Forgive the long post, don't read it if you can't focus for more than 3 lines:
first on the absence of much knowledge on the subject on here...like it or not, believe it or not, seen it or not, organizations not only have to report their statistics of minority applications and hires, they are keenly aware of the public perception of not having diversity.
While there may or may not be shortages of minority candidates in all positions, don't assume that every job opening is pursued by a properly diverse pool of applicants. The situation can be tricky, while you can't/shouldn't say 'we need a woman, regardless of qualification' there is clearly a concern that you can't be 100% men.
So, you work hard in advance, make sure you have identified qualified women and attract one or more to apply...good stuff, no favoritism or quotas, just proper recruiting of diverse candidates. So, you've got one woman, is that enough? Think the government, your trustees, your stockholders etc. would be satisfied if your board, executives, faculty, judges, cabinet, coaching staff was 90% white men and 10% white women? Could you look somebody in the eye and tell them that was by accident? No, so you need to make sure you are also recruiting people of color and other factors of diversity. You find me a head of HR that wouldn't 'love' to have a black, asian or hispanic woman in a key role and I'll show you a liar. It may only be one person but it counts in EEOC stats as a woman and a minority.
If you go to the faculty page of harvard law school they have a picture of what on the front page....hmmm, an asian woman...is that just happenstance? Is she the most tenured professor there? The most published? The most famous?
As for appearance, without counting, it appears just the Harvard Law School has well over 150 faculty. If you take 5 seconds to think about it, they are likely never all on campus at one time and i would doubt 50% have ever been in one place before. Now, would any one student know, see or take a class with all 150 professors? No
Would the EEOC show up and demand to see all of them in one room? No Would Jesse jackson, the asian student coalition or any other party say they would assess the diversity of the workforce from a picture or who they met on their trip to Harvard? No, they would look at the stats. If the workforce was represented on paper as 30% women, 25% african american, 18% asian etc. then nobody is going to say "hey would you line up all those asians so I can get a good look at them and make sure they are really asian." Remember, diversity is everything from age to disability to gender to race to sexual orientation. Imagine if harvard Law School had 150 professors and not one was Jewish, muslim or another religion. Now, religion isn't an EEOC stat obviously, but don't think the school isn't aware of this type of diversity. Does anybody really thing the SCOTUS is accidentally diverse? Are they the best judges in the country? You all know how this works, even if you haven't been behind the scenes.
Granted, if students, parents and other faculty saw reporting of 18% but never actually saw an asian professor that would generate questions. But unless the school was lying completely, that wouldn't occur.
As for Ms. Warren...the issue isn't if she is a minority, although for EEOC purposes there is a 'cutoff' for defining oneself in a class...so for all of the "well what if i was 1/1,000 caveman, could i delclare that" moronic statements, the answer legally is no. So, the point trying to be avoided by Warren and her supporters isn't whether she really had a great, great granny that was a native american, it is whether she would claim the status of minority selectively in a situation in which being a minority could provide her benefit. As I said earlier, it isn't like Harvard would take a minority with a mail order JD over a qualified caucasian...but if you knew that part of the formula would give preference to minorities and you suddenly became one or suddenly remembered that old family story, that is an integrity issue in my view. For background, if the person wasn't even sure they were, had no documentation they were and was not familiar with anything other than a family story of some native american blood, then that wouldn't help their cause if i was assessing the situation. If they had more than a cookbook and a family story that demonstrated they do, when appropriate, report/describe/relate themselves as a minority, I'd say that while being only 1/100th of something doesn't necessarily make you asian for reporting purposes...at least they are consistent in that designation.
If your response is 'well, that isn't proof she got benefit", I would say that the faculty was going to demonstrate diversity one way or another, whether she should have been there or not, a person with a likely more credible claim to be a minority, and likely equally qualified, didn't get the job. The "sorry, I can't come up with anything more than an old family story" minority got the job.
That she has spent so much time claiming to support the rights of the downtrodden, and may have, I repeat, may have, prevented a more legitimate minority candidate from attaining such a lofty role by stretching the definition of minority to suit her employment ambitions would be why it shouldn't be just Scott Brown asking the question. That is why I'm asking the question.
I don't care if they leave the senate seat vacant, I don't think her possible ethical weakness makes her opponent a better politician, just that she wouldn't rise to the level of trusted person if she would stoop to such a tactic and then offer such a convenient explanation.
