Surprise! Kamala Harris Took Advantage of an Affirmative Action Program for "Disadvantaged Children" Despite Being the Daughter of Two Well-Off Professors

She is the worst example of DEI anti-meritocracy.

She got into a very meh law school named Hastings.

And she didn't even get in on her own merits.

She wasn't an honors student at Howard. There is no information on what Kamala Harris scored on her LSAT. We do know that she didn't pass the Bar on the first try when 80 percent of her classmates did pass. So how did a run-of-the-mill student, and daughter of a "privileged" upbringing get into Hastings School of Law?

Easy -- she fudged her application. Harris was admitted under a program called LEOP. According to the University:

UC Hastings created the Legal Education Opportunity Program (LEOP) in 1969 to make an outstanding legal education accessible to those who come from disadvantaged economic and educational backgrounds.

Students are encouraged to submit a "separate LEOP statement describing the adversity they faced and its impact on their academic preparedness for law school. Diagnostic reports documenting disabilities and/or accommodations can be submitted as addenda."

In a Politico article from 2021, the author describes Harris at Hastings:

In the fall of 1986, Harris arrived on campus at Hastings a week before most of her classmates. She was part of the pre-orientation Legal Education Opportunity Program (LEOP), which had been founded in 1969 to help law students from disadvantaged communities navigate the stringent demands of the first-year curriculum. Harris had come to a predominantly white institution after four years at a historically Black university. Beyond introducing students to Socratic pedagogy, case-briefing and exam-taking, the pre-orientation also gave students of color a sense of community and a hamlet of solidarity in a cut-throat environment.

Harris, the daughter of two college professors, who grew up attending private schools in Canada, was not, in the least, economically or socially disadvantaged. But there she is, claiming she was.

Further evidence she's a DEI hire? She's a plagiarist.

I don't just mean the extensive plagiarism in "her" book, "Smart" on Crime. We covered that last week.

But there are new charges that she plagiarized almost the entire speech of an attorney general. One part she didn't plagiarize, though: she took a fictitious example of a sex crime, changed the city the imaginary incident occurred in, and presented it a real.

That part, presenting a fake "for example" scenario as real? That was Pure Kamala.

But apart from simply making up a lie for the speech, she stole the rest of it.

On April 24, 2007, Kamala Harris testified before Congress in support of the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007. The bill, which was introduced that year but never passed the upper chamber, would have created a student loan repayment program for state and local prosecutors, and Harris, then the district attorney of San Francisco, argued it would draw top legal talent to offices like hers.

In a written statement to the House Judiciary Committee, she described how debt-addled prosecutors often decamp to the private sector a few years into the job, lured by the prospect of higher pay that could be used to pay off law school debt. That dynamic had left many district attorneys' offices short-staffed, she said, forcing them to put rookie attorneys on complex cases.

"There are numerous criminal cases that are particularly difficult because of the dynamics involved," Harris wrote. "To name just a few--child abuse, elder neglect, domestic violence, identity theft and public corruption. The stakes are simply too high to allow any attorney other than experienced prosecutors to handle these matters."

By repaying the loans of prosecutors and public defenders, Harris argued, the bill, which had been introduced with bipartisan support, would provide an incentive for lawyers to enter public service, or at least diminish the incentive to leave it.

The statement was simple and pragmatic. But Harris wasn't the first person to make it.

Virtually her entire testimony about the bill was taken from that of another district attorney, Paul Logli of Winnebago County, Illinois, who had testified in support of the legislation two months earlier before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both statements cite the same surveys, use the same language, and make the same points in the same order, with a paragraph added here or there. They even contain the same typos, such as missing punctuation or mistaken plurals. One error--a "who" that should have been a "whom"--was corrected in Harris's transposition.

Go to the Free Beacon's article to see the speeches side-by-side. They're virtually identical.

The main difference between their testimonies is that Logli submitted his to the Senate instead of the House. And unlike Harris, Logli is a Republican.

Harris, who also testified about two other bills that day, devoted approximately 1,500 words to the John R. Justice Act. Nearly 1,200 of them--or 80 percent--were copied verbatim from the statement Logli submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 27, 2007, two months before Harris delivered her testimony.

...

The passages are some of the most striking cases in which Harris, a former senator and state attorney general, appears to have plagiarized in her capacity as a government official, lifting large chunks of texts from other attorneys--and in one case from Wikipedia--without attribution, according to a Washington Free Beacon review of her work.

...

[A]s California attorney general, she didn't just copy boilerplate language without attribution. In one of the lengthier passages reviewed by Free Beacon, she lifted a fictionalized story about a victim of sex trafficking--and presented it as a real case.

The story came from Polaris Project, a nonprofit that runs the National Human Trafficking Hotline. By June 2012, the project had posted a series of vignettes on its website that were "representative of the types of calls" the hotline receives and "meant for informational purposes only," according to an archived webpage. To preserve confidentiality, the project said, key details like "names, locations, and other identifying information" had been changed.

But in November 2012, Harris included one of those vignettes in a report she published on the state of human trafficking in California. Though she said that the story was "courtesy of" the hotline, she copied it verbatim and did not acknowledge that it contained fictionalized material.

The only detail she changed was the location. The Polaris Project described a young woman, "Kelly," who had been forced to engage in prostitution and was rescued by law enforcement in Washington, D.C. But in Harris's telling, Kelly had conveniently been found in San Francisco.

The change effectively gave Harris credit for a rescue that never occurred, at least in her state, and reflects what Skinner, the former solicitor general, said was a common perception of Harris among legal officials at the time.

"She was never viewed in the Attorney General community as being an intellectual leader," he said. "It is very on-brand with that reputation to hear now that she was repackaging stories from other locations as though they happened in California."

The story from the hotline wasn't a one-off. In a 2010 report on organized crime, Harris copied several passages from Bill Lockyer, one of her predecessors as California attorney general, without attribution.

In the 2012 report on human trafficking, she copied a paragraph from Wikipedia.

And in a 2014 report on transnational gangs, she copied several sentences from Roger McDonough, a New York State judge, as well as McDonough's footnotes.

Ekdahl says she's lazy. Trump says she's dumb.

Both are right.

I would point out, though, that Kamala's problems -- not being able to do her own work, constantly demanding that others "position her for success," not reading report her staff writes for her and then screaming at them when she's embarrassed due to her own ignorance -- are also signs of being 1, a coddled, protected DEI incompetent, and 2, a day-drinking drunk.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 05:39 PM

| Access Comments