory often used by law school recruiters. - See more at: http://www.boston.co...h.7an2v0tW.dpuf

So Tex, as usual, you have it wrong. Warren in her own words on listing herself as a Minority in the Recruitment Listing:

http://www.bostonglo...ry.html?camp=pm

US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren said on Wednesday that she listed herself as a minority in directories of law professors in the hopes of networking with other “people like me” — meaning those with Native American roots.

Asked whether she considers herself to be a minority, the Democrat said, “Native American is part of my family. It’s an important part of my heritage.”

[TexasTiger 12,961]

But when she checked the box on the application "Native American" she didn't qualify it with, "so say some in our family".

She didn't submit an application and hope to get noticed. She was actively recruited and initially turned Harvard down to stay at Penn.

Actually, she wrote it into her biography in a listing FOR RECRUITMENT in academic circles.

From your link:

Her unorthodox career trajectory has been scrutinized since she became a candidate for Senate, particularly after the revelation that for years she had listed herself as a Native American in a professional directory often used by law school recruiters. - See more at: http://www.boston.co...h.7an2v0tW.dpuf

So Tex, as usual, you have it wrong. Warren in her own words on listing herself as a Minority in the Recruitment Listing:

http://www.bostonglo...ry.html?camp=pm

US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren said on Wednesday that she listed herself as a minority in directories of law professors in the hopes of networking with other “people like me” — meaning those with Native American roots.

Asked whether she considers herself to be a minority, the Democrat said, “Native American is part of my family. It’s an important part of my heritage.”

Harvard doesn't hire out of directories.

And you either didn't read the article or are being deceptively selective.

[DKW 86 7,431]

Harvard doesn't hire out of directories.

And you either didn't read the article or are being deceptively selective.

Whatever...

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Harvard doesn't hire out of directories.

And you either didn't read the article or are being deceptively selective.

Whatever... :rolleyes:/>

Once again, you're long on agenda, short on facts.

[DKW 86 7,431]

Harvard doesn't hire out of directories.

And you either didn't read the article or are being deceptively selective.

Whatever... :rolleyes:/>

Once again, you're long on agenda, short on facts.

I just proved your assertion that EW never checked the box before her hiring was wrong USING THE LINK YOU PROVIDED.

Tex, love you man, but you get way too overly emotional.

[Tigermike 3,039]

TT you are apparently pulling apart their straw man paradigm about Liz. They are determined to hold to it regardless of the facts.

BFD. She checked a box. Was she really trying to pass herself off as a full blooded Native American? I seriously doubt it. Maybe she just wanted to take some pride in the possibility - even though it was only through family heresay. What real benefit did she expect to receive other than bragging rights? What real benefits did she receive?

If that's the best thing you can come up with to oppose her, then I suggest you are actively looking for a reason to do so.

IF she checked a box, it was after she was recruited.

OK when she filled out all paperwork when she was hired she checked the box stating she was Native American. I can understand why it doesn't bother you, since you voted for a known plagiarist twice.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Harvard doesn't hire out of directories.

And you either didn't read the article or are being deceptively selective.

Whatever... :rolleyes:/>

Once again, you're long on agenda, short on facts.

I just proved your assertion that EW never checked the box before her hiring was wrong USING THE LINK YOU PROVIDED.

Tex, love you man, but you get way too overly emotional.

Apparently you fail to grasp the meaning of the word "proved." I'll add that to the list of concepts you don't get.

From the article:

Critics insinuated that she must have leveraged her self-professed heritage to advance her career in the 1980s and 1990s when law schools were under pressure to diversify. However, in two dozen interviews with the Globe, a wide range of professors and administrators who recruited or worked with Warren said her ethnic background played no role in her hiring.

Instead, they said, Warren rose through the mostly male, intensely political world of academia on the strength of her unbridled — to some, off-putting — ambition as well as groundbreaking research that brought her national attention and grant money. Her ability to distill complex concepts into simple ideas and her intense connection to her students brought her student-nominated teaching awards at four of the five law schools where she taught.

Behind the scenes, some of her peers bristled at her ascent, viewing her as smart and capable but also as a climber with sharp elbows. And while Warren aligned herself with economic underdogs in her research, she was not viewed as a champion of women or minorities at the law schools where she taught. Silent on the race and gender wars that divided campuses in the 1980s and 1990s, she was never a liberal crusader.

She was not even a liberal.

She was a registered Republican as recently as 1996.

- See more at:

http://www.boston.co...h.oY6GUaSI.dpuf

She's the kind of American success story that old-line conservatives used to champion. What passes for "conservative" now is marked by small-minded pettiness obsessing over whatever allegation right wing media tells them is important. She's a threat to corporate greed, not American capitalism, which is why the right-wing media has been so relentless in brainwashing you guys to avoid the real issues. She has to be diminished at any cost and you guys are blindly happy to carry the water.

[Tigermike 3,039]

I guess the libs don't think the picture is funny EMT. But I've heard it said before that libs don't have a sense of humor.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Ethnic factor denied

In 1987, Warren was hired by the University of Pennsylvania Law School, which offered her and her husband positions with more prestige and better pay.

Warren’s hiring at Penn has sparked controversy in her Senate race because she listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools directory from 1986 to 1995. But Hank Gutman, who was chairman of Penn’s appointments committee when Warren was recruited, said he was unaware of her professed Native American rootsand “it was never a factor in any of our decisions.”

Stephen B. Burbank, a Penn Law professor, said he, too, was unaware of Warren’s heritage when he recommended her to the university in 1985, after they met during visiting professorships at the University of Michigan.

Robert H. Mundheim, the dean who hired Warren at Penn, laughed when asked whether he thought of her as a minority.

“Somebody who’s got a small percentage of Native American blood — is that a minority?” he said. “I don’t think I ever knew that she had those attributes and that would not have made much of a difference.”

At the time, elite East Coast law schools were facing protests from minority students and activists who wanted them to diversify their faculty. But they were not on the lookout for Native American scholars, said Colin S. Diver, who succeeded Mundheim as dean at Penn Law during Warren’s time there.

“In Philadelphia and Cambridge, what mattered was African-American and Latino,” Diver said. “That’s where the pressure was coming . . . and that’s what you meant when you said ‘students of color.’”

Diver is sensitive to such scrutiny. A Boston native, he was an aide to Mayor Kevin White in the 1970s when court-ordered busing was used to integrate schools. His story — as the idealistic father who moves his own children out of urban schools — was chronicled in J. Anthony Lukas’s Pulitzer-Prize-winning book, “Common Ground.”

In a recent interview, Warren declined to authorize Harvard and Penn to release her personnel records from the private universities where she taught. Her opponent, Senator Scott Brown, has requested that she do so, to satisfy questions about whether race played any role in her hiring.

The records, she said, are not what defined her as an academic.

“The core of my career is my teaching and my writing,” she said, insisting she was hiding nothing in her records. “It’s all out there.”

When Warren arrived at Penn, she was a rising star on a campus whose reputation had dimmed. Having lost professors and prestige, the school was trying to recruit superstars and Warren, by now a nationally recognized bankruptcy scholar, was the first coup. With her came her husband, Mann, a well-regarded legal historian, and a mission to recruit additional serious scholars.

To some on the faculty, improving Penn’s reputation meant diluting the influence of liberal ideologues who they believed were coming to dominate the law school. At the time, a number of professors at Penn and elsewhere were focused on critical legal studies, a discipline that views the law through the lens of social justice, race and gender.

Warren quickly rose to become head of Penn’s appointments committee, a position that put her at the center of that struggle.

Once there, she sided decisively with those who wanted to recruit more hard-nosed scholars.

The woman who had arrived in Houston a decade earlier with a thin resume proved a rigorous and outspoken judge of her prospective colleagues. She interviewed candidates, scrutinized their scholarship, and spoke out forcefully in faculty meetings on tenure decisions.

“She was, in many ways, almost the most ambitious single person on that faculty at that point,” Diver said. “And that’s saying something.”

However, Baird, the Chicago law professor who was once Warren’s sparring partner, said: “To the extent that people criticize Elizabeth for having sharp elbows, that was at a time where, if you were a woman who didn’t have sharp elbows, you were going to be run over.”

At the same time she was fighting within the administration to recruit prominent academics, Warren stayed publicly silent on one of the most polarizing issues of her first year at Penn — the denial of tenure to a popular feminist legal philosopher, which inspired petitions and protests by law school students.

Supporters of Drucilla Cornell argued she had been snubbed because of her gender and feminist views. Her detractors dismissed her research as thin.

In recent interviews, students who had advocated for Cornell said Warren was among the influential voices who had actively opposed her, aligning herself with the administrative establishment. Several female law students from that era said they considered Warren “mainstream” and “conservative.” Cornell ultimately sued the law school for gender discrimination and won a settlement.

At the time, Warren was one of only three women with tenure on the faculty.

“She was not a rabble-rouser,” said Alix James, the chief executive of a Pennsylvania manufacturing company who graduated from Penn Law in 1988.

“I appreciated that about Professor Warren,” James said. “She didn’t wear a feminist badge. She just got the job done.”

Warren told the Globe that she did not work against Cornell. But she refused to say how she voted when the faculty had to decide whether to grant Cornell tenure.

Warren argued that she wanted to devote her energy to bankruptcy research and avoided campus crusades over minorities and women.

“I just wasn’t involved,” she said. “I’m not saying they weren’t important. They were. There were people who were pouring lots of blood, sweat, and tears into them. But not enough people were pouring blood, sweat, and tears into this issue,” she said, referring to bankruptcy studies.

Her determination to stay focused on her career led her to sidestep another liberal cause in the early 1990s. Warren had agreed to speak on a panel in Colorado, a state that academics were boycotting to protest a 1992 referendum opposing gay rights.

Baird, the Chicago professor, was also scheduled to speak on the panel and he expressed some misgivings about going forward with the event.

Warren told Baird that she too had concerns and had privately tried to persuade the federal judges who were organizing the event to relocate. But when they refused, she said she felt obligated to keep her commitment and persuaded Baird to go with her.

“At least in academic circles, going to Colorado was not regarded as the politically correct thing to do,” Baird said.

In some ways, her reluctance to join the liberal professors in protest was not surprising. Warren was a registered Republican from 1991 to 1996, according to voter registration records in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Her husband was registered as an independent there.

In an interview, Warren refused to say if she voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, or detail any of her voting history.

Asked why she become a Democrat in 1996, Warren hesitated.

“I felt like the parties were moving and the conversation was moving,” she said. “I felt like I had stayed in the same place and the world had shifted around me.”

An offer at Harvard

In 1992, five years into her tenure at Penn, Warren accepted an offer to teach for a year at Harvard, as a visiting faculty member. But when the university offered her a full-time position the following year, the professor known for her boundless ambition turned it down.

- See more at:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/08/19/warren_career_story/?page=full#sthash.oY6GUaSI.dpuf

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Ethnic factor denied

In 1987, Warren was hired by the University of Pennsylvania Law School, which offered her and her husband positions with more prestige and better pay.

Warren’s hiring at Penn has sparked controversy in her Senate race because she listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools directory from 1986 to 1995. But Hank Gutman, who was chairman of Penn’s appointments committee when Warren was recruited, said he was unaware of her professed Native American rootsand “it was never a factor in any of our decisions.”

Stephen B. Burbank, a Penn Law professor, said he, too, was unaware of Warren’s heritage when he recommended her to the university in 1985, after they met during visiting professorships at the University of Michigan.

Robert H. Mundheim, the dean who hired Warren at Penn, laughed when asked whether he thought of her as a minority.

“Somebody who’s got a small percentage of Native American blood — is that a minority?” he said. “I don’t think I ever knew that she had those attributes and that would not have made much of a difference.”

At the time, elite East Coast law schools were facing protests from minority students and activists who wanted them to diversify their faculty. But they were not on the lookout for Native American scholars, said Colin S. Diver, who succeeded Mundheim as dean at Penn Law during Warren’s time there.

“In Philadelphia and Cambridge, what mattered was African-American and Latino,” Diver said. “That’s where the pressure was coming . . . and that’s what you meant when you said ‘students of color.’”

Diver is sensitive to such scrutiny. A Boston native, he was an aide to Mayor Kevin White in the 1970s when court-ordered busing was used to integrate schools. His story — as the idealistic father who moves his own children out of urban schools — was chronicled in J. Anthony Lukas’s Pulitzer-Prize-winning book, “Common Ground.”

In a recent interview, Warren declined to authorize Harvard and Penn to release her personnel records from the private universities where she taught. Her opponent, Senator Scott Brown, has requested that she do so, to satisfy questions about whether race played any role in her hiring.

The records, she said, are not what defined her as an academic.

“The core of my career is my teaching and my writing,” she said, insisting she was hiding nothing in her records. “It’s all out there.”

When Warren arrived at Penn, she was a rising star on a campus whose reputation had dimmed. Having lost professors and prestige, the school was trying to recruit superstars and Warren, by now a nationally recognized bankruptcy scholar, was the first coup. With her came her husband, Mann, a well-regarded legal historian, and a mission to recruit additional serious scholars.

To some on the faculty, improving Penn’s reputation meant diluting the influence of liberal ideologues who they believed were coming to dominate the law school. At the time, a number of professors at Penn and elsewhere were focused on critical legal studies, a discipline that views the law through the lens of social justice, race and gender.

Warren quickly rose to become head of Penn’s appointments committee, a position that put her at the center of that struggle.

Once there, she sided decisively with those who wanted to recruit more hard-nosed scholars.

The woman who had arrived in Houston a decade earlier with a thin resume proved a rigorous and outspoken judge of her prospective colleagues. She interviewed candidates, scrutinized their scholarship, and spoke out forcefully in faculty meetings on tenure decisions.

“She was, in many ways, almost the most ambitious single person on that faculty at that point,” Diver said. “And that’s saying something.”

However, Baird, the Chicago law professor who was once Warren’s sparring partner, said: “To the extent that people criticize Elizabeth for having sharp elbows, that was at a time where, if you were a woman who didn’t have sharp elbows, you were going to be run over.”

At the same time she was fighting within the administration to recruit prominent academics, Warren stayed publicly silent on one of the most polarizing issues of her first year at Penn — the denial of tenure to a popular feminist legal philosopher, which inspired petitions and protests by law school students.

Supporters of Drucilla Cornell argued she had been snubbed because of her gender and feminist views. Her detractors dismissed her research as thin.

In recent interviews, students who had advocated for Cornell said Warren was among the influential voices who had actively opposed her, aligning herself with the administrative establishment. Several female law students from that era said they considered Warren “mainstream” and “conservative.” Cornell ultimately sued the law school for gender discrimination and won a settlement.

At the time, Warren was one of only three women with tenure on the faculty.

“She was not a rabble-rouser,” said Alix James, the chief executive of a Pennsylvania manufacturing company who graduated from Penn Law in 1988.

“I appreciated that about Professor Warren,” James said. “She didn’t wear a feminist badge. She just got the job done.”

Warren told the Globe that she did not work against Cornell. But she refused to say how she voted when the faculty had to decide whether to grant Cornell tenure.

Warren argued that she wanted to devote her energy to bankruptcy research and avoided campus crusades over minorities and women.

“I just wasn’t involved,” she said. “I’m not saying they weren’t important. They were. There were people who were pouring lots of blood, sweat, and tears into them. But not enough people were pouring blood, sweat, and tears into this issue,” she said, referring to bankruptcy studies.

Her determination to stay focused on her career led her to sidestep another liberal cause in the early 1990s. Warren had agreed to speak on a panel in Colorado, a state that academics were boycotting to protest a 1992 referendum opposing gay rights.

Baird, the Chicago professor, was also scheduled to speak on the panel and he expressed some misgivings about going forward with the event.

Warren told Baird that she too had concerns and had privately tried to persuade the federal judges who were organizing the event to relocate. But when they refused, she said she felt obligated to keep her commitment and persuaded Baird to go with her.

“At least in academic circles, going to Colorado was not regarded as the politically correct thing to do,” Baird said.

In some ways, her reluctance to join the liberal professors in protest was not surprising. Warren was a registered Republican from 1991 to 1996, according to voter registration records in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Her husband was registered as an independent there.

In an interview, Warren refused to say if she voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, or detail any of her voting history.

Asked why she become a Democrat in 1996, Warren hesitated.

“I felt like the parties were moving and the conversation was moving,” she said. “I felt like I had stayed in the same place and the world had shifted around me.”

An offer at Harvard

In 1992, five years into her tenure at Penn, Warren accepted an offer to teach for a year at Harvard, as a visiting faculty member. But when the university offered her a full-time position the following year, the professor known for her boundless ambition turned it down.

- See more at:

http://www.boston.co...h.oY6GUaSI.dpuf

A career marked by hard work overcoming humble beginnings. No wonder you corporatists hate her. :-\

[homersapien 11,393]

I bet they wouldn't be so picky if she hadn't changed parties in '96.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I bet they wouldn't be so picky if she hadn't changed parties in '96. ;)/> ;D/>

I think you're right.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Ethnic factor denied

In 1987, Warren was hired by the University of Pennsylvania Law School, which offered her and her husband positions with more prestige and better pay.

Warren’s hiring at Penn has sparked controversy in her Senate race because she listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools directory from 1986 to 1995. But Hank Gutman, who was chairman of Penn’s appointments committee when Warren was recruited, said he was unaware of her professed Native American rootsand “it was never a factor in any of our decisions.”

Stephen B. Burbank, a Penn Law professor, said he, too, was unaware of Warren’s heritage when he recommended her to the university in 1985, after they met during visiting professorships at the University of Michigan.

Robert H. Mundheim, the dean who hired Warren at Penn, laughed when asked whether he thought of her as a minority.

“Somebody who’s got a small percentage of Native American blood — is that a minority?” he said. “I don’t think I ever knew that she had those attributes and that would not have made much of a difference.”

At the time, elite East Coast law schools were facing protests from minority students and activists who wanted them to diversify their faculty. But they were not on the lookout for Native American scholars, said Colin S. Diver, who succeeded Mundheim as dean at Penn Law during Warren’s time there.

“In Philadelphia and Cambridge, what mattered was African-American and Latino,” Diver said. “That’s where the pressure was coming . . . and that’s what you meant when you said ‘students of color.’”

Diver is sensitive to such scrutiny. A Boston native, he was an aide to Mayor Kevin White in the 1970s when court-ordered busing was used to integrate schools. His story — as the idealistic father who moves his own children out of urban schools — was chronicled in J. Anthony Lukas’s Pulitzer-Prize-winning book, “Common Ground.”

In a recent interview, Warren declined to authorize Harvard and Penn to release her personnel records from the private universities where she taught. Her opponent, Senator Scott Brown, has requested that she do so, to satisfy questions about whether race played any role in her hiring.

The records, she said, are not what defined her as an academic.

“The core of my career is my teaching and my writing,” she said, insisting she was hiding nothing in her records. “It’s all out there.”

When Warren arrived at Penn, she was a rising star on a campus whose reputation had dimmed. Having lost professors and prestige, the school was trying to recruit superstars and Warren, by now a nationally recognized bankruptcy scholar, was the first coup. With her came her husband, Mann, a well-regarded legal historian, and a mission to recruit additional serious scholars.

To some on the faculty, improving Penn’s reputation meant diluting the influence of liberal ideologues who they believed were coming to dominate the law school. At the time, a number of professors at Penn and elsewhere were focused on critical legal studies, a discipline that views the law through the lens of social justice, race and gender.

Warren quickly rose to become head of Penn’s appointments committee, a position that put her at the center of that struggle.

Once there, she sided decisively with those who wanted to recruit more hard-nosed scholars.

The woman who had arrived in Houston a decade earlier with a thin resume proved a rigorous and outspoken judge of her prospective colleagues. She interviewed candidates, scrutinized their scholarship, and spoke out forcefully in faculty meetings on tenure decisions.

“She was, in many ways, almost the most ambitious single person on that faculty at that point,” Diver said. “And that’s saying something.”

However, Baird, the Chicago law professor who was once Warren’s sparring partner, said: “To the extent that people criticize Elizabeth for having sharp elbows, that was at a time where, if you were a woman who didn’t have sharp elbows, you were going to be run over.”

At the same time she was fighting within the administration to recruit prominent academics, Warren stayed publicly silent on one of the most polarizing issues of her first year at Penn — the denial of tenure to a popular feminist legal philosopher, which inspired petitions and protests by law school students.

Supporters of Drucilla Cornell argued she had been snubbed because of her gender and feminist views. Her detractors dismissed her research as thin.

In recent interviews, students who had advocated for Cornell said Warren was among the influential voices who had actively opposed her, aligning herself with the administrative establishment. Several female law students from that era said they considered Warren “mainstream” and “conservative.” Cornell ultimately sued the law school for gender discrimination and won a settlement.

At the time, Warren was one of only three women with tenure on the faculty.

“She was not a rabble-rouser,” said Alix James, the chief executive of a Pennsylvania manufacturing company who graduated from Penn Law in 1988.

“I appreciated that about Professor Warren,” James said. “She didn’t wear a feminist badge. She just got the job done.”

Warren told the Globe that she did not work against Cornell. But she refused to say how she voted when the faculty had to decide whether to grant Cornell tenure.

Warren argued that she wanted to devote her energy to bankruptcy research and avoided campus crusades over minorities and women.

“I just wasn’t involved,” she said. “I’m not saying they weren’t important. They were. There were people who were pouring lots of blood, sweat, and tears into them. But not enough people were pouring blood, sweat, and tears into this issue,” she said, referring to bankruptcy studies.

Her determination to stay focused on her career led her to sidestep another liberal cause in the early 1990s. Warren had agreed to speak on a panel in Colorado, a state that academics were boycotting to protest a 1992 referendum opposing gay rights.

Baird, the Chicago professor, was also scheduled to speak on the panel and he expressed some misgivings about going forward with the event.

Warren told Baird that she too had concerns and had privately tried to persuade the federal judges who were organizing the event to relocate. But when they refused, she said she felt obligated to keep her commitment and persuaded Baird to go with her.

“At least in academic circles, going to Colorado was not regarded as the politically correct thing to do,” Baird said.

In some ways, her reluctance to join the liberal professors in protest was not surprising. Warren was a registered Republican from 1991 to 1996, according to voter registration records in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Her husband was registered as an independent there.

In an interview, Warren refused to say if she voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, or detail any of her voting history.

Asked why she become a Democrat in 1996, Warren hesitated.

“I felt like the parties were moving and the conversation was moving,” she said. “I felt like I had stayed in the same place and the world had shifted around me.”

An offer at Harvard

In 1992, five years into her tenure at Penn, Warren accepted an offer to teach for a year at Harvard, as a visiting faculty member. But when the university offered her a full-time position the following year, the professor known for her boundless ambition turned it down.

- See more at:

http://www.boston.co...h.oY6GUaSI.dpuf

A career marked by hard work overcoming humble beginnings. No wonder you corporatists hate her. :-\

I dont hate her. I dont know anything about her except that she's a flaming liberal/progressive who felt compelled to lie about her heritage for personal enrichment. She's also one of the richest democrats in Washington and spends an awful lot of her time whining about income inequality. I understand that progressives see no problem with lying as it seems to be their go to strategy when they need something.