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  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.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    ‘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.

    Mary Sue | June 11, 2012 at 8:07 pm

    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?

    Icepilot | June 11, 2012 at 8:42 pm

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

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend