Pages: 1 2
Warren claims she never authorized Harvard to note her ethnicity. But the blue-eyed blonde had listed herself as a minority in the American Association of Law Schools directory from 1986 through 1995—the same year the school bestowed the tenured Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law designation upon her. Despite her earlier public boasts, she told the Boston Herald: “I believe that I was recruited at Harvard because I’m a good teacher and recruited for my other jobs because I do good work.”
If so, why did Warren publicly advertise her “minority” status when seeking work in academia? Why did Harvard repeatedly showcase her as an example of institutional success in recruiting a racially diverse faculty? Why do so many unchecked boxes confront applicants if minority status really plays no role in the hiring process?
What appears as a political scandal is more significantly an academic one. But whereas the controversy may undermine the Democrats’ chances to retain the U.S. Senate, it will likely have no impact on the racially-obsessed hiring policies of top universities. There, affirmative action proves less about minority advancement than about white liberals feeling good about themselves. Rarely does this manifest itself so clearly as the extreme cases in which pale-faced professors such as Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren trade on questionable heritages for career advancement. Usually, affirmative action just serves as a way for white liberals to claim that an industry they control differs from the surrounding society that they decry. This can only be achieved through official discrimination (which academics ironically claim plagues the off-campus culture) that they insist not be called “discrimination” on school grounds but rather “affirmative action.”
People so obsessed with superficial characteristics in hiring also tend to be superficial in what passes for them as a minority. The importance is not necessarily hiring an American Indian but the appearance that they have hired an American Indian. Quotas, and the accompanying bragging-point percentages, tend to have that dehumanizing effect. People become statistics.
Elizabeth Warren enjoys a $350,000 academic sinecure and $1.7 million mansion. But she still calls herself a populist. With 31 of 32 roots of her family tree extending to Europe, will she still call herself a “minority”?
A black-faced C. Thomas Howell discovers in “Soul Man” that his racial deceit resulted in his African American love interest losing out on the Harvard Law School scholarship that he had unfairly won. Whose spot did soul-woman Warren pouch?
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Pages: 1 2