Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Seth Barrett Tillman: Senator Elizabeth Warren & Three E-mails Sent With No Response

    Posted by Jonathan on October 17th, 2018 (All posts by )

    [START: #1]
    [Dear Professor,]
    I am sure you have read the news reports about Senator Warren. I am wondering what you think of the position you put forward some years ago. See …, Intersectionality and Positionality: Situating Women of Color in the Affirmative Action Dialogue, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 843, 898 (1997) (“Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995.”); id. at 898 n.284 (citing to …, News Director, Harvard Law School (Aug. 6, 1996)) ….
    Perhaps a follow up or letter to the editor (at Fordham Law Review) might be interesting and worthwhile. See Fordham Law Review (e-mail); (alt e-mail) ….
    [. . .]

    Read the rest.


    8 Responses to “Seth Barrett Tillman: Senator Elizabeth Warren & Three E-mails Sent With No Response

    1. Grurray Says:

      I’m browsing through that Fordham Law Review study… holy moly. This section about the possibility of stigmatizing affirmative action beneficiaries:

      To the extent there is self-doubt or stigma among women of color, there are many explanations other than, or in addition to, affirmative action. For example, women of color already may lack confidence because of family upbringing or cultural or social conditioning, regardless of the existence of affirmative action. Furthermore, many women of color have been treated with disrespect and the expectation that they will not succeed – too often self fulfilling prophecies. A large percentage of women of color enter traditional occupations such as housecleaning, childcare, and other service/servant types of jobs. There are few women who look like them in positions of power or looking after them and their interests. These factors are much more likely to cause low self-esteem or stigma than affirmative action, which could give them a boost out of the colored feminization of poverty.

      From colored feminization to drab-gray infantilization, these people went out of the frying pan and into the fire. So women of color (whatever that means) were supposed to forget about working hard and just look up to Elizabeth Warren as a role model?!? I may be wrong, but if I was a minority told that she was the paragon of my particular ethnic group, I don’t expect I would get much of a self-esteem boost, and in fact I would question the sanity of those pushing this nonsense.

      Here’s the good part:

      We would welcome some open doors even with the potential accompanying “stigma risk.” This risk is much more attractive than joblessness or low paying work. Furthermore, any stigma-attached downside to affirmative action does not outweigh the upside of providing opportunities for women of color that would not otherwise exist.

      The utilitarian Left is always weighing the good and bad with the scales of blindfolded Lady Social Justice. Only, as usual, they’re too blind. Institutions becoming color blind made the upside too attractive to keep out con artists. Anybody and everybody could then take advantage of the system. Elizabeth ‘Whiter Shade of Pale’ Warren was able to claim to be a person of color, and everyone just blindly accepted it.

      Think about it. These people are supposed to be the nation’s elites, but they bought her story based on high cheekbones and pow wow chow. The risk doesn’t look so good anymore when Ivy League academics are throwing the dice.

      Any notion of stigma about affirmative action should now be put to rest after the shameful lies of Dances with Warrens. There is indeed a stigma, not only for anyone using affirmative action, but also the institutions that have these programs, and probably the whole damn country. This is a total embarrassment and needs to end.

    2. Mike K Says:

      We just saw the shortest presidential campaign in history.

      “Own goal”doesn’t quite cover it. She is a laughing stock.

    3. Jonathan Says:

      Institutions becoming color blind made the upside too attractive to keep out con artists. Anybody and everybody could then take advantage of the system.

      How it always is. Racial and other AA preference systems, intended to benefit the truly disadvantaged, always get gamed not only by the con artists but also by high-functioning members of the nominally-disadvantaged classes who are skilled at dealing with bureaucracies and don’t need the help.

    4. Anonymous Says:

      Grurray, what you said. Crickets are reported to be swarming at Harvard and Fordham.

      Harvard’s reported claim not to have used Warren’s minority status as a factor in her hire is unverifiable, but not creditable given their touting her as theirfirst “woman of color” as a professor. Where did they get that idea, I wonder? Modification of her nickname: Fauxahontus.


    5. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

      Much is made of how inspirational it is that a woman, or person of color, or other disadvantaged person broke a barrier. Is there evidence that this is true, or is it just one of those things that people say because it sounds plausible?

      Well, maybe. I was a poor white kid in a mill city whose father had gone to jail, leading to my mother divorcing him. I think I was inspired by the American idea of advancement for those who were clever or worked hard or were resilient, but i don’t think I ever attached it to “inspired by story of another kid whose Dad was in jail,” or “took heart because great scientist X was also from a broken home.”

      Of course, I had white cis hetero Christian male privilege, so those other things might not have mattered much.

      I recall that when Hillary lost there were women who thought it was a terrible blow to their young daughters. Only if you make it so, lady.

      Oh BTW, those Reform Club emails were excellent trolling.

    6. Grurray Says:

      I just saw this article by one of Warren’s students in the 90s who is confirming that her minority status helped her land the job because Harvard was under pressure to hire persons of color.

      It is unusual for Harvard to make offers of tenure to professors who attended and began their academic careers at Rutgers. To be sure, Warren had worked her way up to a tenured position at Penn, another Ivy League school. And there is no question that she was a much-loved teacher. But in that highly-charged political climate, being Native American could only have helped.

      One thing is certain: Once Warren joined the faculty, Harvard touted her minority status in order to burnish its diversity credentials, listing Warren as a minority in internal documents and compliance reports and telling the Harvard Crimson that the law school had a Native American female on the faculty.

      My question is what did those protesters think of this solution? Hiring Snow White to fill the ‘Woman of Color’ Chair.

    7. Mike K Says:

      always get gamed not only by the con artists but also by high-functioning members of the nominally-disadvantaged classes who are skilled at dealing with bureaucracies and don’t need the help.

      It is very hard to find evidence but I have read that most POCs at Harvard are the children of successful upper middle class or upper class parents, often politicians.

    8. Brian Says:

      The only thing more preposterous than Lizzy Warren claiming to be Native American is the notion that her getting hired by Harvard had nothing at all to do with her claiming to be Native American.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.