[quote name='mykevermin']Wait, this whole scandal is over Warren being hired as a *visiting* professor?
Please tell me that's not true.[/QUOTE]
Warren was offered tenure in February of 93, she waited until 95 to accept for personal reasons.
[quote name='dohdough']You're mixing up your dates. Protests were in 1986 and Warren was hired in 1992 as a visiting professor, which is pretty much like an adjunct position. The protests in 86 were involving a woman of color that was denied tenure; unlike how Warren was never offered a tenure-track position to begin with. Token or not, it's not as simple as you're trying to make it.[/QUOTE]
No, protests were still occurring even during the time Warren was a visiting professor in 92. The 4 white professors were offered tenure in 92 and it sparked protests that included taking over the dean's office (i.e. the Griswold Nine). The week before she was first offered tenure, there was a vigil held by law students on campus demanding more women and minorities.
She's the only tenured professor at Harvard Law to not come from a top 10 school. Only one Ivy League law professor has come from a worse school. There were allegations of scientific misconduct in her scholarship prior to Harvard. By all accounts she was very good in the classroom but her resume is pedestrian enough for there to be some doubt.
But even after all that, I'm not necessarily sure its Warren that needs to come clean here, its Harvard. Harvard was selling a bill of goods that simply wasn't true, and those records are being held back not because they might damage Warren, but because they're potentially embarrassing to Harvard. Harvard Law promoted her as a minority whenever the issue of diversity within their faculty arose for years.
The only thing that bothered me is that she refused to directly answer the question, "Are you a minority?" By any reasonable standard she is not. It would've helped her just to say no.
but I still would.
