Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Were charges of “scientific misconduct” against Elizabeth Warren ever fully vetted?

Were charges of “scientific misconduct” against Elizabeth Warren ever fully vetted?

On June 4, I wrote that The vetting of Elizabeth Warren’s academic background begins.

That post featured a scathing law review article by a well-regarded Rutgers law professor in 1990-1991 who accused Elizabeth Warren and her co-authors of a book on bankruptcy of a wide range of academic offenses.  From my post:

In those 60 pages, Professor [Philip] Shuchman demonstrates time and again how Warren and her co-authors jumped to conclusions, proclaimed new findings which were not new, and most importantly, ignored or did not accurately reflect data…. Professor Shuchman went even further (at pp. 243-244), and suggested that the data was presented in such a way as to preclude verification.

The Rutgers Law Review article was found by Michael Patrick Leahy of Bretibart.com.  After Leahy’s article was published, he dug deeper into investigations of the allegations, which also were directed at Teresa Sullivan, one of Warren’s co-authors and who until Sunday when she stepped down, was President of the University of Virginia.

Here’s an overview of Leahy’s findings, in his post late today, The Academic Scandal Elizabeth Warren and Harvard Don’t Want You to Know About

Twenty-two years later, Professor Shuchman’s charges of “scientific misconduct” against Elizabeth Warren and her co-authors remain publicly unanswered and unresolved. These unresolved charges associated with her first major book raise continue to raise questions that hang over Elizabeth Warren’s entire body of academic work.

The next three articles in this series will address the conduct of three institutions enmeshed in this scandal: The University of Texas, the National Science Foundation, and Harvard University.

Sooner or later Elizabeth Warren will have to answer for her claims of minority, Native American and “woman of color status.”  And she will have to explain a lot more than that.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Science is (supposed to be) OBJECTIVE.

What one researcher observes SHOULD be observable by others, and it is THEIR JOB to test the validity of the stated observations.

CONCLUSIONS are SUPPOSED to be CHALLENGED by hard-eyed, OBJECTIVE skeptics who are SUPPOSED to attack the conclusions of another researcher in search of flaws.

Warren can’t withstand close scrutiny on ANY level. She MAY be a good teacher. Let her stay where the Peter Principle has allowed her to rise.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | June 11, 2012 at 8:15 pm

    As evinced by the issue of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), whereupon Al Gore, et al, state unequivocally that the science is settled, the exactness of science and the scientific method itself have fallen prey to the vicissitudes of dogma and the influence of mammon. Now, if your side can find unscrupulous scientists, pay ’em off under the auspices of some alphabet-agency of government or the UN, you can buy science that flies in the face of the scientific method and defies the whole nature of scientific study. Such fraud is not science.

    Again, the Left reveals itself in how it reacts to scientific studies that offer contrary evidence for things such as AGW, hydraulic fracturing/perforating or food studies. They know they’re cheaters and liars, so the other side must be, too!

    It all fits a standard pattern:
    –The Left commits voter fraud, so they blame the right for stealing elections;
    –The Left disenfranchises voters, so they accuse the right of disenfranchisement;
    –The Left exploits and panders to minorities for votes, so they accuse Republicans of the same type of cynical exploitation as they seek to destroy ‘turncoat’ minority conservatives;
    –The Left is institutionally misogynistic, so they accuse conservatives of also hating women;
    –The Left rigs their scientific studies, so they accuse the other side offering invalid scientific studies.

    In short, if the Left, and its willing shills and enablers accuse you of something, you can bet they’re doing it!

It’s too bad Shuchman is no longer alive. It’d be interesting to know what feedback he received from various sources over the years for that critique.

I wish it were so, but who is going to make Warren so answer and explain?

    persecutor in reply to Rick. | June 11, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    Either she does, or the issue which could have died weeks ago keeps festering until the limb turns black.She could have killed this issue weeks ago by a simple “that’s what my mother and grandmothe told me.” She waited until week four to say that, but by then, the issue of academic dishonesty and profiting from portraying herself as Fauxcahontas were added to the mix.

    If it were a normal election year, she would probably be able to ride it out, but this year it may not be so easy. Dear Leader may be a drag on voter turn out, even in the People’s Republic. If that happens, she’s probably toast.

Samuel Keck | June 11, 2012 at 7:27 pm

The next three articles in this series will address the conduct of three institutions enmeshed in this scandal: The University of Texas, the National Science Foundation, and Harvard University.

Uh, oh!

    persecutor in reply to Samuel Keck. | June 11, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    You got that right!

    If Lieawatha asked me for advice, at this point it would be “go get a shovel, you’re in deep sh*t!”

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to persecutor. | June 11, 2012 at 8:28 pm

      Nah… she’s not in trouble. UT covered it up 20 years ago, knowing that for the Body Politic, falling for clap-trap political slogans and feelings-based ideology was a lot easier than reading some highly technical investigation into a subject most voters care nothing about.

      When I broached this during our family political discussion the other night, the attitude was, “That was 20-years ago, and she was apparently cleared.”

      Only if this resurfaces on a level, where her fellow academics – Warren’s fellow travelers – are embarrassed or caught between an institutional rock and a hard spot, will anything happen. Otherwise, she gets an automatic “courtesy pass” from academia, for which she’ll owe them one in the political sense.

        What difference does it make how long ago it was? Leahy seems to have got hold of the secret report, and says it doesn’t clear her. So the “apparently cleared” was a false rumour.

          TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Milhouse. | June 11, 2012 at 11:38 pm

          I was debating with three family Lefties. To them, 20-years ago is irrelevant, unless it’s an unfounded allegation against a Republican, in which case the very survival of the Republic is at stake if it isn’t investigated immediately.

          Three to one, I had my work cut out for me, especially since logic, facts and common sense were off the table. 😉

Serial Liar… yup, qualified as a Democrat candidate for the US Senate Massachusetts seat.

CheekBones got a lot of weavin and dodgin to do.

‘Scuse me, but didn’t they usta’ burn witches, in MASSachusetts?

Anyone got a lighter? OOPS!, Did I type that?

Doug Wright | June 11, 2012 at 8:02 pm

Elizabeth Warren is an anointed one, therefore she is above review by us mere mortals. That is at least what seems to be her stance, that of Massachusetts Democrat Party officials and by other political personages. As long as Warren continues to ignore the criticisms of her ancestral claims and that of her poor scholarship, she is confirming Orwell’s statement about pigs, that some are more equal than others.

What’s next? Will she next claim to been sent from Obama Almighty or from some lessor god?

My goodness, Democrats are getting to be an awful nuisance (Actually, much more than that!), which brings to mind that famous request from King Henry II about his nemesis! Dare it be repeated here?

Midwest Rhino | June 11, 2012 at 8:04 pm

After they received their funding, they chose to apply “human subject safeguards” by removing identifying information”

Professor Shuchman concluded his book review with this powerful allegation:

This book contains so much exaggeration, so many questionable ploys, and so many incorrect statements …

Does Warren have an established modus operandi? She gains prestige (position or authorship) by fabricating false histories of her relatives or test subjects, and covers her tracks. Being a wise Latina Native American woman covered a multitude of frauds.

Lizzy has pulled the “I am offended that you would question me, you must be a racist misogynist” routine routinely.

btw, Obama said it is offensive to accuse him of leaking intel … but did he deny doing it? It seems he too is used to lying, then when confronted, turns the assault on his “racist” accusers.

Sure looks to me like Theresa Sullivan was fired. Hmmmm, that’s interesting.

    JayDick in reply to Mary Sue. | June 12, 2012 at 9:14 am

    Yes it is interesting. I read the article about this in the Richmond Times-Dispatch yesterday and found the whole thing a bit strange. Of course, the article did not mention the problems with the 20-year old study. Seems that there were no problems and all of a sudden there were philosophical differences between her and the board. I wonder if those “philosophical differences” go back 20 years?

Truth will out. This is going to be a very entertaining 6 months.

l’m a 65 year old layman , just a smattering of college , no degree. However l have been paying attention. The govt. is just to damn big & into to many areas period. Given this fact is why there are all these lnterest Fiefdoms. We need a Constitutional Amendment that limits govt to be no more than 18% of GNP. Section 2 of it would limit elective office to 10 years at which point the officeholder would leave office for a period of 5 years during which they would not be involved with govt. Something that could be done immediatly by new congress would be end baseline budgeting.

stevewhitemd | June 11, 2012 at 10:16 pm

I find it very interesting that Teresa Sullivan is stepping down at UVa. She was highly regarded there and her departure is certainly abrupt.

Now it could be, as the Virginian Pilot article states, that it’s all about questions of direction, control and the future of the university, with her on one side and the Board of Directors on the other.

But such disputes generally drag for a while, because removing a university president, particularly the president of a state’s premier university and a Top 30 national university, is a pretty drastic step.

But a whiff, the merest whiff of fraud? Oh, the Directors will cauterize that wound in a heartbeat.

So it’s very interesting that Prof. Warren’s co-author is out of a job. Suddenly. Makes me want to see what else Pres. Sullivan wrote, and with whom, and see what sort of overlaps exist.

    creeper in reply to stevewhitemd. | June 11, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    I’m getting sick and tired of people saying someone who was caught with her hand in the cookie jar was “highly regarded”. By whom? For what?

    Kinda like the imposter in the White House who was so “highly regarded” the entire record of his academic life had to be locked up.

    That phrase is so nebulous as to be meaningless.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to stevewhitemd. | June 11, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    She didn’t suddenly raise academic requirements for the semi-pro university football team, did she?

    JayDick in reply to stevewhitemd. | June 12, 2012 at 9:18 am

    I read a similar article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. No mention, of course, of the 20-year old study. Could that have been a factor?

Keep pounding on it, Professor. Sooner or later that nut’s gonna crack.

Ah, so wonderful to see the facts and truth being smashed onto Warren’s smouldering mess of lies. With great care, this can be built up into a raging bonfire of Warren’s vanity.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend