WaPo uncovers Liz Warren’s 1986 bar app. Race handwritten as “American Indian”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How did putting this down benefit her? Was their affirmative action in registering to join the Bar? If not, what difference does this make?

You don't think her background was considered when she was applying for jobs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So disgusted that the WaPo published this!

They should protect Democrats and just go after Republicans, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did putting this down benefit her? Was their affirmative action in registering to join the Bar? If not, what difference does this make?

You don't think her background was considered when she was applying for jobs?

I see nothing here indicating that she put down American Indian when applying for a job - just on her form when she registered for the Bar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did putting this down benefit her? Was their affirmative action in registering to join the Bar? If not, what difference does this make?

You don't think her background was considered when she was applying for jobs?

I see nothing here indicating that she put down American Indian when applying for a job - just on her form when she registered for the Bar.

So, she claimed to be white on all other forms she filled out.
That means she lied on this one. Do you not see that as a problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did putting this down benefit her? Was their affirmative action in registering to join the Bar? If not, what difference does this make?

You don't think her background was considered when she was applying for jobs?

I see nothing here indicating that she put down American Indian when applying for a job - just on her form when she registered for the Bar.

1986: writes this on document
1987: gets hired at UPenn

just a conincidence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did putting this down benefit her? Was their affirmative action in registering to join the Bar? If not, what difference does this make?

You don't think her background was considered when she was applying for jobs?

I see nothing here indicating that she put down American Indian when applying for a job - just on her form when she registered for the Bar.

Democrat here. I thought this was all ok when it was just a story she told that she had heard over and over but I don't know how she survives this. This is misrepresenting herself fundamentally, trying to coopt native american identity. I think this sinks her ship.

And I don't think it matters one bit if she received direct benefits. The fact that she did that is crazy. It would be like putting down 'black' on the form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did putting this down benefit her? Was their affirmative action in registering to join the Bar? If not, what difference does this make?

You don't think her background was considered when she was applying for jobs?

I see nothing here indicating that she put down American Indian when applying for a job - just on her form when she registered for the Bar.

So, she claimed to be white on all other forms she filled out.
That means she lied on this one. Do you not see that as a problem?

I don't even know if race was on the other forms she filled out. Maybe she saw herself as both races, and sometimes put down one or the other. Until you can tell me where she put down American Indian and show that it benefitted her this is a "nothing burger".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did putting this down benefit her? Was their affirmative action in registering to join the Bar? If not, what difference does this make?

You don't think her background was considered when she was applying for jobs?

I see nothing here indicating that she put down American Indian when applying for a job - just on her form when she registered for the Bar.

1986: writes this on document
1987: gets hired at UPenn

just a conincidence

She was a young new lawyer, and was hired shortly after joining the Bar. Whatever, sure. You want coincidences, look here https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did putting this down benefit her? Was their affirmative action in registering to join the Bar? If not, what difference does this make?

You don't think her background was considered when she was applying for jobs?

I see nothing here indicating that she put down American Indian when applying for a job - just on her form when she registered for the Bar.

Democrat here. I thought this was all ok when it was just a story she told that she had heard over and over but I don't know how she survives this. This is misrepresenting herself fundamentally, trying to coopt native american identity. I think this sinks her ship.

And I don't think it matters one bit if she received direct benefits. The fact that she did that is crazy. It would be like putting down 'black' on the form.

I am sure there are some people who have some african american background who put down black on some forms. I don't see that as reason to not vote for them.

I am tired of these gotcha games over trivia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did putting this down benefit her? Was their affirmative action in registering to join the Bar? If not, what difference does this make?

You don't think her background was considered when she was applying for jobs?

I see nothing here indicating that she put down American Indian when applying for a job - just on her form when she registered for the Bar.

So, she claimed to be white on all other forms she filled out.
That means she lied on this one. Do you not see that as a problem?

I don't even know if race was on the other forms she filled out. Maybe she saw herself as both races, and sometimes put down one or the other. Until you can tell me where she put down American Indian and show that it benefitted her this is a "nothing burger".

The bright-yellow bar card is dated April 1986, when Warren was a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. Past reporting by several outlets, including CNN, had indicated that Warren "had not" listed herself as a minority in her "student applications and during her time as a teacher at the University of Texas." Records unearthed by The Boston Globe found that in 1981, 1985, and 1988, personnel forms at the University of Texas showed that Warren had called herself "white."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-listed-race-as-american-indian-in-newly-revealed-texas-state-bar-card-from-1986

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did putting this down benefit her? Was their affirmative action in registering to join the Bar? If not, what difference does this make?

You don't think her background was considered when she was applying for jobs?

I see nothing here indicating that she put down American Indian when applying for a job - just on her form when she registered for the Bar.

1986: writes this on document
1987: gets hired at UPenn

just a conincidence

She was a young new lawyer, and was hired shortly after joining the Bar. Whatever, sure. You want coincidences, look here https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Wow. That's some nice whataboutism there, partner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did putting this down benefit her? Was their affirmative action in registering to join the Bar? If not, what difference does this make?

You don't think her background was considered when she was applying for jobs?

I see nothing here indicating that she put down American Indian when applying for a job - just on her form when she registered for the Bar.

So, she claimed to be white on all other forms she filled out.
That means she lied on this one. Do you not see that as a problem?

I don't even know if race was on the other forms she filled out. Maybe she saw herself as both races, and sometimes put down one or the other. Until you can tell me where she put down American Indian and show that it benefitted her this is a "nothing burger".

Give me a break. I'm close to her age, and we all knew not to do that--even then--when applying to schools, jobs, applications, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care. Do you?

+1

+1 million. She could identify as being from the moons of Jupiter and it would not make a lick of difference on whether she was admitted to the Bar or not. You either pass the Bar exam or waive in based on your previous documented years of practice.

Her family thought they had Cherokee ancestors. My family has similar lore, but the story was much less developed. It's not uncommon and certainly isn't getting you ahead with the State Bar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care. Do you?

+1

+1 million. She could identify as being from the moons of Jupiter and it would not make a lick of difference on whether she was admitted to the Bar or not. You either pass the Bar exam or waive in based on your previous documented years of practice.

Her family thought they had Cherokee ancestors. My family has similar lore, but the story was much less developed. It's not uncommon and certainly isn't getting you ahead with the State Bar.

You really don't get it. This had nothing to do with passing the bar. This is documenting that she was claiming to be Native American. Now, go find her marriage licenses and birth certificates and see what they say.

1986: claimed to be American INdian
1987: hired at UPenn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did putting this down benefit her? Was their affirmative action in registering to join the Bar? If not, what difference does this make?

You don't think her background was considered when she was applying for jobs?

I see nothing here indicating that she put down American Indian when applying for a job - just on her form when she registered for the Bar.

1986: writes this on document
1987: gets hired at UPenn

just a conincidence

She had 10 years experience teaching at Rutgers, Houston, and UT-Austin law schools, she had published acclaimed research on the effects of the bankruptcy code, and she was hired at Penn as part of a bundled deal with her husband Bruce Mann. Later, they were hired at Harvard as a packaged deal.