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 fundingÂ linked to NOM, the National Organization For Marriage,Â 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;Â 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 orderÂ 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 letterÂ 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 PolicyÂ 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, Â 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 filingÂ science based briefsÂ 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 [email protected]
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, Â 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:
“TheÂ Regnerus study placed participants (individuals between the age of 18 and 39) intoÂ one of eight categories, six of which were defined by the family structure in whichÂ they grew up â€” e.g., married biological parents, divorced parent, divorced butÂ remarried parent, etc. There was no category for â€œsame-sex couple.â€ Instead, theÂ final two categories included all participants, regardless of family structure, whoÂ believed that at some time between birth and their 18thÂ birthday their mother orÂ their father â€œever ha[d] a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex.â€Â Hence the data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever inÂ fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whetherÂ the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whetherÂ the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parentÂ (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers followingÂ divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner.Â Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time beingÂ raised by a â€œsame-sex couple.â€Â Hence the Regnerus study sheds no light on theÂ parenting of stable, committed same-sex couples.”
While it is admirable that the American Medical Association filed that brief, it is now essentialÂ 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 sayÂ 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 justÂ 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: ([email protected])
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 publicÂ communications about their professional services, credentials and expertise, workÂ products, or publications, whether these communications are from themselves orÂ 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 writerÂ Scott Roseâ€™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 â€œMr. David Cooperâ€™s Happy Suicideâ€ is about aÂ New York City advertising executive assigned to aÂ condom account.
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.
Former Trump Defense Secretary Mattis Breaks Silence – Scorches Ex-Boss – Stands Up for Protestors in Scathing Statement
Former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, a retired U.S. Marine Corps general who served in the military from 1969 to 2013, has finally broken his long silence. In a scathing rebuke far more devastating than any delivered by any former Trump official (except his resignation letter), Mattis denounces Trump for violating the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, and stands up for the protestors.
“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try,” Mattis says, as The Atlantic reports.
“Instead, he tries to divide us,” Mattis writes. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.”
He goes on to contrast the American ethos of unity with Nazi ideology. “Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that ‘The Nazi slogan for destroying us … was “Divide and Conquer.” Our American answer is “In Union there is Strength.”’ We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.”
Mattis makes clear he is disgusted with how Trump has handled the protests across the nation – and that he supports the protestors.
“I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”
He doesn’t stop there.
“I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled,” Mattis writes. “The words ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.” He goes on, “We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”
‘Showing Off With These Complete Sentences’: Internet Rejoices as ‘Real President’ Obama Speaks – ‘I Miss Him’
Former President Barack Obama delivered forward-looking, encouraging remarks in response to the police killing of George Floyd and the ongoing nationwide protests, and the Internet rejoiced. President Obama’s comments, part of a town hall organized by his My Brother’s Keeper Alliance, were focused for his younger audience, and were short and seemingly off-the-cuff, yet inspired a nation thirsting for caring, intelligence, and leadership.
Take a look.
I Love President Barack Obama.
— Rachel VIII, Ratchet Queen of Quarantine (@Rachels_Ratchet) June 3, 2020
Obama is showing off with these complete sentences.
— jelani cobb (@jelani9) June 3, 2020
The President just spoke
— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) June 3, 2020
Finally, a president trying to inspire and unite us.
President Obama understands the importance of leadership. For the past three and a half years, that type of leadership has been completely absent in the White House and missing among Republicans.pic.twitter.com/FPaDoQ5hc9
— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) June 3, 2020
— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) June 3, 2020
Barack Obama speaks to our better angels. No matter what color you are. Barack Obama is the best of America. Barack Obama is American beauty.
— Jason Overstreet (@JasonOverstreet) June 3, 2020
The contrast could not be more stark: the current lack of national leadership & the compassion, goodness & inspiration being expressed by former presidents. We need to rid ourselves of @realDonaldTrump’s tyranny & sycophants. Return integrity to the White House & Congress. Vote.
— John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) June 3, 2020
Obama absolutely nailed it… “Make people in power uncomfortable”… God I miss him… #takeobamalive
— Cyrus McQueen (@CyrusMMcQueen) June 3, 2020
A Real President is speaking
A real man is speaking
A real leader
Best President Ever
He does everything better
Thank you Obama pic.twitter.com/DjvZwB9Ydg
— Chrissi Nielsen (@NielsenChrissi) June 3, 2020
— Andrew Zimmern (@andrewzimmern) June 3, 2020
— Just Some Guy (@JustSumGuy176) June 3, 2020
How comforting to hear President @BarackObama who is articulate, comforting, uniting. Forgot what that feels like.
Instead we have to deal w a racist dividing authoritarian KGB troll.
— Olga Lautman (@olgaNYC1211) June 3, 2020
Obama’s subjects and verbs agree. Y’all remember when Presidents did that?!
— Bakari Sellers (@Bakari_Sellers) June 3, 2020
The Pentagon Announced It Was Pulling Hundreds of Troops Out of DC. The Defense Secretary Just Canceled That Order.
It took Secretary of Defense Mark Esper just two hours to countermand a decision the Pentagon had announced, that it was pulling hundreds of active-duty troops out of Washington, D.C.
“Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy told The Associated Press that the reversal came after Esper attended a meeting at the White House, and after other internal Pentagon discussions,” the AP reports. “It is unclear if Esper met with President Donald Trump. McCarthy said he believes the change was based on ensuring there is enough military support in the region to respond to any protest problems if needed.”
Secretary Esper surprised many Wednesday morning when he announced at a hastily-called press conference he disagrees with invoking The Insurrection Act to deploy U.S. troops to cities across the nation to, as President Donald Trump has said, “quell” protestors. President Trump fully supports invoking the law, and has already heavily militarized D.C.
In more than 140 cities Americans have been protesting the police killing of an unarmed, handcuffed Black man, George Floyd, now for nine days and nights.
President Donald Trump has demanded mayors and governors “dominate” the protestors, and has posted threatening tweets advocating his position against the protestors.
LAW & ORDER!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 3, 2020
Get tough police! https://t.co/nsaZYrJe9c
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 3, 2020
About one hour ago several large military vehicles were deployed to the area in front of St. John’s Church, where President Trump held his Bible photo-op on Monday.
- THIS IS NOT OK1 day ago
Trump’s DC Military Operation: Up to 2100 Soldiers in Riot Gear Armed With Bayonets for Operation ‘Divine Law and Order’
- WHOA1 day ago
‘End Systemic Racism’: Bush 43 Delivers Rare, Silent Rebuke to Trump – Calls for Law Enforcement to ‘Protect’ Protestors
- COWARD IN CHIEF3 days ago
Trump Branded ‘Bunker Boy’ for ‘Hiding in the Basement’ and Turning Off White House Lights: ‘Total Lack of Leadership’
- IS THIS STILL AMERICA?3 days ago
Trump Just Called Putin
- ABDICATION OF RESPONSIBILITY2 days ago
‘Sorry I’m Late for Lunch’: Reporter Asks 17 Republicans About Trump’s Church Photo Op and Posted Their Answers
- 'THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES'18 hours ago
‘I Don’t Want to Be in the Room With the Guy’: European Allies, From Merkel to Macron, ‘Turning Their Backs’ on Trump
- AMERICA'S FASCIST PRESIDENT2 days ago
‘Fascism Has Come to America’: Trump Ripped for Gassing Protesters to Hold Awkward Bible Photo-Op
- HERO2 days ago
‘I Am Now a Force to Be Reckoned With’: Episcopal Priest Furious After Trump Chased Her From Church With Tear Gas