Connect with us

ACTION ALERT: The Anti-Gay Regnerus Study, And The American Sociological Association

Published

on

ACTION ALERT — FURTHER DOWN IN THIS STORY!

YOU WILL BE INSTRUCTED ON HOW TO E-MAIL AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL SOCIETY PRESIDENT —

DR. ERIC OLIN WRIGHT

A study allegedly — but not actually — on gay parents’ child outcomes — with funding linked to NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, of at least $785,000 — was carried out by the University of Texas at Austin’s Mark Regnerus.

The study falsely alleges that there is a correlation between gay parents and bad child outcomes.

In an especially dirty trick with NOM’s fingerprints all over it, the study falsely alleges a correlation between lesbian mothers, and children suffering sexual victimization at shockingly high rates. NOM is notorious for conflating homosexuals with pedophiles, a known falsehood.

NOM is linked to the Witherspoon Foundation through, among others; 1) NOM head Robert George, a Witherspoon senior fellow; and 2) Witherspoon president Luis Tellez, a NOM board member.

Both Witherspoon and NOM have been using the invalid Regnerus study as a weapon against gay human beings, both in politics and the courts.

Mark Regnerus is a member of the American Sociological Association (ASA), which has not yet taken any actions against him, despite his manifest multiple violations of the ASA’s Code of Ethics.

The ASA need make no ethics determinations about Regnerus, in order to file appropriate, science-based amicus briefs in response to the Regnerus “study” having been used as an anti-gay weapon in multiple venues.

Notably in the Golinski-DOMA case, now headed for the Supreme Court, the gay-bashing enemy has relied on the invalid Regnerus ‘study’ in its filings, yet the ASA is sitting on folded hands, as though the Regnerus study were a good faith scientific effort rather than commissioned anti-gay hate speech.

The Regnerus study makes an invalid comparison between its test group and its control group. For this reason alone, the study is invalid.

Regnerus cherry-picked a control group of young adult children of continuously married heterosexual couples, and compared them in his study analysis and conclusions to young adult children from a hodgepodge of domestic situations, principally divorced opposite sex couples, whom Regnerus improperly labeled as “lesbian mothers” and/or “gay fathers.”

If you have not been following this story, and need further analysis of what makes the Regnerus study invalid, go here. Understand, additionally, that this reporter interviewed sociologists from top universities including Harvard, Yale and Princeton. I asked “Are there any well-regarded sociological studies that use a test-group, control-group comparison equally inappropriate as that seen in the Regnerus study?” All of the experts I interviewed told me that a study with such a test-group, control-group comparison would not be considered valid, still less well-regarded.

Over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s sent a letter to the journal that published Regnerus — Social Science Research — complaining of the study’s lack of intellectual integrity and of the suspicious circumstances under which it was published. Their letter included this: “there are substantial concerns about the merits of this paper, and these concerns should have been identified through a thorough and rigorous peer review process.”

It now has been documented that there was no thorough and rigorous peer review process prior to publication of the Regnerus study.

Social Science Research‘s own published Peer Review Policy says that submissions will be given to peer reviewers with expertise in the topic of the submission, and that when authors submit papers about esoteric topics — such as gay parenting — they can expect to wait “substantially” more than the usual 2 to 3 months for the SSR editor just to locate topic-expert peer reviewers.

By contrast, the Regnerus study was submitted on February 1, 2012 and accepted just 5 1/2 weeks later on March 12; no topic experts had been used in the peer review, and some of the peer reviewers had conflicts of interest, including that some were paid consultants on the Regnerus study. Others have longstanding professional and personal associations with Regnerus. The “audit” of the publication process was not undertaken by an independent outside investigator. Rather, SSR editor-in-chief James Wright had SSR editorial board member Darren Sherkat conduct an “audit” — which found ethically compromised,  peer review failure, yet held Wright accountable for exactly nothing. Even though Wright did not seek and then use topic expert peer reviewers, Sherkat says that in Wright’s shoes, he may well have made all the same decisions.

Whatever else may be said about Wright and Sherkat, the proper action now is for the Regnerus study to be retracted from publication. Corrupt peer review is no peer review at all, and certainly not anything that can be called scientifically and ethically appropriate peer review. If the Regnerus study is to be re-published later, it must first be put through ethical and appropriate professional peer review. You may sign a petition demanding for the Regnerus study to be retracted, here.

THE FURTHER ACTION ALERT IS BELOW!

Ethics complaints have been presented to the American Sociological Association against Regnerus, Wright, Sherkat and Paul Amato, who as a paid study consultant dubiously but very enthusiastically endorsed Regnerus’s inappropriate and inadequate study design, in a commentary published alongside the Regnerus study.

NOM leaders rely on Amato’s questionable stamp-of-approval when they use the Regnerus study as a weapon against gays.

Though the ASA’s Dr. Sally Hillsman reports that the ethics complaints are in process, she will not provide even an estimated timetable for the processing of the complaints.

Meanwhile, the American Sociological Association need not reach any ethical judgments concerning Regnerus, before filing science based briefs rebutting the fraudulent claims made about, and/or in the Regnerus study, where the Regnerus study is being used as a defamatory weapon against gay people in the courts.

Eric Olin Wright is current president of the American Sociological Association.

Approached this summer about producing American Sociological Association amicus briefs in the Regnerus matter, Wright first said words to the effect that he could not be bothered.

Pressured, he said that if section heads under him in the ASA were to express some interest in producing ASA Regnerus-related briefs, perhaps he could begin to think about organizing for the production of such briefs. Since that time, there is no direct evidence that the American Sociological Association has lifted a finger to counter the scientific illegitimacy of its member Mark Regnerus’s NOM-linked funded “study” on “gay parenting.”

THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION

Wright must now be pressured, promptly to produce appropriate American Sociological Association amicus briefs where Regnerus has been used in the courts as a defamatory weapon against gay people, including in the Golinski case, and in Jackson v. Hawaii.

Wright’s e-mail address is wright@ssc.wisc.edu

Below is a suggested message to him. If you compose your own message, please consider making it firm, direct and businesslike.

Before proceeding to the sample message to Wright, though, you should be aware that along with the American Medical Association,  a total of eight professional associations filed a Golinski amicus brief, detailing how a previous Golinski case brief from the American College of Pediatricians — a far right religious splinter group — had misrepresented what the Regnerus study says, and then going beyond that, to analyze the Regnerus study as invalid. The AMA brief says:

“The Regnerus study placed participants (individuals between the age of 18 and 39) into one of eight categories, six of which were defined by the family structure in which they grew up — e.g., married biological parents, divorced parent, divorced but remarried parent, etc. There was no category for “same-sex couple.” Instead, the final two categories included all participants, regardless of family structure, who believed that at some time between birth and their 18th birthday their mother or their father “ever ha[d] a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex.” Hence the data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner. Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple.” Hence the Regnerus study sheds no light on the parenting of stable, committed same-sex couples.”

While it is admirable that the American Medical Association filed that brief, it is now essential for the American Sociological Association to file amicus briefs.

Regnerus — an ASA member — alleges that his study — (now being very aggressively used as an anti-gay-rights weapon by his NOM-linked funders) — is the best that sociology has to offer and to say about gay parents’ child outcomes.

However, given our knowledge that 1) the Regnerus study was published through corrupt peer review; and that 2) no sociologist without conflicts of interest with Regnerus will vouch for the validity of the Regnerus study’s test-group/control-group comparison; and that 3) Regnerus appears to be in collusion with his funders and with third parties hostile to gay people — in the communication to the public of multiple, documentable untruths about what his study says, in contexts of expression hostile to gay people, and in violation of the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics;

There is just no excuse for the American Sociological Association not to treat this situation as a red hot emergency, and to promptly produce appropriate amicus briefs related to the Regnerus study.

Here then, is a suggested message for you to e-mail to ASA President Erik Olin Wright: (wright@ssc.wisc.edu)

You can copy the message right from this post, and then paste it into an e-mail to Dr. Wright.

Be certain to get as many of your friends as possible to e-mail Wright also.

Dear American Sociological Association President Wright:

With this message, I am requesting that you immediately mobilize the American Sociological Association to produce appropriate amicus briefs to counter the falsehoods and anti-gay defamation promulgated in a study by ASA member Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin.

As you know, distortions of scientific records all too often have been used as social and political weapons against minorities.

Regnerus produced a profoundly dubious study, that is allegedly, but not actually on gay parents’ child outcomes. Regnerus’s work, published June 10, 2012 in the Elsevier journal Social Science Research, is titled How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.

I believe that you are already acquainted with the widely-disseminated, strictly science-based analyses of Regnerus’s study. I understand that top sociologists without conflicts of interest with Regnerus are in agreement that the inappropriate comparison Regnerus makes between his test-group and his control-group renders his study invalid. To express my concerns in the form of a Socratic question, can you — as President of the American Sociological Association — name ten well-regarded sociological studies whose test-group/control-group comparisons are equal in their inappropriateness to that seen in the Regnerus study?

Regnerus very strongly appears to be in collusion with his study’s funders and with third parties to demonize gay people both with his study, and with gross misrepresentations of what his study says.

For example, Regnerus contacted Robert Oscar Lopez after seeing Lopez’s anti-gay-rights comments in support of the Regnerus study online.

Regnerus then engaged in correspondence with Lopez. Shortly thereafter, Regnerus’s National Organization for Marriage-linked funders at The Witherspoon Institute published an essay by Lopez. Lopez grossly misrepresents what the Regnerus study says, even as he mentions within his essay that Regnerus contacted him first to engage in correspondence about the study and “LGBT issues.” Immediately after The Witherspoon Institute published Lopez’s essay, the essay was cross-posted to the NOM blog, and to The National Review website by NOM official Maggie Gallagher.

In that, Regnerus appears to be in violation of the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics.

Though Regnerus contacted Lopez first, conducted correspondence about his study with him, and Regnerus’s funders then widely disseminated the Lopez essay — with its multiple gross inaccuracies about the Regnerus study — Regnerus has done nothing whatsoever to correct the gross inaccuracies about his study being publicized by his study’s funders.

Here is what the ASA’s Code of Ethics, Section 10, on Public Communications says in its preamble:

“Sociologists adhere to the highest professional standards in public communications about their professional services, credentials and expertise, work products, or publications, whether these communications are from themselves or from others.

I want to share a story with you, Dr. Wright, about victims of Regnerus’s “study.”

A family comprised of two lesbian mothers and their three adopted children live in a suburban area. They previously had very friendly relationships with all of their neighbors. Two neighbor families, however, heard on the news that Regnerus had “proven” that children of lesbian mothers suffer dramatically higher rates of sexual victimization. Now, those two family neighbors do not permit their children to play with the lesbian mothers’ kids, nor will they even talk with any member of the family under any circumstances.

Dr. Wright; as president of the American Sociological Association, you have a moral duty immediately to organize the effort to produce appropriate Regnerus-related amicus briefs.

Many advanced thanks for your attention to this matter.

New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Comer Announces Public Hearing After Hunter Biden Closed Door Testimony

Published

on

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer announced he will hold a public hearing with Hunter Biden after the president’s son testified behind closed doors for most of Wednesday.

“I think this was a great deposition for us, it proved several bits of our evidence, that we’ve been conducting throughout this investigation, but there are also some contradictory statements that I think need further review,” Comer told reporters Wednesday afternoon.

“So this impeachment inquiry will now go to the next phase, which will be a public hearing. And that’s something that I think everyone in the media has been asking a lot of questions about. Something that I know that Mr. Biden and his attorney both demanded, just as I said, when we said we were going to do the deposition first, we will have a public hearing next.”

It’s unclear what other witnesses Chairman Comer and Chairman Jordan will present.

Comer claimed that parts of Hunter Biden’s testimony contradicted some of their previous witness’ testimony, although he refused to elaborate.

READ MORE: Court Denies Trump Request to Pause $454M Bond Requirement Amid His Cash Liquidity Claim

Hunter Biden stated in the opening remarks he released publicly Wednesday morning that Chairman Comer and Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan had built their “entire partisan house of cards on lies told by the likes of Gal Luft, Tony Bobulinski, Alexander Smirnov, and Jason Galanis.”

“Luft, who is a fugitive, has been indicted for his lies and other crimes; Smirnov, who has made you dupes in carrying out a Russian disinformation campaign waged against my father, has been indicted for his lies; Bobulinski, who has been exposed for the many false statements he has made, and Galanis, who is serving 14 years in prison for fraud.”

Politico described Hunter Biden’s opening statement as “blistering.”

“I am here today,” the President’s son began, “to provide the Committees with the one uncontestable fact that should end the false premise of this inquiry: I did not involve my father in my business. Not while I was a practicing lawyer, not in my investments or transactions domestic or international, not as a board member, and not as an artist. Never.”

Watch Comer below or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Swore Under Oath He Had $400 Million in Cash – Now He’s Telling a Court a Different Story

Continue Reading

News

Court Denies Trump Request to Pause $454M Bond Requirement Amid His Cash Liquidity Claim

Published

on

A New York appeals court has denied Donald Trump’s request to issue a stay on the state Supreme Court’s ruling ordering the ex-president to pay $454 million in the civil business fraud case brought by Attorney General Letitia James. Trump had offered to post a bond of $100 million as he appeals the ruling, as he suggested he did not have sufficient liquid assets – namely, cash – to post the full amount required.

The judge did, however, pause a portion of the ruling barring Trump from operating a business in New York, and also paused the portion of the ruling barring him from obtaining a loan from a bank registered in the State of New York.

“It’s a mixed bag for Trump, and the former president GAINS some ability, in an interim ruling, to continue his business activities and loan-seeking. But the most crucial request, a stay of enforcement of the $450M+ judgment, has been rejected,” reports Just Security’s Adam Klasfeld.

Unless he can obtain a loan or other financing, Trump, as he admitted in his legal filing, may have to sell some of his assets, likely real estate, to come up with enough cash to satisfy the judgment.

The court “also denied Trump’s request to delay his obligation to post $454 million until his appeal of the civil fraud verdict is over,” CNN adds.

RELATED: Trump Swore Under Oath He Had $400 Million in Cash – Now He’s Telling a Court a Different Story

Continue Reading

News

Trump Swore Under Oath He Had $400 Million in Cash – Now He’s Telling a Court a Different Story

Published

on

Attorneys for Donald Trump are arguing the ex-president and self-professed billionaire should not have to post a bond of $454 million as he appeals the New York State Supreme Court’s ruling holding him liable for civil business fraud. Instead, Trump is offering a bond of $100 million.

But as legal experts are pointing out, under oath, Trump stated he had $400 million in liquid assets. And his attorney, Alina Habba, when asked last week if he could come up with $350 million, said on-camera, “Yes, I mean, he does, of course he has money, you know, he’s a billionaire. We know that.”

Former federal and state prosecutor Ron Filipkowski, now the editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch.com, responded to Habba’s remarks, saying: “As we now know, this was also a lie.”

READ MORE: ‘How Extremism Is Normalized’: Schlapp Furious as Critics Slam CPAC Over Report of Nazis

“Trump says he doesn’t have the cash that both he and Habba told everyone he had, and that ‘properties would have to be sold’ to come up with the money,” Filipkowski adds.

He sums up the situation: “Trump under oath in his deposition: I’m worth at least $10 billion, I have over $3 billion in tangible assets, I have $400 million in cash. Trump to appellate court: I can come up with $100 million and I need more time to sell stuff to come up with the rest.”

Indeed, The New York Times reported earlier this month, “Mr. Trump claimed under oath last year that he was sitting on more than $400 million in cash.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James was quick to urge the court to deny Trump’s offer of $100 million, or, as Just Security’s Adam Klasfeld reports, “to deny Trump’s application to pause enforcement of the judgment pending appeal, including the disgorgement, monitoring, and loan prohibition.”

“Defendants all but concede that Mr. Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment amount; defendants would need ‘to raise capital’ to do so,” James writes, as Klasfeld notes.

READ MORE: ‘Conspiring With Putin’: Democratic Congressman Brings the Hammer Down on Jim Jordan

Klasfeld points to this section of Trump’s motion that reads: “In the absence of a stay on the terms herein outlined, properties would likely need to be sold to raise capital under exigent circumstances, and there would be no way to recover any property sold following a successful appeal and no means to recover the resulting financial losses from the Attorney General.”

In other words, Trump’s attorneys are saying he would have to sell assets, or properties, at less than market value, and should he win his appeal, he would have no means to be compensated for the difference in value.

“Trump has less than 30 days to post the money to prevent the New York attorney general’s office from taking steps to execute the judgment, including potentially move to seize properties,” CNN adds. “It is not yet clear how he plans to cover the payment.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.