Why has this been downvoted so much? It seems like a straightforward answer to the question "why does this matter?"

@PaulJohnson I downvoted because of a number of unsubstantiated claims and questionable sources (Daily Mail?). For example...

It claims she "checked the box as a minority", but doesn't back it up with specifics. According to politifacts she eventually told Harvard "her family tree includes Native Americans" not that she was "Native American" (related claims sound like they may have been Harvard's dishonesty).

The problem, ultimately, is that Warren clearly derived some social benefit from the claims she made. From this answer, I came to the opposite conclusion. I saw no evidence this was clear. Politifacts didn't find any clear evidence either.

I upvoted for completeness, but I agree that the conclusion she derived some benefit from it is unsupported.

I'm in somewhat of a similar boat, but my ancestry is nearer, and more well-founded ... the fact is, I answer that I have that ancestry because I do (it would be dishonest to list anything else), even though I wasn't raised within the culture. If the box said "Are you a member of a NA cultural group?" then Warren would obviously be lying. But if it said "Indicate your ethnicity," as most forms do, Warren, perhaps believing her heritage was more recent, would be obligated to indicate NA. I'm not sure what the "actual culture" comment is about. Maybe I should remove my vote ...

I didn't downvote, but this is a bad answer because: 1) It doesn't answer op's question 2) it quotes a question from op, and then responds with 4 bullet points not related to the question at all 3) the conclusion about tribal membership vs heritage seems to be answering a question op didn't ask 5) I feel like this entire answer was written just to close by challenging "Warren's credibility" (how exactly??) which also doesn't answer op's question.

@AzorAhai I added some support to the conclusion that she got benefits from claiming to be Native American. I even found a snippet of a law journal where she is mentioned as a woman of "color", as if she were some sort of ground breaker.

@Machavity That doesn't support that she got any sort of social benefit from it; it just says she was the first one (which I agree, is not true in terms of privilege). As for whether the box asked whether she was part of a tribe, you can't say that without knowing exactly what the form said. I've seen plenty of forms that just ask about heritage w/o asking you to identify a tribe (although the census does ask). Obviously, claiming tribal membership would be a lie, but claiming NA ancestry so far seems appropriate on her part.

@AzorAhai The Cherokee Nation doesn't seem to feel any DNA result is relevant to whether or not they are Native American

That is fine - there is obviously not a good answer for what qualifies someone to claim a certain ethnicity, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. I repeat again that your claim the box is meant to indicate tribal membership is not necessarily true, unless that's what the form asked her to indicate.

@AzorAhai I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that she gained some social benefit, but I think Machavity put enough information to show that she definitely could have received some. Are you going to deny that being claimed as the schools first minority woman professor couldn't give some benefit? I won't go as far to say that this would mean she wasn't qualified, in fact it kind of shows the opposite (harvard may not have been able to get many minorities who were qualified for the position, thus EW looked like an good hire for diversity in addition to qualifications)

This answer has the facts there, but can't support the conclusions it draws. Would be worth my upvote if these conclusions are supported or removed, but the facts remained.

@Machavity I didn't downvote but I would add that you don't need to draw such strong conclusions to answer the op's question. Eg, you don't need to establish that she "clearly" derived a benefit from her claimed ancestry, but only that her conduct raises a serious inference that she did so in the minds of many, in order to show why her ancestry is a political issue.

I'd push back on (1), at least here in Oklahoma (where Warren is from). We have no reservations here, and there are many more people who self-identify as part Native American than the defined tribes are allowing on their rolls. Many of those people on the rolls look extremely white and know nothing of their heritage. It is in fact very ill-defined who is Native American and who is not.

@Machavity - If that's going to be brought up, it should also be mentioned that this is the complete opposite of the position the tribe held in court up to last year when they were denying tribal membership to their freedmen on what was essentially genetic grounds. A better explanation of that statement together with what they said last year is that they will argue any side of the genetic position that keeps people off their rolls.

So? Family stories are just that. My grandmother eloped because my grandfather was too Irish for the family. My great aunts dispute that. They claim it was birth order. This is all much ado about nothing. For decades whites claimed a drop of African America blood made someone black. Funny that the Republicans are now taking a totally different position. Just depends on what benefits them today.

For all those asking about the conclusion she gained social benefit, "Harvard Law School, where Warren worked from 1995 until she was elected to the Senate in 2012, “touted Warren’s Native American background … in an effort to bolster their diversity hiring record in the ’90s as the school came under heavy fire for a faculty that was then predominantly white and male.”. Because of her minority claim both her and Harvard benefited from this claim. factcheck.org/2017/12/elizabeth-warrens-pocahontas-controver‌​sy

@DannyC That sounds like the school may have received some benefit from being about to tout their diversity, but how did it benefit Warren? Are you saying she got the job because Harvard wanted to be able to use her as an example of diversity? The Boston Globe investigation disputes that.

@AzorAhai Some of the articles about it show a picture of the form. I think it was just a routine employment application or something like that, with checkboxes for about a dozen races and ethnicities. She checked the boxes for white/European and native American. With so few checkboxes it obviously didn't include specific tribes.

It's interesting to argue simultaneously that white people are privileged above other races but she also derived benefit from touting her Native American heritage above being white. I don't necessarily think that's at odds, but it's a pretty intricate argument and, like other commenters, I think this answer would benefit by focusing more on facts and less on drawing its own conclusions.