She clearly lied about being a minority to receive a lucrative job. I'm just interested in finding out if Taxpayer Dollars were involved with her salary. I know she's a conniving jerkoff, but if Taxpayer Dollars were involved, she needs to pay restitution.
She clearly never lied about being a minority to receive a lucrative job. Makes you the liar. Funny, a liar using a lie to call someone else a liar. Does it get more pathetic than that?
Saying something is a proven fact when people can take the same facts you do and come up with a different conclusion just makes you look like an idiot.
Sure does. And I understand you're about to give us several examples. Please, continue.
We have the testimony of everyone on the search committee that said her Indian heritage was heritage was not a factor in her hiring. Saying it was would expose them to lawsuits.
Oh really. "Lawsuits" for ------------- what?
I must say I'm always tickled by the logic that goes "don't tell me what you mean -- *I* will tell you what you mean". Très drôle.
Affirmative action, while encouraging minority hires does not permit it being the only criteria for hiring.
Questionable but irrelevant here since she was hired --- and
recruited --- on the obvious merits that y'all WDS wankers ignore. Did you actually think nobody would notice the omission? That's so cute.
Oh please, more.
She had put out that she was minority in university of Pennsylvania. Harvard was looking desperately for a minority woman. She fit the bill, but they could not use that as a basis of hiring.
Think you already said this. Same response as above. Not to mention that you have no evidence that "Harvard was looking desperately for a minority woman". You just got done admitting that it wasn't a basis of hiring at all and in fact wasn't even
known.
She was a good professor. She had solid credentials. Harvard was desperate and they refused to look into it.
Finally the glaring omission peeks out when it thinks the coast is clear.
Exactly how does "desperation" apply to a candidate with "solid credentials"? Hm? I'm pretty sure "solid credentials is exactly what an employer WANTS.
Oopsie. Hoist with own petard.
Can't have it both ways Homer.
Either the subject stole the position claiming fake minority status,
or the subject was hired for her credentials. You just admitted which one applies.
What? There's more? By all means, be my jest.
Was there another minority woman they could have hired? I think yes.
What you "think" from the comfort of your barcalounger three decades later about a process you weren't there for is -- this just in -- irrelevant. This goes right back to your original observation of looking at the facts and (choosing to) see(ing) something that isn't there. We call it "assuming facts not in evidence".
Equally qualified? Maybe. On the basis of her claiming minority . status at the time makes her a thief in my book.
Your book must not have a lot of pages in it because she
didn't claim that at the time. Moreover when a box actually did come up to check ethnicity she checked the "white" box, and when asked if she wanted consideration as a minority she checked "No".
Hope you still have the receipt for that book because it needs to go back to Mal-Wart.
She obviously claimed minority status to get ahead, and some other minority, real minority, lost out because of her false claim.
Link?
Evidence?
Why are we not surprised.
Some other minority professor lost out because Warren claimed the status. Thief
Yammer yammer yammer yammer no link no evidence no nothing bing bong goo goo kachew....
When the known facts don't match my analysis, I change my analysis. What do you do sir?
Ah yes, you just make up your own and plug in what "feels good". Facts are so inconvenient aren't they.
