The unasked question about Elizabeth Warren (slightly updated)

It is has been suggested that Elizabeth Warren, currently running against Scott Brown for Ted Kennedy’s old senate seat in MA, used her self proclaimed minority status to “earn” her position at Harvard after coming from a sub Ivy institution, and having been accused of academic dishonesty.  Harvard denied, and continues to deny, that race played a role in her hiring, but listed her as a “minority”, based solely on information she provided to them.

I am sure it is purest coincidence that Harvard was in the midst of some “diversity unrest” regarding the racial makeup of its faculty, some of which our current president participated  in, in the year(s) just prior to her hiring (1992).  If Harvard was/is as racially myopic as the protesters claim, hiring an obviously white woman (blue eyed and blonde haired no less; cheekbones notwithstanding), who could claim to be a minority would be the answer to their prayers (or whatever Harvard moonbats do.  Crow at the moon?): a woman and a minority.

It would appear that Harvard has created its own Wade Churchill.  *Correction: this fraud’s name is WARD Churchill.  Thanks, JBS!

There is one question that remains unanswered: by her, or Harvard’s, use of her so called “Cherokee” heritage to obtain a coveted spot on the Harvard faculty, she must necessarily have “bumped” a legitimate minority candidate, which, given her sketchy background, seems to be what they were looking for.  At minimum, it would have unfairly tipped the scales in her direction.    Why isn’t the media, or some civil rights group pursuing this?  It would be interesting to find and speak to the other candidates for the Harvard position and ask them their opinion of the Liawatha controversy, or if Fauxcohontas deserves her position after it has been revealed that her “heritage” is so miniscule, so ethereal that real Cherokees are challenging her claims.

Has “affirmative action” run so amok that the school didn’t even do a background check to see if she really had any minority standing, or has the definition of minority, sex, etc., simply degenerated into an “I identify myself as a……..” idiocy?    Apparently so, since illegals have been given tacit permission to “identify” themselves as U.S. citizens.

The road to hell is a slippery slope of feel good legislation.


UPDATE: Warren recently tried to rub elbows with the common folk but ended up with her own “Dukakis in the tank” or “Kerry bunny suit” picture.   The cynic in me wonders if the motorcycle was an Indian motorcycle…..

Why are the police the only group penalized for alleged racial profiling?

Recently, the Connecticut ACLU has been squawking about the fact that they can’t get racial profiling data from the police.

According to the CT News Junkie site, the Conn. ACLU is protesting that “there was a failure and refusal to fulfill the obligations” of the Alvin Penn Racial Profiling Prohibition Act.  According to this site, “Under the legislation passed in 1999, municipal police departments were supposed to report traffic stop data to the state on an annual basis. The data was then going to be analyzed for racial profiling.”  Both the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association and the Office of Policy and Management oppose the law on the basis that it is a de facto unfunded mandate, and that they do not have the money or manpower to fulfill the obligations of this law.

So the Democrat controlled legislature and the ACLU want money and manpower spent to “police the police” if you will, under the presumption that the police are guilty before proven innocent?

Ironically, or typically, if you prefer, the government routinely commit acts of “do as I say, not as I do” when it comes to racial profiling: federal and state governments routinely practice racial profiling through racial quotas, hiring practices and “affirmative action”.  In each case, a potential employee is assessed racially, and in many cases, assessed differently with a bias towards specific (not all, mind you) minority groups, better known as “protected groups”.  The fairly recent decision by the U.S. Supreme court decision against the city of New Haven (who would have guessed?) and for the firefighters who were unfairly discriminated against demonstrated that the liberal talk a good game of “equal opportunity” but when the results don’t go the way they want, they will default to the cherished liberal goal of equality of result.  To hell with hiring the best candidates: if the standards have to be lowered for any person or group, then that is tacit admission that they did not meet those standards.  Discrimination in the workplace cannot be remedied by discrimination in the testing/selection of candidates.

So racial profiling is “bad” when practiced in the interests of catching criminals, but “acceptable”, even preferred, when hiring to “increase diversity” or meet some racial quota?  Hmmm.  Do I detect another double standard from the Bizarro world of Democrats?

The left talks (propagandizes, actually) a good game of equality, usually while simultaneously accusing conservatives of being racist (an act of purest psychological projection), but the theory keeps turning out to be racist in practice.  Put the Penn Act in the same category as Connecticut’s motorcycle helmet law and let the cops do their job.

Pat Buchanan: Obama the beneficiary of affirmative action?

Oh, brother. When will it end? Okay I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request, it’s just that Chris Matthews loves setting this trap because it keeps him and other lefties from having to talk about what a miserable job President Obama is doing. Buchanan wants to know why Obama won’t release his grades? And the whole thing just deteriorates from there. Read more