Did he use this to get a job at Harvard?

No - and neither did Elizabeth Warren use her ancestry to get a job at Harvard. Here's her full statement on the matter:

Growing up, my mother and my grandparents and my aunts and uncles often talked about our family’s Native American heritage. As a kid, I never thought to ask them for documentation - what kid would? - but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a part of who I am and part of my family heritage.

The people involved in recruiting and hiring me for my teaching jobs, including Charles Fried - solicitor-general under Ronald Reagan who has publicly said he voted for Scott Brown in 2010 - have said unequivocally they were not aware of my heritage and that it played no role in my hiring. Public documents that reporters have examined also show I did not benefit from my heritage when applying to college or law school. As I have confirmed before, I let people know about my Native American heritage in a national directory of law school personnel. At some point after I was hired by them, I also provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard. My Native American heritage is part of who I am, I’m proud of it and I have been open about it.

The people of Massachusetts are concerned about their jobs, the future for their kids, and the security of retirement. It’s past time we moved on to the important issues facing middle class families in Massachusetts.

Milford Senior Man--I thought we've been through this--your making claims without supporting them. First of all, Elizabeth Warren's application would not be hers to release. Secondly, you STILL have no proof that her claim to have Native American ancestors played any part in her acceptance to Harvard (by the way, do you think any Native American who went to Harvard must be less qualified intellectually to be there? Interesting). Admit your prejudices, your stereotypes, and listen to the woman, for goodness' sake. Have you listened to her ideas on the economy? So many Republican posters on The Patch insist that's the only subject that matters--but in fact, they are fibbing--the only subjects that matter are the economy and Elizabeth Warren's ancestry.

Here is a good one....http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warrens-law-license-problem/

You mean recently, Milford Senior Man? How about accusing Governor Patrick of supporting sex-change laws for prisoners, just based on your hunch? (September 5) And I'm sorry you don't think that there is any difference between Elizabeth Warren refusing to release her application to the public (your statement, see above), and Harvard not having done so. (Do you have your applications to release? Such a lot of nonsense.) When I made my remark about many Republicans seeming more interested in Ms. Warren's heritage than in her constructive ideas, I was by no means identifying you as a Republican. Finally, I am glad that you vote!

John - I'll give you the same answer I gave when you asked the same question on another blog:

Let's say you are right, John - was Brown trying to be get something out of an anecdotal story he gave in an interview? Probably not. And by the article, it says he is related to the judge, anyway. Brown did not use that story repeatedly, either, like Warren did/does. So, on balance, what Warren did is far more disgraceful than what Brown did [and so I will vote for Brown].

I love it when liberals get nervous. Your going to be scalped in the election. This clown article is great and tells of the desperation on the left.

Yes, David, but the dictionary definition of "liberal" does not all apply to the political reality of "liberal in this state and country, and not all of the definition of liberal is a good thing as it applies to politics and governing. For example, "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values", if you have something that works well, why change it for the sake of change?

I keep hearing how only 12% of the voters in Massachusetts are registered as Republicans.

That must make Massachusetts are really smart state.

8:05 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Have you ever met a liberal, Mark Cain? By the way, the quick, online, Merriam Webster definition of liberal:
"LIBERAL: 1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values
...
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform : a liberal democratic state."

I didn't make it up, Mark Cain. I know how you hate anything that smacks of objectivity, but there you have it, and you are constantly screeching that you are against it. Good luck.

David the problem is not with 'liberals' or 'conservatives' it is with zealots and haters on both sides of the fence- the 'middle' of both parties has been marginalized . We have all gotten carried away in the heat of on-line debates- you, me ...etc. etc....and that's part of the bigger problem- 'instant' communication is not better communication.

What seems to be emerging about Liz Warren is a split personality-each new day brings out some big company she represented-the company's goals seem be to screw workers in some way. This is at odds with her self proclaimed role as a mentor for the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd. She's looking a bit like the "Mitt Romney Capitalist Exploiter Action Figure" that the Dems have skillfully used.

John I thought I was staying on topic, wasn't it about lies and deception? You wrote a public blog, expect controversy. If you can't handle people not agreeing with your opinion, then may I suggest not writing another public blog that allows comments that may not agree with yours. It is clear to me, the intention of Elizabeth Warren's lies and how she has gained from them. In my opinion her lies were intentionally carried out for her own gain PERIOD! So put that in your Cherokee pipe and smoke it!

Here is another good one. Care to comment John? http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061162883&srvc=rss

Hi John- articles in Globe and Herald today about coal company work.

The topic is Scott Brown doing exactly what he accuses Warren of doing - lying about his ancestry for personal gain. You posted a link to a blog post that blatantly lied about whether Warren needed a MA license to practice law - that has nothing to do with this topic. If you want to discuss that nonsense, you can start your own post and have at it.

I'll ask again - what are your thoughts on Scott Brown lying bout his ancestry for personal gain? And who are you going to vote for now? Since your belief that Warren lied about her ancestry for personal gain has apparently made up your mind not to vote for her, you'd be a hypocrite to vote for Brown now that you know he did exactly the same thing.

And you would be a hypocrite to vote for Warren. Much to your dismay, all of your hot air is falling on deaf ears. If Warren committed murder in front of you, you would think she was defending herself. Nothing I can say will change your mind, so why waste my breath. As for Scott Brown lying, how do you know that it wasn't the NY Times that misquoted? 2 days later a retraction was made. All public ... all out in the open. Hmmmm I still am waiting to see if Warren benefited from her misrepresentation....oh but that is right, she doesn't have to prove anything. It is Harvard that does.

Elizabeth Warren....slugging it out for the little guy.

http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/09/24/warren-represented-coal-mining-company-bankruptcy-caseb/HTgZwpjNJBy8aL6geQ8jXI/story.html?camp=fb

Scott Brown single-handedly stopped new finance regulations from going forward, regulations that would have prevented another economic nightmare like the mortgage-backed derivative scheme; and Brown is reaping his reward by getting more Wall Street PAC money than any Senate candidate in history while Warren may be the most feared Senate candidate in Wall Street history. And folks here are obsessing over Warren's ancestry. I guess I'd change the subject too.

Positive proof gas now been found for Warren's Native American ancestry, so now what? End of issue I hope.

i mean, has been found.
I don't even see what the issue is to begin with. She is part Native American and she has the right to claim it. Sounds like it was more than family stories. My mother is Asian from Asia. I have never seen her birth certificate...does this mean she may be lying?

When I was growing up, my parents and grandparents told me I was Scotch-Irish. Yeah, they weren't high-toned enough to say "Scots-Irish". Turns out there's English, French, Finnish, and Swedish in there, too. My mom had hoped for Cherokee, but no such luck.

Oh, nuts, by Scott Brown's standards, I've lied about my origins. That's probably why I got into Harvard, and they should revoke my diploma.

This is all complete nonsense. This is Scott Brown playing on the resentments of voters to try to fool them into supporting his political kabuki theater, in which he poses as a pick-up truck driver and nice guy.

I guess we've seen the truth behind that nice guy image.

Again I have to ask where on any piece of paper that asks for "Race" does it say "Scottish"...or "Irish" or "Italian" and yes even "Swedish"? Most of those origins fall under "Caucasian" and would not qualify you for affirmative action standards. However, if you check "Native American", which is listed under race. Guess what happens? You are now a minority candidate and a good bet to be hired if you meet the other qualifications(Hopefully). You have just set yourself apart from other qualified "Caucasian" candidates by just checking a box. Seems to me that there is a story there somewhere. And Warren is doing all she can to not have to tell it!

Yawn. And Charles Fried, who was President Reagan's Solicitor General and who hired Elizabeth Warren, says she was not hired on that basis, she didn't check the box until after hiring, and it didn't matter then.

Of course, she is a woman, but Scott Brown can't denigrate that.

I want only to comment on Elizabeth Warren identifying herself as being of Native American heritage without documentation, and continuing to do so over the years. I too have done the same under similar circumstances. Born and raised in NY my father always told us that the family believed there was an Apache in the line somewhere, on his father's side and at least one generation further back than Elizabeth's, probably two. Add to that the fact that this ancestry originated out in the western U.S. and my father had grown up in NJ and we were now in NY. I remember him telling us that he had checked into whether or not it would be useful for us for schooling, but we (my brother and I) were either 1/32 or 1/64 and that was too little to qualify for anything.

Yet all my life when listing my ancestry I would say Irish, Swedish, eastEuropean Jewish, and American Indian (Native American not yet the term in vogue). I liked, still do, the idea that perhaps part of my ancestry included the "first" Americans.

Her behavior does not strike me as odd in the least. My husband's family is similar, since I've known him over 24 years his mother has often mentioned a Native American one or two generations back but no specifics or documentation. My husband too in discussing his ancestry would mention the possible Native American.

If a REPUBLICAN who supports Scott Brown is telling you that IT DID NOT MATTER why do you insist on claiming that it did? Are you calling him a liar?

Irene...situation....You and I are applying for a job. You identify yourself as Caucasian and I check Native American. We have the same qualifications, but the company we are applying to needs to meet diversity requirements if at all possible. You killed the interview...I was just ok. Who gets the job?

I know you want me to say that you will, BUT I can assure you that there will many other factors, and many of them will still not relate to either our qualifications or our performance in the interview or our self-checked ethnicity. Things like perceived fit with probable coworkers, personal feelings of the supervisor to be or her boss, appearance, expectations about your health and potential drain on insurance premiums if you or your family make too many claims, perceived likelihood of your leaving too soon or not soon enough, their search of your publicly searchable social media appearances.

And for the record today, which is different from decades past, very few places ask for that information BEFORE hiring, it is only when actually employed that you check that off on the forms that go into your personnel file.

IAlso for the record, I do not check Caucasian, or any other box, I write REFUSE and or HUMAN on any form that requests this information.

LOL Irene.. When is the last time you actually saw a job application? You are unbelievably out of touch! And as someone who is actively involved in the hiring process at my company I can say that with firsthand knowlege. It's a question that is asked on almost every application. Go online and look at an actual application. Its usually asked near the end of ALL online applications. I commend you for not checking the box or refusing to answer. It tells me you would like to be judged on your merits. Kudos to you! But your candidate did not show the same restraint. She checked the box that would give her an edge as a minority. We will never know if that is the reason she got the job,because Harvard could never answer and not face some kind of backlash.
And Irene in the hiring process, you cant take some of the factors you mentioned into account or you would face a discrimination suit that you would lose badly! Personal feelings of the Boss? Expectations about your health or potential drain on your premiums? To me that says you havent been out in the job market for awhile, and I hope that is a good thing for you!

Consider this: the big banks are so desperate to defeat Warren they're enthusiastically whipping up ugly racial hatred to do it, because that's all they've got. Bigotry is a fools' game: it's how corrupt plutocrats make clueleess tools out of the middle and working classes. When the white middle and working class voted Democratic they steadily did better. Since switching to the GOP they've steadily done worse, but they get to hate somebody. Whoopee. The sooner they realize rightwing plutocrats are making fools of them the better off they'll be.

Middle Class is doing better? Worst period of unemployment since the Great Depression...more people on the welfare rolls....150,000 people gave up looking for work last month. If thats considered steadily doing better then God help us all!

Where's the article on Warren who took advantage of the rigged system? Why did she accept money from Wall Street?

Tori - show us the link.

John... you do realize that he actually IS related to Rugg, right? Unlike Warren who IS NOT a Cherokee. He was mistaken about how he was related, but he is related. Very big difference.

Also John... please show me the quote from Brown saying he is his great grandfather? Or did you even bother to read the article. Even the retraction says that it was the magazines mistake. Nowhere does it say Brown actually said it.