Connect with us

Maggie Gallagher: NCRM Author ‘Attacking Freedom Of Thought And Scholarship’

Published

on

Maggie Gallagher, writing at the National Review, is claiming New Civil Rights Movement author Scott Rose is “Attacking Freedom of Thought and Scholarship” — or so her blog post is titled. Of course, Gallagher quick to protect her investment in the flawed Regnerus “study,” couldn’t be more wrong. Let’s examine the facts — especially those Gallagher excludes from mention.

But before we do, one quick question everyone should ponder: Why is Maggie Gallagher protecting Regnerus?

Gallagher’s post is short, so I’m sure she’ll forgive me for posting both paragraphs:

Scott Rose, who writes that I have blood on my hands for opposing gay marriage (read this to get a flavor of who Scott Rose is and how he thinks), has filed an ethics complaint charging a serious scholar with “scientific misconduct” for publishing a study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The study was incidentally reviewed by three major family sociologists, Paul Amato, Cynthia Osbourne, and David Eggebeen.

Will Saletan’s question about a “Liberal War on Science?” is beginning to look prophetic. Will the academic community react against political attacks on scholarship like this? Or will liberalism trump the guild? Stay tuned.

First, allow me to get to that “will liberalism trump the guild?” malarkey.

Science — good science — isn’t partisan, it isn’t left or right, conservative or liberal. Science is science. Period, and Mark Regnerus stands accused — by a great many — of bad science.

Next, I’d like Gallagher to explain how Scott Rose is attacking “freedom of thought.” Please, enlighten us!

I find it ironic that Gallagher would quote Saletan, who early on said, “Regnerus’ paper certainly has flaws,” and then went to great lengths and, in several articles, explained just how flawed Regnerus’ “study” is.

Scott Rose’s tireless work debunking the anti-gay parenting Regnerus “study” has led to an inquiry by the University of Texas. If Rose’s work were without merit, the UT would not have blinked. (If Rose’s work were without merit, well, read on.)

Gallagher neglects to educate her readers into the full depths of how and why the Regnerus “study” is flawed, and neglects to inform her readers that, as Scott Rose wrote last month, more than 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s, and professionals in sociology, psychiatry and other relevant fields, have sent a letter to James Wright, editor of “Social Science Research,” the journal where Regnerus’s study was published, questioning the scholarly merit of the “study.”

The letter — which you can read in one of Scott Rose’s many pieces on the Regnerus “study” — closes with this:

We are very concerned about the academic integrity of the peer review process for this paper as well as its intellectual merit. We question the decision of Social Science Research to publish the paper, and particularly, to publish it without an extensive, rigorous peer review process and commentary from scholars with explicit expertise on LGBT family research. The methodologies used in this paper and the interpretation of the findings are inappropriate. The publication of this paper and the accompanying commentary calls the editorial process at Social Science Research, a well-regarded, highly cited social science journal (ranking in the top 15% of Sociology journals by ISI), into serious question. We urge you to publicly disclose the reasons for both the expedited peer review process of this clearly controversial paper and the choice of commentators invited to submit critiques. We further request that you invite scholars with specific expertise in LGBT parenting issues to submit a detailed critique of the paper and accompanying commentaries for publication in the next issue of the journal.

Maggie may want to trot out her “three major family sociologists,” “Paul Amato, Cynthia Osbourne, and David Eggebeen,” but I again will cite how Gallagher neglects to address simple facts — or educate her readers.

Scott Rose, of course, has already addressed most of this:

“Another concern is that whereas the signers cite Paul Amato’s commentary on the Regnerus study as evidence of the study’s alleged integrity, they do so without disclosing that Amato was a paid adviser for the study.”

The letter signed by more than 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s, and professionals in sociology, psychiatry and other relevant fields also addresses this:

We further question the selection of commenters for the Regnerus paper. While Cynthia Osborne and Paul Amato are certainly well-respected scholars, they are also both active participants in the Regnerus study. According to her curriculum vitae, Dr. Osborne is a Co-Principal Investigator of the New Family Structure Survey. Dr. Amato served as a paid consultant on the advisory group convened to provide insights into study design and methods. Perhaps more importantly, neither Osborne nor Amato have ever published work that considers LGBT family or parenting issues. A cursory examination of this body of literature would reveal a wide range of scholars who are much more qualified to evaluate the merits of this study and were neither directly involved in the study design nor compensated for that involvement.

Finally, Media Matters takes on David Eggebeen:

In 1996, David Eggebeen testified in support of Hawaii’s efforts to ban same-sex marriage, saying “To me, the conclusion is clear that marriage is the gateway to becoming a parent.” Eggebeen further testified that “same-sex marriages where children [are] involved is by definition a step parent relationship,” and suggested that the children of a same-sex couple would similarly be at a “heightened risk” for poverty and behavioral problems, according to the ruling. In 2010, Eggebeen told MercatorNet that his research suggests that fathers make “some unique contributions” that cannot be replicated by a lesbian couple.

Again, here we are, having to straighten out Maggie Gallagher’s “facts.”

There is no “liberal war on science.” The Regnerus “study,” which ignores two to three decades of research that prove actual same-sex couples raise children at least as well developed and successful as their peers raised by heterosexual parents is an attack on science — not proving a so-called study is flawed and useless.

To suggest to those who embrace the science of evolution and climate change that there is a “liberal war on science” is, well, ludicrous.

Related Topics:
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

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

Published

1 hour ago

on

July 9, 2025

By

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

3 hours ago

on

July 9, 2025

By

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

News

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

Published

5 hours ago

on

July 9, 2025

By

Last week, reportedly without consulting the White House, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth unilaterally approved the decision to halt critical weapons shipments to Ukraine, which has been the target of increased attacks in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s illegal war against the sovereign nation.

President Trump on Tuesday 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.

“Russia launched its largest-ever drone and missile barrage on Ukraine, two days after the US stopped the delivery of some key weapons to Kyiv — including crucial interceptors used to shoot down Moscow’s missiles,” The Financial Times reported on July 4. “The barrage began soon after an hour-long phone call between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.”

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

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. “The US special envoy to Ukraine, Ret. Gen. Keith Kellogg, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also Trump’s national security adviser, were also not told about the pause beforehand and learned about it from press reports, according to a senior administration official and two of the sources.”

“The episode underscores the often-haphazard policy-making process inside the Trump administration, particularly under Hegseth at the Defense Department,” CNN added.

Last week’s halt was the third time Secretary Hegseth unilaterally decided to stop weapons shipments to Ukraine, according to NBC News.

Pentagon officials last week said the halt was due to concerns over U.S. weapons stockpile levels, but NBC News reported that “an analysis by senior military officers found that the aid package would not jeopardize the American military’s own ammunition supplies, according to three U.S. officials.”

Hegseth’s decision “blindsided the State Department, members of Congress, officials in Kyiv and European allies.”

Now, critics are calling for Hegseth’s resignation.

Declaring the Defense Secretary “completely unqualified, and on an ego trip,” U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) responded to a post about Hegseth not informing the White House about his weapons halt.

“When is Pete Hegseth going to resign?” asked Congressman Lieu, a retired U.S. Air Force officer.

“This would be a good time for Congress to investigate Hegseth’s Pentagon and push for his resignation,” wrote Jeet Heer on Monday at The Nation.

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

“Many of my GOP friends and colleagues are decorated military veterans who have risked their lives for our country,” remarked U.S. Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY). “If they believe — as they must — that @SecDef poses a grave danger to our national security and that of our allies, I hope they will urge POTUS to finally fire him.”

Iraq War veteran Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), and host of the Independent Americans podcast, blasted Hegseth.

“No surprise here,” he wrote, also responding to a post about the weapons halt. “The sloppiness and incompetence is consistent. And his flawed leadership continues to disrupt and frustrate folks all across the Pentagon. And now, it’s also frustrating the White House and Trump himself.”

“He is Secretary Chaos,” Rieckhoff continued. “And every day he falls deeper beyond his depth. We are less safe, our allies are weakened, and our enemies are celebrating.”

Decorated former CIA operations officer Marc Polymeropoulos of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, wrote: “Leadership dysfunction at DoD…. This stuff just can’t happen… serious real world ramifications… (ie Ukrainians die). Is there any accountability?”

“Hegseth is running an absolute clown show,” warned Colby Badhwar of The Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA).

RELATED: ‘Cartoon Villains’: Ag Secretary Under Fire for Medicaid-to-Farm-Work Plan

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.