Connect with us

Investigation Request Filed Regarding Suspicious NOM-Regnerus Anti-Gay Study

Published

on

A study carried out by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas, Austin, aroused suspicion when the public learned that the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage‘s co-founder Robert P. George had arranged for $785,000 of the funding for the study.

Though Regnerus’s stated aim in the study is to compare children raised up through the 1990’s by “intact biological families” with those raised by homosexual parents, Regnerus did not use proper methodology for surveying actual adult children raised by gay parents.

Though Regnerus’s written conclusion to the study is hedged with nuance, when he talks about the study on television, the nuance is gone, and his bottom line message is identical to NOM’s; “Homosexuals are dangerous to children.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center has noted NOM’s predilection for conflating homosexuals fraudulently with pedophiles.

Since the release of his study, Regnerus has been propagandistically criticizing past, more positive studies about gay parenting outcomes, on grounds that those studies were “convenience samples” instead of samplings from the general population.

To understand how absurd Regnerus’s criticism is, think of it in these terms; if you needed to survey members of the Jane religion, would you do a convenience sampling of Janes, or would you put out feelers in the general population and hope to find a couple of Janes in the mix?

In addition to having used a bogus methodology for surveying adult children of “gay” parents, Regnerus has aroused suspicion about his motives with many of his public statements.

Without doubt, his study was ready in time for one of its main patrons, NOM’s Robert George, to use it as a political anti-gay-rights weapon in the 2012 election. Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has signed Robert George’s NOM pledge. When a local University of Texas venue interviewed Regnerus, and asked him why he did not seek funding for his study from the National Institute of Health, here is what he said:

“I had a feeling when we started this project that it would not survive the politics of, in my opinion, the peer review system at the National Institute of Health (funding) — and it takes so long to get money from them, and there are revisions and revisions; I understand that works to the long-term benefit of science, but some scholars don’t feel like going that route.  I don’t have a shop with grant after grant.”

Despite Regnerus’s protests against National Institute of Health study protocol, and not having a shop with grant after grant, his study on Race and Religion in Adolescent Sexual Norms and Conduct was funded by the NIH.

An appearance has been created that Regnerus had some awareness of the timetable by which George required the study to be completed, and of the correspondence of the desired completion date to Robert George’s plans for political uses of the study. Regnerus, faced with questioning about Robert George’s connections to the study, has disingenuously said, “Professor George is a philosopher, I don’t think he has much to say about sampling theory.” With that quote, Regnerus appears to be feigning ignorance of NOM’s Robert George’s political connections and aims. It is not credible, that Regnerus would not be familiar with Robert George’s anti-gay politicking. NOM received condemnation from most mainstream commentators when a court-ordered release of its strategy documents revealed the organization’s plans to “drive a wedge” and to “fan hostility” between the African-American and gay communities. NOM appears also to fan the flames of antisemitism, where doing so will advance its anti-gay rights agenda. The NOM strategy documents revealed a plan to hire an employee specifically to find children of gay parents, willing to denounce their parents on camera. While that effort appears to have flopped, the Regnerus study could be viewed as an underhanded attempt to make it appear — on false pretenses —  that children of gay parents have provided “testimony” against all gay parents.

It might be considered noteworthy, furthermore, that a Regnerus study, “National Study on Youth and Religion,” was funded by the Lilly Endowment, one of the few major foundations to fund religion. The Regnerus-Lilly Endowment study alleged to have found that children do better when raised in conformity with a religious tradition. Regnerus’s Trinity Christian College bio says that he believes his anti-gay-rights faith should inform his research.

Between Regnerus 1) saying that it takes too long to get money from NIH; and 2) his admission that going through NIH, instead of through NOM’s Robert George for funding would have worked  “to the long-term benefit of science;” one might have an impression that Regnerus was eager for the money, and willing to compromise his professional integrity by rushing his study through in order that his patron  — NOM’s Robert George — should have it in time for use as a political weapon in the 2012 elections. If Regnerus is a scientist, and getting funding for the study from the National Institute of Health would — by his own admission — have worked to the long-term benefit of science, then why instead of serving his profession in the most honorable method did Regnerus take funding from an anti-gay-rights political activist, and then get the study finished with a slant favorable to his anti-gay-rights campaigning, and in time for the 2012 elections?

Since the release of the study, various organizations connected with Robert George, as well as the entire religious right wing have been promoting the study as proof that gays hurt children and so must not be given rights.

Meanwhile, Regnerus school, the University of Texas, Austin, has an academic dishonesty policy that forbids using misinformation in an attempt to hurt others.

I am going to repeat that for emphasis: the University of Texas, Austin, has an academic dishonesty policy that forbids using misinformation in an attempt to hurt others.

Therefore, this reporter has filed a Scientific Misconduct Complaint against Regnerus through the EthicsPoint online system, which the Texas State University System uses for receipt of complaints.  An EthicsPoint official told me that the complaint will not be delivered to the UTA employee implicated in it, but that university officials are the only persons with authority to decide whether to investigate. An initial report about the status of the investigation is due in ten days.

Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out has started a petition, asking UTA President William Powers, Jr. to investigate Regnerus.

Regnerus’s written report says that his study was supported “in part” by the $785,000 grants had through NOM’s Robert George’s Witherspoon Institute and Bradley Foundation.

This reporter asked UTA media contacts for information about who supplied Regnerus with the rest of his funding, and how much they gave. I also asked for a record of disbursement of study funds. I have specified that I want to report how much Regnerus paid himself out of the grant monies for completion of the study.

UTA’s College of Liberal Art’s Director of Public Affairs David Ochsner says that only Witherspoon ($675,000) and the Bradley Foundation ($90,000) supported the study. Yet, Regnerus in his written report on the study unambiguously makes it sound as though support for the study only came “in part” from Witherspoon and the Bradley Foundation. Here is how he put it: “The NFSS was supported in part by grants from the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation.” If Regnerus can not use English precisely for so simple a detail related to his study, why should anybody trust him to use English any more accurately to reflect his study findings? This error in wording speaks to how study quality suffered as a result of  the study being rushed to make a deadline. At the same time, we must be mindful that there actually might have been additional funders, whom Regnerus is shielding by denying that anybody other than Witherspoon and the Bradley Foundation supported his study.

Another eyebrow-raising tidbit: Ochsner informs that the Witherspoon Institute money included a $35,000 “planning grant.” Evidently, had Witherspoon not been pleased with Regnerus’s planning of the study, Witherspoon might have taken the rest of its money elsewhere.

Regnerus’s study was published in the journal “Social Science Research,” edited by James Wright, who has written demeaningly about same-sex marriage in some of his published papers. Wright simultaneously published in his journal an article by Loren Marks, who was educated at the severely anti-gay Brigham Young University. Although Marks in his article seeks to discredit researchers who have found positive results of gay parenting, observers have noted that anti-gay-rights groups attempted to use Marks as an “expert witness” in a Proposition 8-related case, but his video testimony had to be stricken from the record after it was revealed through questioning that he had not at all studied same-sex parents, a circumstance not altogether unlike that involving Regnerus’s study.

To sum up the case: 1) Regnerus admits that the way he carried out his NOM-Robert George-funded study was not in the best long-term interest of science; 2) Regnerus converted from evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism; his Church is actively involved worldwide in fighting against gay rights; 3) Regnerus admits in his published study that he can not claim any causation between having a gay parent and a bad child outcome, but, nonetheless; 4) he appears on ABC television, strongly suggesting that his study did show that homosexual parents are dangerous to children, and his activity in promoting the study that way is 5) totally in line with the way NOM and George’s other anti-gay groups are promoting Regnerus’s study. Additionally, though serving science well with this study would have required that Regnerus spend more time to complete it, he completed it in time for his funder Robert George to use it as an anti-gay-rights political weapon in the 2012 elections. And finally, the University of Texas, Austin, has an academic dishonesty policy that forbids using misinformation in an attempt to hurt others.

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

Trump Dodges, Denies and Deflects Questions as Ukraine Weapons Scandal Grows

Published

on

The halted Ukraine weapons scandal is growing as President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he had not even thought about who gave the order to pause the shipment of vital munitions—which caused tremendous turmoil inside the White House, Congress, and Kyiv—but if it had been given, he claimed, he would have both known about it and likely been the one to give it.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, for the third time, approved the decision to pause the shipments of weapons to Ukraine—just before President Donald Trump spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Hours after that conversation, Russia launched one of the largest bombing attacks since the start of its illegal war against Ukraine.

“Sir,” a reporter asked President Trump at the White House on Wednesday afternoon, “yesterday you said that you were not sure who ordered the munitions halted to Ukraine. Have you since been able to figure that out?”

RELATED: ‘Secretary Chaos’: Hegseth Running ‘Absolute Clown Show’ Critics Say, Amid Calls to Resign

“Well,” Trump replied, as he acknowledged the munitions had been halted, “I haven’t thought about it because we’re looking at Ukraine right now and munitions, but, uh, I have no, I have not gone into it.”

“What does it say that such a big decision could be made inside your government without you knowing?” the reporter pressed.

“Uh, I would know,” Trump insisted. “If a decision was made, I would know. I’d be the first to know, in fact, most likely, I’d give the order, but I haven’t done that yet.”

The President then moved on to take a question from a different reporter.

President Trump on Tuesday had claimed he had no knowledge of who ordered the halt in weapons shipments. That pause came just after his July 3 call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Hours later, Russia launched a massive bombing campaign against Ukraine.

“So who ordered the pause last week?” a CNN reporter had asked Trump on Tuesday.

“I don’t know,” Trump replied. “Why don’t you tell me?”

The halt of weapons to Ukraine was so catastrophic and damaging that it set off “a scramble inside the administration to understand why the halt was implemented and explain it to Congress and the Ukrainian government,” CNN reported.

Critics blasted the President.

READ MORE: ‘No Amnesty’ and No Plan: Trump Ag Sec Grilled on Farm Labor as Deportations Continue

“This is quite literally becoming a daily thing, where Trump disavows making decision after decision, some of which would be wildly illegal without his involvement,” observed civil liberties and national security journalist Marcy Wheeler.

“There are some people who I think are really principled callers-out of cognitive decline, just like deeply invested in the matter as something that self-evidently needs to be called out publicly and not swept under the rug, who I can’t wait to hear from,” noted Pat Dennis, president of American Bridge, a Democratic Super PAC.

Watch the video below or at this link.

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Not Even Done Your Homework, Sir’: Dem Demands ‘Unqualified’ Trump Nominee ‘Shape Up’

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as Ambassador to Singapore, orthopedic and sports medicine surgeon Dr. Anjani (Anji) Sinha, was blasted and berated during his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, after he appeared unable to answer critical questions about the role Singapore plays in U.S. national security and security in the Indo-Pacific region.

U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), a decorated Iraq War veteran and retired lieutenant colonel, pressed Dr. Sinha with pointed questions—particularly about Singapore’s role in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a bloc of ten member countries that includes Singapore.

“What does holding the ASEAN chairmanship entail for Singapore?” Senator Duckworth asked. “Can you name one thing? A role that they would have to play as ASEAN chair?”

“Well, you know that there—this is ASEAN chair is not only one country that are ten countries in—” Dr. Sinha replied.

READ MORE: ‘Secretary Chaos’: Hegseth Running ‘Absolute Clown Show’ Critics Say, Amid Calls to Resign

“No, the ASEAN chair is one country,” Duckworth explained.

“But there are 10 countries involved as the ASEAN group,” Sinha responded.

“You’re not answering my question. You’re not answering my question, sir,” said Duckworth, who sits on the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee and on the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. “Can you name one thing there will be of critical importance to Singapore as ASEAN Chair? A role? There are many things. Can you name one thing?”

“Defense, economics…” Sinha offered.

“Those are very broad. Name an issue,” Duckworth demanded.

“Trade,” Sinha said.

“I don’t think…no,” Duckworth replied.

The questions continued, with Duckworth appearing extremely dissatisfied with Sinha’s answers.

“Please,” she finally said, “I’m trying to help you here, but you’ve not even done your homework, sir. You want to be ambassador to Singapore, one of the most important alliances, friends we have in the Indo-Pacific. A key place that we’re going to be fighting against our greatest adversary in the region, the PRC,” she explained, referring to the People’s Republic of China.

READ MORE: ‘No Amnesty’ and No Plan: Trump Ag Sec Grilled on Farm Labor as Deportations Continue

“Singapore may feature incredible culture, but that should not be treated as a glamour posting,” Duckworth continued. “This nation is too important to the United States, to ASEAN, to the entire region. And frankly, I think the mission is important to U.S. interests and national security, and it should actually be a foreign service officer.”

“But I have even larger concerns with the political pick, when that political pick is somebody as unqualified as you,” she charged. “I’ve opposed political picks for Singapore from Democrats. So this is not a partisan issue. I just feel that you are not taking this seriously, and you think this is a glamour posting that you’re going to live a nice life in Singapore. What we need is someone who’s going to actually do the work.”

“You are not currently prepared for this posting, period,” Duckworth concluded, “and you need to shape up and do some homework.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Claims ‘Tremendous Power’ to Run ‘Places’ Like DC and NYC

Continue Reading

News

‘No Amnesty’ and No Plan: Trump Ag Sec Grilled on Farm Labor as Deportations Continue

Published

on

One day after appearing in front of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to tell reporters there will be “no amnesty” for undocumented farm workers while insisting adults on Medicaid could replace them, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins faced sharp criticism for having no “concrete” plan to meet what she declared is the Trump administration’s goal of an entirely “legal” U.S. farm worker workforce.

“It sounds like you don’t yet have a concrete proposal to deal with farmers who rely on undocumented workers, am I right?” a Fox News Business host asked (video below).

“Well, no, we are working on it. We’re working on a concrete proposal,” Secretary Rollins insisted.

READ MORE: ‘Secretary Chaos’: Hegseth Running ‘Absolute Clown Show’ Critics Say, Amid Calls to Resign

“You’re working on it but that’s not a concrete proposal,” the host sharply charged.

“Well, no, the president has been very, very clear. We need to make sure that the food supply is safe,” Rollins said, before insisting that “ultimately, we have to move toward a 100% legal workforce, and that’s what this president stands for, and that’s what we’re doing.”

“The mass deportations will continue, but the president has been very clear that we have to make sure we’re not compromising our food supply at the same time,” Rollins said before declaring that “Congress has to fix it,” and U.S. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer “is on it.”

“The border has to be secure and there will be no amnesty,” Rollins added, before the host again pointed out the administration has no plan yet.

READ MORE: Trump Claims ‘Tremendous Power’ to Run ‘Places’ Like DC and NYC

“It’s not easy, but I don’t think it’s fair to say there is a concrete proposal when you’re still working out details to try to deal with the needs of farmers who need a lot of these undocumented workers and at the same time not providing an amnesty.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Stupid Liberals With Stupid Policies’: Trump Transportation Secretary Slams NYC

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.