Elizabeth Warren and Identity Politics

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if this has gotten much in the way of national play, but it's been a consistent story up here in the Warren/Brown race. The story is kind of involved, but Elizabeth Warren, Democrat running for Senate against Scott Brown in Massachusetts, has been found to have listed herself as Native American in her various university gigs. Her initial claim was that she was 1/32nd Cherokee, but the story just snowballs and gets worse and worse for her:

[I]t won't go away. In part, that's because little bits of information keep trickling out:

* First the Boston Herald reported April 27 that she was noted as a Native American in a Harvard Crimson article in 1996.

* Then on April 30 the Boston Globe reported she'd been listed in the Association of American Law Schools desk book as a Native American. That day the newspaper spoke to a genealogist who found her great-great-great grandmother listed as Cherokee on a 1894 document it called a marriage certificate.

* Warren herself made the controversy worse on May 3 when she referred to her grandfather has having high cheekbones "like all the Indians do."

* On May 8, in an example of how far into the weeds the story had gone, Breitbart.com even pulled up evidence that her great-great-great grandfather was in the Tennessee militia that helped drive Cherokees on the Trail of Tears.

* The Washington Post reported May 10 that the University of Pennsylvania also described Warren as Native American. The same day, the Massachusetts Republican Party released an ad calling her a "fraudster" for her claims to her heritage.


* And also on Monday, the Globecorrected its April 30 story, saying, "The document, alluded to in a family newsletter found by the New England Historic Genealogical Society, was an application for a marriage license, not the license itself. Neither the society nor the Globe has seen the primary document, whose existence has not been proven."

The latest reveal is that the Fordham Law Review had noted that Warren, the pale blonde, was Harvard Law School's "first woman of color" hired.

I was talking to a liberal friend of mine last night who noted that, even though he's definitely going to vote for her anyway, this issue has really touched upon her character for him. I found it kind of illuminating that he said this, because this Warren situation encapsulates two problems with standard left wing ideas regarding race, advancement, and the like.

One is on the issue of identity politics. The left has significantly embraced the idea of being the home for so many groups that are believed to be, or are considered, marginalized sub-categories. This is not to say that the right has not followed suit in response, but it is not especially shocking to see Elizabeth Warren attempting to identify with a sub-group to find like-minded and like-affiliated individuals. What is shocking is the length gone to in order to try and find a group to fit in. That having such an identity in academia, in certain circles, is a benefit not only goes against real-world tropes and beliefs about supposed societal privileges, but that someone can claim, sans evidence, that they belong to a certain group and no one question it. Warren claimed at one point that she listed herself as Native American to find others like her, even though she never sought them out. Perhaps the draw of being a "minority professor" is that much greater?

The other issue is one of quotas, and/or affirmative action. I bring this up not because I believe Elizabeth Warren was brought on in her positions because she checked a certain box for minority status, as her stature as an academic (deserved or not) would have spoken for itself. What we're seeing is that listing yourself as parts of these groups has significant benefit, both for the institutions that would hire you (I'm sure Harvard Law did not mind being able to tout having a "woman of color" among their ranks) and for the people being hired. The issue, however, is double-edged - the question has been raised, unfortunately, and it highlights a chief problem with racial quotas and affirmative action situations in general - whether those receiving the benefits lack the actual merit. Even if the intent behind affirmative action is one of righting a historical wrong, the problems that become associated with such policies are also significant.

For me, I was supporting Brown anyway. I don't know how significant this situation will be in the Warren/Brown race, and the primary is far enough away where the Massachusetts Democratic Party could get someone else in play, but I think this highlights a few interesting problems, not only for Warren, but for academia in general - institutions that seek out this sort of diversity unquestioningly for whatever benefits it may provide. It's not to say diversity is a bad thing at all, but don't situations like this really leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth?

Comments

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Tempest in a teapot. This is all they could come up with? Rather pathetic on the part of the Brown campaign really.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Ugh, I was waiting for this to surface here.

I found it kind of illuminating that he said this, because this Warren situation encapsulates two problems with standard left wing ideas regarding race, advancement, and the like.

I think you mean, "this Warren situation" has been played up and emphasized because Warren's opponents (i.e., conservatives) think it provides a good opportunity to attack what they think "liberals" think about affirmative action.

Personally, I think it is more illustrative of the racist attitudes that still underlie many conservatives' views on matters of race. Take, for instance, this assumption that some non-related white guy can adequately assess the credibility of Warren's claim to heritage just on the basis of what she looks like or her failure to meet some "impurity" test. The fact that she is a "pale blonde" does not mean that she is not a person of color, and the fact that her claim to heritage might be based only on a relatively distant relative does not mean that she is not a person of color. Whether she is or not is, basically, not up to us, it's not up to a vote, and it's not up to Breitbart.com, and to take the position that it is is to adopt an essentially racist point of view where the only person whose views on the matter don't count is the person we're talking about.

One is on the issue of identity politics. The left has significantly embraced the idea of being the home for so many groups that are believed to be, or are considered, marginalized sub-categories. This is not to say that the right has not followed suit in response, but it is not especially shocking to see Elizabeth Warren attempting to identify with a sub-group to find like-minded and like-affiliated individuals.

You're conflating "identity politics" here with whether someone might view their ethnic status to be of potential value in the academy. These are two separate issues. If Warren were campaigning as a "person of color" who was, for this reason, entitled to the support of other persons of color, then she'd be engaged in "identity politics." Has she done this? The fact that the right has seized on this obscure detail about her history as an opportunity for a grand morality play where they can vent about what they hate about "liberals" demonstrates that they're the ones engaged in "identity politics."

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

I can see where you are coming from.

Take, for instance, this assumption that some non-related white guy can adequately assess the credibility of Warren's claim to heritage just on the basis of what she looks like or her failure to meet some "impurity" test. The fact that she is a "pale blonde" does not mean that she is not a person of color, and the fact that her claim to heritage might be based only on a relatively distant relative does not mean that she is not a person of color. Whether she is or not is, basically, not up to us

But how far do you think we can take that? Really. I don't want to add hyperbole here, but are there some claims people make about themselves like this that we can say no too? Because I'm kind of guessing, though have no idea, that Warren, while identifying herself as a "person of color" has had plenty of white privilege. Which kind of makes it all iffy for me. Is that unwarranted?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I think you mean, "this Warren situation" has been played up and emphasized because Warren's opponents (i.e., conservatives) think it provides a good opportunity to attack what they think "liberals" think about affirmative action

It's more being played up by the media, conservative (Boston Heralrd, for example) and liberal (Boston Globe, for example), who are finding this story to be pretty interesting.

Take, for instance, this assumption that some non-related white guy can adequately assess the credibility of Warren's claim to heritage just on the basis of what she looks like or her failure to meet some "impurity" test.

The Brown campaign is obviously seizing on this because it's a current story that makes Warren look bad, but this is not "some non-related white guy" doing the digging, nor are they taking the lead on it, but rather the news media leading the charge.

There's no "assumption" here, and it's fairly stunning to see you condemn a group as racist for questioning one's heritage while not condemning someone for, at best, hyping up her own heritage for personal gain. I have more Native American heritage than Warren does, and that heritage I can actually verify - I'd absolutely be branded as a racist opportunist if I started "identifying" as Native American, and rightfully so.

Here, I'll note the double standard among the left: Johnny Depp is playing Tonto in the upcoming Lone Ranger flick (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/03/08/johnny-depp-as-tonto-how-racist-is-that). Apparently, this is "culturally insensitive" even though he's apparently part-Cherokee as well. Should we not be questioning Depp? Should we be simply accepting that they hired someone with "some" Cherokee to play a Native American when they could have gotten someone else?

Or maybe we can look at the Trayvon Martin incident, where George Zimmerman is initially treated as white by the media and those who wanted to find racial motivations when he is clearly, unequivocally, unquestionably multi-racial.

This is what identity politics brings to the table.

The fact that she is a "pale blonde" does not mean that she is not a person of color, and the fact that her claim to heritage might be based only on a relatively distant relative does not mean that she is not a person of color.

Under no circumstances would anyone have taken this story credibly outside of academia. And, rightfully, few are.

If Warren were campaigning as a "person of color" who was, for this reason, entitled to the support of other persons of color, then she'd be engaged in "identity politics." Has she done this?

In this case, yes. She was presenting herself as minority faculty, allegedly to gain connections with other minorities like her while expending no effort outside of checking a box on a form.

The fact that the right has seized on this obscure detail about her history as an opportunity for a grand morality play where they can vent about what they hate about "liberals" demonstrates that they're the ones engaged in "identity politics."

I enjoy that the racists are not the ones who are exploiting race for personal gain, but rather the ones that are questioning those who do so. You're making my point better than I could.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Whether she is or not is, basically, not up to us,

When she tries to get benefits, of whatever kind (social or financial), then it becomes an issue for the rest of us. And it highlights the basic problem with trying to categorize in this way in the first place.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

That having such an identity in academia, in certain circles, is a benefit not only goes against real-world tropes and beliefs about supposed societal privileges, but that someone can claim, sans evidence, that they belong to a certain group and no one question it.

No one has yet demonstrated that Warren's self-identification turned out to be a benefit to her. The supposed "fact" that being a member of a "diverse" group can get you ahead in limited social circles doesn't "go against real-world tropes and beliefs about supposed societal privileges," because those privileges remain even in those limited social circles - legal academia is still dominated by white men, after all. In addition, such context-specific "benefits" are notable only because they are marked against a broader social background of ostracization and in-group privilege, so they aren't even really "benefits" so much as they are "error correction" for the kind lop-sidedness that would otherwise exist within those specific contexts. And of course "no one questions" another person's claim to belong to a certain group - it's not up to us.

The other issue is one of quotas, and/or affirmative action. ...

So - let me get this straight - you're saying that we ought to take this whole scandal to count against affirmative action, but not because Warren was unqualified and got her position at Harvard by virtue of being a PoC (no one has demonstrated that this was the case); not because Harvard would have hired her for her PoC status despite being unqualified (no one has demonstrated this, either); and not because anyone is now questioning her academic competence because she might have gotten an undeserved "boost" earlier in her career (shockingly, no one has even sought to address her academic bona fides, which really ought to be at the center of this discussion if it were at all honest). Rather, you're saying that - because a bunch of conservatives have decided that Warren may or may not have decided to call herself "Native American" because she may or may not have perceived self-identification as a great way to get ahead or to network, and these same conservatives have decided that this possible set of motivations is just beyond the pale for a woman who (they all know) is really just a white woman who never had any personal connection to the Native American community, and they've decided this counts against her candidacy for the U.S. Senate - you're saying that we should avoid affirmative action because there are idiots that respond this way?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No one has yet demonstrated that Warren's self-identification turned out to be a benefit to her.

Except, you know, being able to list oneself as a "minority faculty" and all the benefits that provides.

And of course "no one questions" another person's claim to belong to a certain group - it's not up to us.

No, it's up to the institutions to do so, to make sure that the claims are credible. They failed in this task, and now the media is forced to do that legwork while Harvard sits with egg on its face.

Rather, you're saying that - because a bunch of conservatives have decided that Warren may or may not have decided to call herself "Native American" because she may or may not have perceived self-identification as a great way to get ahead or to network, and these same conservatives have decided that this possible set of motivations is just beyond the pale for a woman who (they all know) is really just a white woman who never had any personal connection to the Native American community, and they've decided this counts against her candidacy for the U.S. Senate - you're saying that we should avoid affirmative action because there are idiots that respond this way?

Not "a bunch of conservatives," but the news media, Warren's opponents, even Warren's supporters.

And that this details exactly the problem with affirmative action and the perception of those who benefit from it is exactly the point of the opposition. The question is now whether Warren received any special benefit from it, which takes away from her other successes and dilutes her record.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Minority status sure is an attribute in legal academia
http://www.aals.org/documents/2005recruitmentreport.pdf

Oh wait no it isn't.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Ultimately, it has to be honestly acknowledged that the Brown supporters trumpeting this episode are doing so to insinuate that Warren in fact claimed an ethnic heritage in order to gain a benefit that she in fact received and in fact did not deserve, according to the "left's" own rules on who ought to be receiving such benefits. Many of the more intelligent commenters on the subject - and here you have followed their lead, though you have tipped your hand a bit by insinuating that she might not even have deserved her "stature as an academic" (like you have any perspective on the matter) - have avoided saying this outright, and they have avoided this precisely because there's no body of evidence to support such claims.

But it's clear that almost every unsophisticated conservative understands this story to be precisely about Warren's "undeserved benefits," which is part of what makes posts like this one so unseemly. Your mincing about what you do or don't know functions as an invitation to speculate, and you're happy to invite it here, because you conclude with an indictment of affirmative action and "identity politics" that assumes the speculation to be merited.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

nd here you have followed their lead, though you have tipped your hand a bit by insinuating that she might not even have deserved her "stature as an academic" (like you have any perspective on the matter) - have avoided saying this outright, and they have avoided this precisely because there's no body of evidence to support such claims.

My hand was tipped more due to my dislike of Warren's sloppy research, which we've covered ad nauseum here in regards to her medical bankruptcy report in particular.

But it's clear that almost every unsophisticated conservative understands this story to be precisely about Warren's "undeserved benefits," which is part of what makes posts like this one so unseemly. Your mincing about what you do or don't know functions as an invitation to speculate, and you're happy to invite it here, because you conclude with an indictment of affirmative action and "identity politics" that assumes the speculation to be merited.

The story, to me, is about Warren overrepresenting herself, if not outright misrepresenting herself, for whatever reasons. It speaks to her character, it speaks to her sloppy research, and, as a broader story, it speaks to a continued issue with left wing concepts of identity, race, and advancement. An issue you yourself have continued to advance with deciding that the "racist" thoughts in this case are not the exploitation of minority status, but rather the questioning of the validity of said status. That's twisted.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Is Warren's hypocrisy in the same league as making claims that marriage has been a "one man - one woman" institution for 3,000 years, ignoring the polygamy in one's own family & religion? Including ancestors who fled to Mexico so they could keep practicing it?

Meanwhile, what has Scott Brown accomplished so that we should return him to office?

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

That's kind of a logical fallacy. The fact that another politician does something more ridiculous has no bearing on a discussion/analysis of a different politicians' debatably ridiculous actions.

Although I would agree with your second point.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

this has already been debunked, hasn't it?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The latest is that we cannot prove Warren has any Native American heritage. I'm not sure what else you'd be talking about - the existence of her as minority faculty, listed as a "person of color," etc is pretty cut and dry.

[muscadinegirl.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's complete and utter bullshit. I'm 1/32 Cherokee and 1/32 Creek and, unlike her, I can access the documents to prove it. Can I be listed as a minority too?

Even if I could, I wouldn't. It would be a slap in the face to real Native Americans who face discrimination every day for the way they look and live.

Elizabeth Warren

[russj.livejournal.com]

This is big news nationwide, especially because of the famous moveon.org campaign which featured Elizabeth Warren:

(http://front.moveon.org/the-elizabeth-warren-quote-every-american-needs-to-see/)

In this campaign, Warren basically says that nobody succeeds solely by merit of their own ability and work.

This news that she may have used minority preference to further her own career seems to show that she really believes it.

This doesn't just leave a bad taste in my mouth -- it makes me want to vomit!

[dwer.livejournal.com]

first you have to establish that it actually furthered her career, so swallow hard and prove it.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

In Massachusetts, anyone whose great great great grandparent lived in Tennessee is considered an outsider.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Furiously scything the fields for hay, I see.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

True. In a Presidential election year in heavy Democratic state like Massachusetts, Warren will be elected.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

[dwer.livejournal.com]

UNPOSSIBLE!

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I'm 1/8th. That's enough to get me some benefits, but I don't want the blood money and have never accepted it.

Though I was tempted to do so at Harbin Hot Springs (http://www.harbin.org/) recently, since I was kinda broke.

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

and it highlights a chief problem with racial quotas and affirmative action situations in general - whether those receiving the benefits lack the actual merit.

that's not how affirmative action works

but you tried

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And how does it work?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Wait, why is this relevant to her campaign? Is this another Bill Ayers moment? She did something while she was a student! CASTRATE HER!

So unless these details were leaked by her campaign or she's somehow running as a minority I don't see the point. Does what she did run counter to her views at all? Oh wait, we can't know, because we have two things to go off of: 1) Her own justification and 2) Your speculation. Pardon me if I find it to be a hard pill to swallow for you to tell me what a Democrat thinks.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not while a student, while as faculty.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Ah yes one of the right wings smear's de jour. You are far to white/blonde to be a proper Aboriginal/Native. Showing a child-like grasp of both racial identity and basic genetics. By that standard one of my old school friends, being as how he is 6'4" blonde hair, blue eyes and a face that would make any Nazi beam with racial pride has no right to call himself Jewish. Despite you know, being Jewish. Similar smears were tried here by one of our prominent right wing attack dogs, and mercifully he was shot down by the courts.

Firstly the Cherokee nation, IIRC accepts 1/32 as a member. Now to some of the other nonsense.

* On May 8, in an example of how far into the weeds the story had gone, Breitbart.com even pulled up evidence that her great-great-great grandfather was in the Tennessee militia that helped drive Cherokees on the Trail of Tears.

This is just fucking laughable. Provided your family tree forks as per normal you have, I believe 32 great-great-great grandparents firstly. Secondly was there any evidence this supposed ancestor participated in the horror that was the Trail of Tears? or are we just talking guilt by association here?

I mean Ainsley Harriot (a famous UK TV chef) found out that he had amongst all his Jamaican slave ancestors a white plantation owner. Does he not get to call himself black now? or is it fine because he has appropriate levels of melatonin in his skin?

And lets not even get into the nonsense levelled at Richard Dawkins because he had an ancestor who owned slaves.

* And also on Monday, the Globecorrected its April 30 story, saying, "The document, alluded to in a family newsletter found by the New England Historic Genealogical Society, was an application for a marriage license, not the license itself. Neither the society nor the Globe has seen the primary document, whose existence has not been proven.

Wow, talking about nitpicking for the first one. Any documentation from that period is hard to find, and pretty sure most historians would consider the application as evidence. For the latter has anyone spoken to the genealogist in question? or sought out the document for themselves?

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

mean Ainsley Harriot (a famous UK TV chef) found out that he had amongst all his Jamaican slave ancestors a white plantation owner. Does he not get to call himself black now? or is it fine because he has appropriate levels of melatonin in his skin?

Melanin. Just saying.

(I love Ainsley Harriot.)

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

Other people, mainly oslo, are handling the "what proof is there that she benefited from identifying as Native American" angle handily, but I've got to point out that the fact that she's white-looking doesn't make her not NA. My BFF is a highly active member of the Cherokee Nation (does lots of social-service work for them, attends and runs programs at WinterTalk, etc.) and she looks white as hell. When there's been as much exogamy, forcible and voluntary, as there has been among our Native populations, you end up with a lot of people of NA descent who look more white or black than they do NA.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

I find it interesting that it amounts to trying to obligate Warren to prove she's a "good" Native American, by expecting her to check off even more boxes in order to show that she does enough... something... to warrant her possible genealogy.

Hopefully I'm doing enough white guy stuff or else I might evidently get my caucasian card revoked.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

Just double-checked with my Cherokee friend and the Nation does accept 1/32 descent as valid for membership in the tribe, so Elizabeth Warren was being completely accurate, to the best of her available knowledge at the time, when she listed herself as Native American on racial identification forms.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Except she can't prove it.

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

As ridiculous as it is on its face to pretend to be "ethnic" when you're basically whitebread American, I think I prefer that to triumphalist Anglo-Saxon supremacism.