Harvard Crimson:

See:  https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1996/10/22/survey-diversity-lacking-at-hls-pa/

====================================================

Survey: Diversity Lacking At HLS

By Theresa J. Chung, October 22, 1996

87

A majority of Harvard Law School students are unhappy with the level of representation of women and minorities on the Law School faculty, according to a recent survey.

The survey distributed last May by the Coalition for Civil Rights (CCR), reported that 83 percent of respondents believe the number of minority women on the Law School faculty is inadequate.

More than half of students surveyed also expressed disappointment with the low representation of white women, minority men and openly gay, lesbian or bisexual faculty members at the Law School.

"The results are not surprising. Most people have agreed there is a problem," said second-year student Robert H. Friedman, editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Record.

The survey drew nearly 450 responses, including a smattering from the faculty.

CCR is an organization of law students dedicated to "increasing the number of women and minorities on the faculty" and "promoting diversity," according to second-year student Rudy M. Reyes, co-chair of the organization.

Law students said they want to learn from a variety of perspectives and approaches to the law.

"A black male from a lower socioeconomic background will approach the study of constitutional law in a different way from a white upper-class male," Reyes said.

Some students also supported curricular changes, citing the dearth of course offerings in feminist jurisprudence, gender discrimination and sexuality.

"Faculty diversity and curricular diversity go hand in hand," Reyes said. "The hiring committee loves to hire corporation and tax professors," who are predominantly "white males."

Kirkland and Ellis Professor of Law David B. Wilkins '77 called this statement an "oversimplification" but expressed his support for increased representation of minorities.

"The fact that there never have been Asian Americans, Native Americans, gays, lesbians, Latinos, Latinas and women of color [on the faculty] is a subject of major concern," said Wilkins, who is black.

Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic, said Mike Chmura, spokesperson for the Law School.

Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American [emphasis added].

In response to criticism of the current administration, Chmura pointed to "good progress in recent years."

According to Chmura, of the 21 professors appointed since 1989, 10 were women or minorities. In addition, all three of last year's appointees were women.

The demands for women of color on the faculty may be satisfied if noted black legal scholar and University of Pennsylvania professor C. Lani Guinier '71 accepts her outstanding offer from the Law School, Friedman said.

But critics of hiring procedures have come from both ends of the political spectrum.

"We have a major problem with ideological diversity," said secondyear law student Dan Schorr, president of the Harvard Law School Republicans.

According to Schorr, the Law School has not hired an openly Republican professor in 20 years

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Smedley said:
So it's not sinister. But neither is it pure-as-the-driven-snow, 100%-innocent, no-way-no-how-would-Warren-ever-stretch-the-truth-to-benefit-herself, how-can-anyone-even-think-that. Which is what some people seem to believe.      

 I can understand how some people can think that.  Because some of them are cynical and believe everyone is lying all the time (especially politicians), and other of them aren't really paying much attention to anything besides the headlines, and some people are partisan hacks who know better but are using it to their advantage.

But it's asinine for anyone without a partisan ax to grind to think the Senator was lying about her family heritage to gain some sort of advantage in her life (which no one can actually identify, btw).  Her entire family backs up her claim that Warren was just repeating long-held family lore.

Headline:  Warren: I didn’t know Harvard Law promoted my lineage

It appears that EW was lying in this 2012 Boston Herald article regarding when she learned that HLS was describing her as a Native American in order to prove how diverse HLS was back in 1996 (the 1996 Harvard Crimson article pretty much negates her POV in the 2012 Boston Herald article).

==========================================================

Boston Herald Article:

See http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2012/04/warren_i_didn’t_know_harvard_law_promoted_my_lineage

Hillary Chabot Friday, April 27, 2012

Credit: John Wilcox

Elizabeth Warren greets people prior to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce Annual Meeting. 

Elizabeth Warren said she had no idea until she read the Herald today her Native American heritage was touted by Harvard Law School as proof of their faculty’s diversity in the 1990s — a fact her rival wants her to apologize for.

“I think I read it on the front page of the Herald,” Warren said when asked about the issue.

“I don’t even remember,” she added when asked about a 1996 Harvard Crimson article that quoted a then-law school spokesman touting her minority status. “You’re trying to raise something from 15 years ago.”

ml1 said:

Smedley said:
So it's not sinister. But neither is it pure-as-the-driven-snow, 100%-innocent, no-way-no-how-would-Warren-ever-stretch-the-truth-to-benefit-herself, how-can-anyone-even-think-that. Which is what some people seem to believe.      

 I can understand how some people can think that.  Because some of them are cynical and believe everyone is lying all the time (especially politicians), and other of them aren't really paying much attention to anything besides the headlines, and some people are partisan hacks who know better but are using it to their advantage.
But it's asinine for anyone without a partisan ax to grind to think the Senator was lying about her family heritage to gain some sort of advantage in her life (which no one can actually identify, btw).  Her entire family backs up her claim that Warren was just repeating long-held family lore.

 ml1, the part that is missing from your analysis is the fact EW's then employer, HLS, was pridefully boasting of their Native American HLS professor, EW.  Generally, when an employee does something (or takes a position) that heightens their employer's status or standing the employee is at a minimum given positive feedback (and sometimes much more, such as, an easier path to promotion or tenure).  EW has to live with what it looks like.

ml1 said:

Smedley said:
So it's not sinister. But neither is it pure-as-the-driven-snow, 100%-innocent, no-way-no-how-would-Warren-ever-stretch-the-truth-to-benefit-herself, how-can-anyone-even-think-that. Which is what some people seem to believe.      

 I can understand how some people can think that.  Because some of them are cynical and believe everyone is lying all the time (especially politicians), and other of them aren't really paying much attention to anything besides the headlines, and some people are partisan hacks who know better but are using it to their advantage.
But it's asinine for anyone without a partisan ax to grind to think the Senator was lying about her family heritage to gain some sort of advantage in her life (which no one can actually identify, btw).  Her entire family backs up her claim that Warren was just repeating long-held family lore.

Ok. Not to belabor the point but there's where our viewpoints diverge. 

It's one thing to repeat / talk about family lore and keep it going. In informal conversations with family, friends, colleagues, etc. Learn more about it, pay tribute to it, etc. All good stuff.  

But it's another thing entirely to affirm that long-held family lore on official paperwork that's going in your professional file. That's where it gets weird and where the innocent explanation of "just repeating long-held family lore" stretches credulity.   

I'm not saying she isn't fit to run.  I'm not saying that this issue is worse than Trump's ********, it obviously isn't even in the same ballpark.  What I am saying is that many voters, too many in fact, are irrational, and if we don't want a second Trump term then we need someone else on the ballot.

You can wish and want for for the next six years that hoards of rational voters to show up November 2020, but as the old saying goes, wish in one hand, **** in the other, see which hand fills up first. 

Survey: Diversity Lacking At HLS

By Theresa J. Chung, October 22, 1996


Kirkland and Ellis Professor of Law David B. Wilkins '77 called this statement an "oversimplification" but expressed his support for increased representation of minorities.
"The fact that there never have been Asian Americans, Native Americans, gays, lesbians, Latinos, Latinas and women of color [on the faculty] is a subject of major concern," said Wilkins, who is black.
Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic, said Mike Chmura, spokesperson for the Law School.
Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American [emphasis added].
In response to criticism of the current administration, Chmura pointed to "good progress in recent years."
According to Chmura, of the 21 professors appointed since 1989, 10 were women or minorities. In addition, all three of last year's appointees were women.

The Elizabeth Warren case to me demonstrates how the campus culture around racial diversity leads to neglect of socioeconomic diversity is that Penn and Harvard categorized Elizabeth Warren as a "minority law professor," and yet they cared not at all that she was from Oklahoma and the daughter of a janitor & Montgomery Ward salesman.  

I would think that very few HLS faculty members shared Elizabeth Warren's socioeconomic background, and yet that counted for NOTHING in the dimensions that Harvard considers "diversity."

apparently in this environment we need a saint to run because no matter who gets put up they will have these human c h nks* in their armor which will be exploited by that GOP false flag machine.  

Frankly EW would make a great president but I doubt she wants that.  

Comparably the whole birther/reverend Wright/“community organizer” label would have us miss out on one of the best leaders we’ve ever had. 

 The DNA shows a potential ancestor. She claims a great grandmother, so what.  It’s irrelevant compared to standing up to the bully in the Whitehouse, compared to forming and championing the CPFB.  She’s waging tough battles against corporation thieves daily. 

Another of her Pow Wow Chow classics from 1984 was “Cold Omelets with Crab Meat”.

Maybe her 1/1024th is Jersey Shore Cherokee.

GL2 said:

Robert_Casotto said:
How does a Harvard Law Professor not know that 1/1024th does not qualify you as a Native American?


Talk about stupid.

 More like "How does she get baited into doing the DNA test?" 
Starting to feel like dems are going to flub this easy layup in '20. Joe's great but too old and establishment; Booker equaled Warren's error when he labeled himself Spartacus. 
Kamala? Maybe. 

 I am reading this thread and stopping at this point to say I hope by the end of this thread someone has come up with a person who is 100% perfect in every way to be the Democratic candidate against whom no attack can be made.

ml1 said:

I took DNA tests from two of the more well-known companies that do consumer testing.  One initially reported me to have 90% of my DNA from Ireland and the UK, with the other 10% from the Iberian peninsula and Scandinavia. More recently they updated it as 100% Ireland and UK (they say with more testing, they can reanalyze previous results more accurately).  The other company has me at 90% Ireland/UK, 7% Western/Central Europe, and 3% Ashkenazi.  The last one was something of a surprise.
I'm not sure how precise any of it is.  But it did confirm our family stories that my paternal side is entirely Irish-American, and my maternal side is half Irish-American and half English/Welsh American.  Good thing, because I'd hate anyone to think that on St. Patrick's Day I was making any nefarious claims of Irish heritage for personal benefit.

 I don't care what you do on St. Pat's day. Just make sure you eat 3% less on Yom Kippur.

Well, I see no one came up with anyone perfect.

Right now I think the Dems might want to consider going the exact opposite way.  For example former Senator and VP Candidate John Edwards. He could run on:

"I know I'm a lying, cheating piece of sh@#, but I am certainly not half as bad as Trump".

What would be Trump's comeback: "That's a lie. You are worse than me".?

Smedley said:

It's one thing to repeat / talk about family lore and keep it going. In informal conversations with family, friends, colleagues, etc. Learn more about it, pay tribute to it, etc. All good stuff.  
But it's another thing entirely to affirm that long-held family lore on official paperwork that's going in your professional file. That's where it gets weird and where the innocent explanation of "just repeating long-held family lore" stretches credulity.   
 

 why do you think it's weird?  If you and all of your cousins had been told all your life that your grandmother was Cherokee why would you doubt it?  It appears pretty clear that that's what the family believed.  Right down to the much-mocked "Indian" recipe book that her cousin edited in the '80s.  

I think it's weirder that people think Warren made this up out of whole cloth.

And that's what this comes down to as an indicator of her character.  Did she really make this up to gain some amorphous "benefit", or was this something she really believed to be true.  If she believed it was true, how is it a character flaw to have shared that information?  

ml1 said:

I think it's weirder that people think Warren made this up out of whole cloth.

And that's what this comes down to as an indicator of her character.  Did she really make this up to gain some amorphous "benefit", or was this something she really believed to be true.  If she believed it was true, how is it a character flaw to have shared that information?  

 It becomes a "character flaw" because she's a Democrat who's not Bernie Sanders. So she's drawing fire from both sides. 

She's still toast.

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

It's one thing to repeat / talk about family lore and keep it going. In informal conversations with family, friends, colleagues, etc. Learn more about it, pay tribute to it, etc. All good stuff.  
But it's another thing entirely to affirm that long-held family lore on official paperwork that's going in your professional file. That's where it gets weird and where the innocent explanation of "just repeating long-held family lore" stretches credulity.   
 

 why do you think it's weird?  

Because Warren identifying herself as NA based on family lore is not in the spirit of the question.

Say someone -- a donor, or an alum, or a student, or a prospective student, or a researcher, or a reporter -- saw that Harvard Law had a NA professor, was interested in that fact for whatever reason(s), and wanted to meet her and/or take her class. 

If you were that person, would you be disappointed upon meeting her and finding out all she has to offer about her lineage is 'family lore'? Ungatz on life experience as a Native American?

I would be like, WTH lady!

Reminds me of a certain Seinfeld riff.    

Robert_Casotto said:
I especially loved her contribution as “Elizabeth Warren - Cherokee” to the 1984 classic “Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Covilized Tribes: Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek & Seminole”.


Her “Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing” is a delight.


Cherokee staples.  Crab and Mayo.

 Good example of what she unleashed by being baited into DNA test. Have at it, RC.

Ain't nothing whiter than mayonnaise. As another critic said, OK is a tad far from any fresh crab, so canned must be it.

Reminds me of Hank (Breaking Bad) criticizing spouse for eating sushi in NM. 

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:
So it's not sinister. But neither is it pure-as-the-driven-snow, 100%-innocent, no-way-no-how-would-Warren-ever-stretch-the-truth-to-benefit-herself, how-can-anyone-even-think-that. Which is what some people seem to believe.      

 I can understand how some people can think that.  Because some of them are cynical and believe everyone is lying all the time (especially politicians), and other of them aren't really paying much attention to anything besides the headlines, and some people are partisan hacks who know better but are using it to their advantage.
But it's asinine for anyone without a partisan ax to grind to think the Senator was lying about her family heritage to gain some sort of advantage in her life (which no one can actually identify, btw).  Her entire family backs up her claim that Warren was just repeating long-held family lore.

Ok. Not to belabor the point but there's where our viewpoints diverge. 
It's one thing to repeat / talk about family lore and keep it going. In informal conversations with family, friends, colleagues, etc. Learn more about it, pay tribute to it, etc. All good stuff.  
But it's another thing entirely to affirm that long-held family lore on official paperwork that's going in your professional file. That's where it gets weird and where the innocent explanation of "just repeating long-held family lore" stretches credulity.   
 

I agree with this, and at the risk of repeating myself, I think it's very telling that it was more important to Harvard and Penn that a law professor had some minuscule Native American ancestry than it was that that professor was the daughter of a father who was a janitor and Montgomery Ward salesman.  

If anyone wonders why only 10-20% of the student bodies of elite colleges comes from the bottom 60% of the economic distributionand why they often have more students from the top 1% than the bottom 60%, it's because universities care about racial diversity much, much, much more than they care about SES diversity.  

If anyone is following the Harvard discrimination trial, it came out that Asian males need an appr. 25% better SAT score (1380) than their black and hispanic colleagues (1100) to get a look.

Legacies and athletic recruits are certainly a significant issue affecting that as well.

Of course, a completely separate issue from Sitting Bull **** claiming she’s a Cherokee.

Robert_Casotto said:
If anyone is following the Harvard discrimination trial, it came out that Asian males need an appr. 25% better SAT score (1380) than their black and hispanic colleagues (1100) to get a look.

 Do those black and Hispanic students struggle more than their Asian peers at Harvard?

dave23 said:

Robert_Casotto said:
If anyone is following the Harvard discrimination trial, it came out that Asian males need an appr. 25% better SAT score (1380) than their black and hispanic colleagues (1100) to get a look.

 Do those black and Hispanic students struggle more than their Asian peers at Harvard?

Our grandson is in his second year at Harvard. He has three dormmates  -  Chinese, Hispanic and African-American. They're all doing very well. 

Runner_Guy said:

 

I agree with this, and at the risk of repeating myself, I think it's very telling that it was more important to Harvard and Penn that a law professor had some minuscule Native American ancestry than it was that that professor was the daughter of a father who was a janitor and Montgomery Ward salesman.  
If anyone wonders why only 10-20% of the student bodies of elite colleges comes from the bottom 60% of the economic distributionand why they often have more students from the top 1% than the bottom 60%, it's because universities care about racial diversity much, much, much more than they care about SES diversity.  

20% of the students at Harvard get a full ride. This is offered to students whose parents' income is less than $65,000.  

Between income levels of $65,000 - $120,000, financial aid is given on a sliding scale. 60% of the students receive financial aid and the average cost is $12,000. 

Now that we are onto a more interesting topic, Above the Law has a good article on what qualifies as "merit," and why this lawsuit is cynical attempt to keep non-Asian minorities out of Harvard and protect the white conveyor belt intact.  

"No honest person can say that admissions to top universities is solely about academic merit, whether those universities consider an applicant’s race or not. And no decent person would want them to be. If you can not see the 'merit' of an applicant with a middling GPA who happens to be a world-class pianist, or the “merit” of an applicant who performed merely decently on a standardized test she prepared for under the hallway light at the homeless shelter, then your definition of 'merit' makes you unworthy of admission to the Harvard Extension School, much less the undergraduate college."

cramer said:

Runner_Guy said:

 

I agree with this, and at the risk of repeating myself, I think it's very telling that it was more important to Harvard and Penn that a law professor had some minuscule Native American ancestry than it was that that professor was the daughter of a father who was a janitor and Montgomery Ward salesman.  
If anyone wonders why only 10-20% of the student bodies of elite colleges comes from the bottom 60% of the economic distributionand why they often have more students from the top 1% than the bottom 60%, it's because universities care about racial diversity much, much, much more than they care about SES diversity.  

20% of the students at Harvard get a full ride. This is offered to students whose parents' income is less than $65,000.  
Between income levels of $65,000 - $120,000, financial aid is given on a sliding scale. 60% of the students receive financial aid and the average cost is $12,000. 

I didn't say that Harvard's financial aid was inadequate for a low-income student who is able to get in.

I said that there were too few low-income students at Harvard in the first place and Harvard's strenuous pursuit of racial diversity may distract from the pursuit of socioeconomic diversity.  The Elizabeth Warren case is a demonstration that Harvard has no metrics to track socioeconomic diversity at all.  

If you read that NYTimes article, Harvard isn't alone among elite colleges who have remarkably few students from the bottom 60% of the country.  

Harvard didn't literally have more students from the top 1% than the bottom 60%, but it came close (15.1% from the top 1%; 20.4% from the bottom 60%), but 38 colleges including Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale, Penn and Brown did have more students came from the top 1% of income than from the bottom 60%.

While I have no doubt you're all correct about Harvard and student diversity, Warren was never a student at Harvard.

Runner_Guy said:

I agree with this, and at the risk of repeating myself, I think it's very telling that it was more important to Harvard and Penn that a law professor had some minuscule Native American ancestry than it was that that professor was the daughter of a father who was a janitor and Montgomery Ward salesman.  

Both racial/ethnic diversity and socioeconomic diversity on the faculty make for a better law school. But publicizing the former — which you take as evidence that it’s a higher priority — serves a purpose of its own: It tells prospective students and professors that we welcome you. Are you saying there's also a need for Ivy League law schools to publicize the latter for that reason?

If so, do you foresee any difficulties when administrators ask Professor X if they can shine a spotlight on the financial struggles of her parents?

I’m thinking that what a law school publicizes about its faculty may not be a reliable barometer of what it considers important.

ridski said:
While I have no doubt you're all correct about Harvard and student diversity, Warren was never a student at Harvard.

 Rutgers Newark Law, actually.

nohero said:

ridski said:
While I have no doubt you're all correct about Harvard and student diversity, Warren was never a student at Harvard.

 Rutgers Newark Law, actually.

 Among other places. But she was never a student at Harvard, so her “case” doesn’t really demonstrate the ability or lack thereof of Harvard’s socioeconomic diversity metrics tracking. She was on a list, they saw her name on it, they used her being on that list to promote themselves, and she went along with it.

Still shouldn’t disqualify her from running for President. Heck our current guy probably raped a 13 year old and people still voted for him.

But people aren't smart, so she won’t be president, the rapist will.

ridski said:

nohero said:

ridski said:
While I have no doubt you're all correct about Harvard and student diversity, Warren was never a student at Harvard.

 Rutgers Newark Law, actually.

 Among other places. But she was never a student at Harvard, so her “case” doesn’t really demonstrate the ability or lack thereof of Harvard’s socioeconomic diversity metrics tracking. She was on a list, they saw her name on it, they used her being on that list to promote themselves, and she went along with it.
Still shouldn’t disqualify her from running for President. Heck our current guy probably raped a 13 year old and people still voted for him.
But people aren't smart, so she won’t be president, the rapist will.

It's not that people aren't smart, it's more that a lot of people claim to be taking a moral stand when in fact they are being partisan.  Anyone who is condemning Elizabeth Warren for allegedly using Native American heritage to advance herself is being nakedly partisan.  I doubt that even one person who is criticizing her now would have supported her for president otherwise.