This scenario feels so Trump’y in its grifter’ness.

She got away with it for so long because white people are the ones who decide who gets tenure, hold the grant purse strings, etc. You think any white person wanted to be the one who said “Hey, we don’t think you’re a real Latina”? No. It was easier to go along to get along. If anything, white people in academic administration were incentivized to hire her because she checked the boxes. The people incident really displays how white academic administration is and how it also needs to diversify.

Most rational people who want to pass as another race/ethnicity would do it quietly. What does she do? She continually doubles down and becomes more egregious. The ridiculous, exaggerated fake accent. Makeup to darken her skin tone. The awful hair dye. Dressing provocatively in a stereotypical manner of an NYC Latina “from the hood.” She leaned into it, trying to get attention and push the boundaries of decency. It feels so Trump-like in its audacity. She was basically trolling polite people to call her out in an effort to paint herself as a victim.

It would not surprise me at all if this woman held hard-right conservative political views and was doing this to just troll POC in academia. It’s too nefarious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you scroll down after reading the story there’s a suggested article/obituary of a writer who taught at GWU who was black who invented a whole Latino backstory that even his partner didn’t know. Why do people do this?

Easier to get a job. Not too many qualified applicants to compete against.

Worked for Elizabeth Warren and now this professor. When there is incentive to cheat, people will cheat.

For Warren there was apparently a distant genetic link and family lore. This woman straight up made up that she was North African, then later a black Latina from the Bronx, even though she is a white, Jewish woman from Kansas. Even tried to speak with a fake accent. I don't think there are many similarities here.

Anonymous wrote:Fat 30 something white woman w big glasses on Twitter replying to fatter white woman with checkmark making fun of Krug * Wooooooooooo chile, oh sweet chile, sweet sweet lawd, so much this.

Huh?

Anonymous wrote:I don't see what the big deal is. If people can think there's been a cosmic mistake that makes them a woman in a man's body or a man in a woman's body, why can't someone white say they are a black person in a white person's body? I thought Rachel Dolezal made perfect sense as an AA person, more than as a white woman.

+1. The left needs to get its nonsensical dogma straight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you scroll down after reading the story there’s a suggested article/obituary of a writer who taught at GWU who was black who invented a whole Latino backstory that even his partner didn’t know. Why do people do this?

Easier to get a job. Not too many qualified applicants to compete against.

Worked for Elizabeth Warren and now this professor. When there is incentive to cheat, people will cheat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She doesn’t look black at all. She doesn’t even look mixed.

Don’t be ridiculous. Vanessa Williams has stunning blue eyes with very pale skin. You can be black and “look white” as it were.

She looks nothing like Vanessa Williams or Rashida Jones.

This lady just looks white. No clue why anyone would think she’s black.

It’s not about what you look like. Does this guy look black to you?

Both his parents are mixed raced African Americans. He’s black.

Congressman from NC. Butterfield.
Who is he?

Butterfield is from the same area and is the same age as my father. He grew up in the segregated south (Wilson, NC), went to a segregated school and even NCCU (a HBCU). So while today he may present as white, he definitely grew up black in the 40s, 50s and 60s. He’s in the congressional black caucus.

He doesn’t present as white. He looks white. He’s black and so were his parents:

The point is people look the way they look.

This academic lied about who she was and people respond with she doesn’t look black. It’s not about what you look like; it’s about the lies.

Talk about genetics!! Amazing. I did not know.

Anonymous wrote:If you scroll down after reading the story there’s a suggested article/obituary of a writer who taught at GWU who was black who invented a whole Latino backstory that even his partner didn’t know. Why do people do this?

Easier to get a job. Not too many qualified applicants to compete against.

I don't see what the big deal is. If people can think there's been a cosmic mistake that makes them a woman in a man's body or a man in a woman's body, why can't someone white say they are a black person in a white person's body? I thought Rachel Dolezal made perfect sense as an AA person, more than as a white woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it... who would want to identify as black if not needed? It is not like they have treatment or peers and alike. That is the whole reason for the BLM movement.

Black lives are indeed threatened in the street. But in la academe? They have it MADE. She probably also liked being able to pull the victim card.

Yes, I’ve worked at GW and I consider myself a liberal in general but being a POC is a huge advantage in academia right now. All departments are trying to diversify. Taking advantage of that is pretty cynical.

Disagree. It is still incredibly difficult for POC, especially WOC, to land a tenure-track position. In particular, there are very few black women with TT positions—incredible hurdles to getting the support one needs during training, pubs, etc. Ask me how I know.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/22/study-finds-gains-faculty-diversity-not-tenure-track

It’s complicated. 3 diverse visiting profs at my law school all left with no job. But then the dean was fired for letting it happen. This was last year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it... who would want to identify as black if not needed? It is not like they have treatment or peers and alike. That is the whole reason for the BLM movement.

Black lives are indeed threatened in the street. But in la academe? They have it MADE. She probably also liked being able to pull the victim card.

Yes, I’ve worked at GW and I consider myself a liberal in general but being a POC is a huge advantage in academia right now. All departments are trying to diversify. Taking advantage of that is pretty cynical.

Disagree. It is still incredibly difficult for POC, especially WOC, to land a tenure-track position. In particular, there are very few black women with TT positions—incredible hurdles to getting the support one needs during training, pubs, etc. Ask me how I know.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/22/study-finds-gains-faculty-diversity-not-tenure-track

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it... who would want to identify as black if not needed? It is not like they have treatment or peers and alike. That is the whole reason for the BLM movement.

Black lives are indeed threatened in the street. But in la academe? They have it MADE. She probably also liked being able to pull the victim card.

Yes, I’ve worked at GW and I consider myself a liberal in general but being a POC is a huge advantage in academia right now. All departments are trying to diversify. Taking advantage of that is pretty cynical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it... who would want to identify as black if not needed? It is not like they have treatment or peers and alike. That is the whole reason for the BLM movement.

On Twitter, Yarimar Bonilla (an academic who was her colleague briefly) said that her current tenured position was a diversity hire. She’s also held fellowships earmarked for POC. So she has definitely benefited from her lie.

Sorry, forgot to link Bonilla’s tweet: https://twitter.com/yarimarbonilla/status/1301610207353634816?s=21

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it... who would want to identify as black if not needed? It is not like they have treatment or peers and alike. That is the whole reason for the BLM movement.

On Twitter, Yarimar Bonilla (an academic who was her colleague briefly) said that her current tenured position was a diversity hire. She’s also held fellowships earmarked for POC. So she has definitely benefited from her lie.

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it... who would want to identify as black if not needed? It is not like they have treatment or peers and alike. That is the whole reason for the BLM movement.

Black lives are indeed threatened in the street. But in la academe? They have it MADE. She probably also liked being able to pull the victim card.

I don't get it... who would want to identify as black if not needed? It is not like they have treatment or peers and alike. That is the whole reason for the BLM movement.