I don't see anything about affirmative action in that article. In fact, other articles posted in this thread suggest that she didn't benefit from it at all. Regardless your premise is flawed. The fact that she declared she was Native American on some forms is not germane to the topic at hand. Regarding your critique, you're treading the line of of a fallacious argument. Also, have you considered that maybe we should take the banks to court because it's symbolic?