Search the Lounge


« Publishing Oppotunity: University of Dayton Law Review | Main | John Marshall Chicago Seeks Spring 2019, 2019-20 Visitors »

October 15, 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

not really

seems irrationally anti-white--for shame!!


So ironic that Lubet posted this today, just as a Senator has claimed that a miniscule percentage of "ancestry" derived from a particular group has justified the uses to which she has put her claim to "belong" to that group (which, btw, she mainly, but unconvincingly denies). See, the WSJ today: "Did Elizabeth Warren Just Kill Identity Politics?" and the The Boston Globe’s reporting on Ms. Warren’s various racial claims.

From what I've read, the actual percentage of "ancestry" she claims is ubiquitous among "white people" - perhaps even average -- which would justify AA for nearly all such people.


She claimed she had a Native American ancestor, and DNA proves she does. Now that’s not good enough? Lol.

Keep moving the goalposts, buddy.


As usual, the angry, low information retorts just demonstrate ignorance. The issue isn't "DNA proves she does" unless you accept her level of claims based on a condition that is nearly "average." Because one can easily see you won't do anything to inform yourself, here's a brief excerpt:

According to the WSJ, “'Warren provided a sample of her DNA to a private lab in Georgia in August, according to one of the senator’s aides,' says a report today by Annie Linskey in the Boston Globe. But the senator sought a judgment on the results from Carlos Bustamante, a professor of biomedical data science at Stanford." the WSJ reports.

"[The DNA evidence] ... suggests that the senator is somewhere between 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American."

The New York Times, in 2014, reported that "last week a team of scientists published the biggest genetic profile of the United States to date, based on a study of 160,000 people,” reported Dr Carl Zimmer. "The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American."

Back to the WSJ: "At least according to the report from Professor Bustamante, it’s possible that Sen. Warren has far less than one percent Native American ancestry, and that her genetic makeup is perhaps similar to that of the average white person in the U.S."

YOu can spew all you want, Anon. But, read The Boston Globe’s reporting on Ms. Warren’s various racial claims (you can find a summary of those claims in the WSJ piece). Your hostility and gross outbursts don't prove much, buddy. But, read those claims and tell us, in good faith, that you believe they were justified.

The Law Offcies of Kavanaugh Thomas, LLC, PC, LTD, Chartered, AV Rated

Interesting analysis Professor Lubet. Let's put this in simple stark terms. Court Ordered George W. Bush and Donald John Trump were elevated to the presidency by affirmative action aka electoral college. Two North Dakota oil workers and a rancher from Idaho overturned and stomped on the will of 63 million Americans voters who don't share their values.

The Law Offcies of Kavanaugh Thomas, LLC, PC, LTD, Chartered, AV Rated

Anon and anon,

I had a DNA test too. It came back Hottie-American. They let me into law school and allow me to post here cause I am good looking. There now.


As for the merits of the article above, I think it is too far fetched to be basically sound.

Let's compare Senate representation to affirmative action in law school admissions.

The decision to afford each state two votes in the Senate was not even remotely similar to a decision to admit, in the interest of diversity, "racial minorities" to law school. In an admittedly over-simplified description, AA in the latter instance might have taken the form of displacing "white (males)" (who might have had better LSAT and GPA scores, and thus have qualified for admission under the old "auto admit" policies employed by many law schools) in favor of persons with lower LSAT/GPA scores, based on race, or some other category into which that person might be placed.

Senate representation was not based on race, not adopted in the interest of diversity, and did not advantage some states which would not otherwise have qualified for representation under established objective criteria to admission into the United States that were based on population.

The states which adopted the Constitution were equals. They surrendered some of that sovereignty to form a union. In this union, these states might have claimed one state one vote. Period.

But, these states compromised.

What principle do you cite to support the view that it was unethical, ill advised or even unusual for each state to claim some right to an equal say in one house, which would have 1/3 of the power the new union?

If your answer is that population size is the only determinant of political power, then your answer would be ahistorical, wrong on principle and, in fact, in defiance of common sense.

The structure of representation in Congress had nothing to do with affirmative action. Yours is therefore, IMHO, a poor analogy.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad