After reading the NYT op ed “When it comes to family, true and false are often beside the point,” I looked through Warren’s Harvard bibliography for insight into Warren’s positions re: race.
This is the text of a Warren 2002 paper (delivered as a lecture): “The Economics of Race: When Making It to the Middle is Not Enough.” She is looking into black and Hispanic bankruptcies, particularly as caused by predatory sub-prime mortgage practices. Although she does not specifically examine Native American bankruptcies, throughout the paper she generalizes “the economics of race” as “minority” economics.
On page 1798, Warren discusses varying consequences for different issues of minority abuse. Although she is arguing for more activist agitation against predatory lending, she iterates several actual and desired consequences that she ardently approves of for powerful people who in some way abuse race:
“When Senator Trent Lott seemingly expressed his nostalgia for a segregated America, minority groups around the country barraged the talk shows and newspapers, and Senator Lott was ultimately stripped of his powerful position as Majority Leader of the Senate. Similarly, when Texaco executives were accused of using racial slurs to refer to blacks, the company was boycotted, sued for millions of dollars, and forced to adopt new practices to ensure that its black employees had better opportunities.(53) But when a Citibank official said in sworn affidavits that she regularly added extra fees to a home mortgage “[i]f someone.., was a minority,’(54) there was little response. Citibank quietly agreed to a cash settlement with the FTC, and there were no press releases from the NAACP, no extended discussions on Hispanic radio stations, no interviews on the evening news, and no calls for Citibank’s highly visible CEO Sandy Weill to resign.”
Why don’t similar sanctions apply to a person who falsifies minority status — clear legal definitions of Native American status universally available — for a college professorship … or for a U.S. senator? Shouldn’t that person be called on to resign/withdraw?
Your purchases from Amazon.com help support this blog at no extra cost to you.
What They Are Saying About Me
"Someone with credibility is saying these things and trying to do something. Thank you."
"'Obtuse' is just about the nicest thing I could say about Jacobson. The problem with being too steeped in any profession is that you run the risk of no longer understanding the difference between reality and your profession's most obscure minutiae."
"I just wanted to thank you for writing such a great article on your reasons why you voted for John McCain. I wish everyone would have read that article."
"Jacobson is doing only what other McCain supporters are starting to do, produce these worthless pieces from some narrow perch in order to cover up their own racist bigotry"
"Cornell and the country need more educators like yourself to keep the flag of reason flying."
“I take it Jacobson teaches at the cow college part of Cornell, and not the elite section where Coulter attended.”
"Thank you for speaking out... and I hope you avoid repercussions in 'The People's Republic of Ithaca.'"
Comments
After reading the NYT op ed “When it comes to family, true and false are often beside the point,” I looked through Warren’s Harvard bibliography for insight into Warren’s positions re: race.
See: http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1422&context=wlulr
This is the text of a Warren 2002 paper (delivered as a lecture): “The Economics of Race: When Making It to the Middle is Not Enough.” She is looking into black and Hispanic bankruptcies, particularly as caused by predatory sub-prime mortgage practices. Although she does not specifically examine Native American bankruptcies, throughout the paper she generalizes “the economics of race” as “minority” economics.
On page 1798, Warren discusses varying consequences for different issues of minority abuse. Although she is arguing for more activist agitation against predatory lending, she iterates several actual and desired consequences that she ardently approves of for powerful people who in some way abuse race:
“When Senator Trent Lott seemingly expressed his nostalgia for a segregated America, minority groups around the country barraged the talk shows and newspapers, and Senator Lott was ultimately stripped of his powerful position as Majority Leader of the Senate. Similarly, when Texaco executives were accused of using racial slurs to refer to blacks, the company was boycotted, sued for millions of dollars, and forced to adopt new practices to ensure that its black employees had better opportunities.(53) But when a Citibank official said in sworn affidavits that she regularly added extra fees to a home mortgage “[i]f someone.., was a minority,’(54) there was little response. Citibank quietly agreed to a cash settlement with the FTC, and there were no press releases from the NAACP, no extended discussions on Hispanic radio stations, no interviews on the evening news, and no calls for Citibank’s highly visible CEO Sandy Weill to resign.”
Why don’t similar sanctions apply to a person who falsifies minority status — clear legal definitions of Native American status universally available — for a college professorship … or for a U.S. senator? Shouldn’t that person be called on to resign/withdraw?
http://www.campaignmoney.com/#top_candidates
Warren only second to obama in fund raising? Must want her socialist vote in the Senate.
Leave a Comment
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)