To what advantage? The PolitiFact article you cite says there’s no evidence of any advantage:
Her detractors say she deployed a faux Native American connection to improve her chances of landing teaching jobs at two of the country’s top law schools. However, there is no proof Warren gained any special advantage in her career.
The article goes on to say that her claim of NA ancestry WAS cited by Harvard Law officials who were scrambling to show diversity among their faculty at the time. But for herself? Again, from the article you cite:
Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried, who served as U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan and was part of the committee that put Warren in a tenure position, said in a written statement that her ethnicity never came up during the process.
More:
Asked about Warren’s minority status, Robert H. Mundheim, the dean who hired Warren at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Boston Globe that summer, “‘I don’t think I ever knew that she had those attributes and that would not have made much of a difference.”
Finally:
A number of news organizations interviewed dozens of faculty and students from the three law schools where Warren taught, and no evidence emerged that any claim about her ethnic roots played a role in the hiring process.
None of this will matter, of course. Donald will continue using the pejorative “Pocahontas” against Warren, and Donald’s esteemed supporters will continue to accept it as gospel that Warren benefitted “for decades” falsely claiming she was Native American. It’s a fun thing to poke the opposition with, and it gets Donald lots of cheers at his rallies.
I simply find it amusing that they dig in their heels when they’ve been shown time and again it didn’t afford her any proven or demonstrated advantage.
2 Likes
