Connect with us

Regnerus Anti-Gay Scandal: New Complaints Sent To University Of Texas’ President Powers

Published

on

We have been reporting on an invalid sociological study –(allegedly, but not actually, about gay parents’ child outcomes) — carried out by researcher Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas, Austin (UT).

Regnerus’s “study” funding — for a known minimum of $785,000 — was arranged for him by authorities who have control over both the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute and the anti-gay-rights National Organization for Marriage.

Scientific and scholarly misconduct allegations have been filed with UT, which opened an Inquiry, the purpose of which is to determine whether the evidence shows that a full investigation is warranted.

TNCRM’s Scott Rose sent the communication below to UT President William Powers, Jr., expressing concerns that the Inquiry seems only to have made Regnerus more brazen in his evident collusion with his NOM-linked funders.

August 14, 2012

William Powers, Jr.
President
University of Texas, Austin
Office of the President
Main Building 400 (G3400)
Austin, Texas 78713-8920

In Re: Scientific and Scholarly Misconduct Complaint against UT’s Mark D. Regnerus

Dear President Powers:

On June 21, 2012, I first wrote to you with respect to my scientific and academic misconduct complaints against the University of Texas at Austin’s Mark D. Regnerus, who apparently is in collusion with the funders of his alleged —- but not actual — study on gay and lesbian parents’ child outcomes.

Today, I write to call to your attention to some of the ways that Regnerus recently has been bringing additional disgrace to your university.

Regnerus has a shocking and unprofessional disregard for those who make purely science-based criticisms of his “study,” which objectively considered is commissioned anti-gay hate speech, not a study.

For example, I e-mailed Regnerus with legitimate questions pertaining to his “study” methodology. Here is a sample question from the e-mail I sent him:

“You have alleged in many different interviews that it would be too difficult to find enough stable gay-parent-headed families to compare with children from stable heterosexual couples. If that were even true, why did you not then compare children from unstable homosexual-headed households to children from unstable heterosexual-headed households?”

As you see, my question is Socratic, and addresses the fact that Regnerus cherry-picked his control group of children of heterosexual parents, booby-trapping his study against “gay” parents. Please remember that Regnerus’s funders at the maliciously anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute first approached him to do this “study,” and that they offered him a $55,000 “planning grant.”  $55,000, I am sure you will understand, is an extraordinary initial sum for a “study” that only surveyed a total of 2,988 people.

Having given Regnerus $55,000 as a “planning grant,” Witherspoon obviously had an option to turn down, or to request changes to, any study “plan” he might show them. Regnerus in any case went forward with a study plan that featured a cherry picked control group, such that his “study” was booby trapped against gay parents, whom Witherspoon officials wanted demonized. Witherspoon officials did arrange for Regnerus to have his total minimum known “study” funding of $785,000.

Please ask yourself; does it really take $785,000 to survey 2,988 people, resulting in data that can be examined and analyzed by a single scholar on one Excel spread sheet?

Not only did Regnerus not respond to my e-mail asking him legitimate questions about his “study” methodology; he also ignored an e-mail from sociologist Dr. Eric Anderson of the University of Winchester in England. Dr. Anderson wanted Regnerus to answer my questions about his methodology. He also wanted Regnerus to state unequivocally if he supports the continuation of the sexual orientation apartheid system, as he appears to do.

Not only did Regnerus ignore pleas for him to answer questions pertaining to science; Regnerus has cultivated a professional relationship with Robert Oscar Lopez — whose unhinged anti-gay rants in support of the Regnerus “study” Regnerus saw online.

Having initiated communications with Lopez, Regnerus conducted correspondence with him about the “study” and about “LGBT issues.” Subsequently, Regnerus’s study funders of The Witherspoon Institute published a gay-bashing rant by Lopez, very strongly in support of the Regnerus “study,” yet containing multiple very serious misrepresentations of what the Regnerus study says, all of those misrepresentations veering hard in the direction of inciting people against gay rights, precisely Regnerus’s study funders’ political goals for the “study” that they financed and are very heavily promoting.

Lopez inveighs bitterly against having been raised — (allegedly) — by a lesbian mother, now deceased. His behavior in doing that appears to match a NOM strategy, made known to the world when some NOM internal strategy documents were released through court order. Those NOM strategy documents described plans to find children of gay parents who would denounce their gay parents to the public. The Newark Star-Ledger described NOM’s strategy of wanting to split families apart in order to “defend marriage” as being “sick beyond words.”

I have made a public demand for Witherspoon, Regnerus and Lopez to disclose how much Lopez is being paid for his activity promoting the Regnerus “study;” so far, none of those parties have cooperated.

I urge you, President Powers, to instruct UT’s Regnerus to disclose to the public how much Robert Oscar Lopez is being paid to promote the Regnerus “study.”

Regnerus did, after all, contact Lopez first, having seen his gay-bashing support for the Regnerus “study” online. And, Lopez’s gay-bashing essay in support of the Regnerus “study” — (containing multiple, very serious misrepresentations of what the Regnerus study says) — did then get published and widely disseminated by Regnerus’s funders.

There is a glaring ethics problem in that.

NOM’s strategies, meanwhile, also included plans to “drive a wedge” and to “fan hostility” between African-Americans and sexual minorities, to further NOM’s political ends. When civil rights giant Julian Bond learned of NOM’s strategies, he said “It confirms a suspicion that some evil hand was behind this.”

As I have previously pointed out, the top authorities at The Witherspoon Institute also are top authorities of the anti-gay-rights National Organization for Marriage (NOM). The Lopez essay was almost immediately cross-posted from the Witherspoon site to the NOM blog, and to other places online by NOM and/or Witherspoon officials.

You should know that NOM just admitted guilt to 18 counts of breaking California election finance laws.

That is to say, the same organization’s heads who arranged for Regnerus to have the jaw-dropping sum of $785,000 for a sociological “study” that only surveyed 2,988 people — (producing data that can be examined and analyzed by one person looking at an Excel spreadsheet) — admit that their organization is guilty of 18 counts of violations of election finance laws.

NOM wants to settle the charges by paying fines, but, there is some appearance that “the veil has been pierced,” and that NOM’s suspected money laundering and breaking of other states’ campaign finance laws could lead to NOM eventually being prosecuted on RICO charges.

However that may be, it was completely unethical of Regnerus to cultivate Lopez as a ranting anti-gay-rights supporter of his “study” who then very substantially misrepresented what the Regnerus study says, to the public. It simply cannot be coincidence that after Regnerus cultivated Lopez, Lopez’s essay was published and widely disseminated by Regnerus’s study funders.

Regnerus clearly has violated the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics, for example, where it says this: “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.” 

Were Regnerus not in apparent political collusion with his funders, and were he at all interested in following the ASA’s Code of Ethics, he would never have cultivated the scientifically inappropriate Lopez in the first place, and in the second place, he would already have issued a public correction to Lopez’s and his funders’ glaring misrepresentations of what his study says.

Regnerus, moreover, has engaged in repeated and very obviously deliberate attempts to mislead the public about the (non-existent) scientific validity of his study.

For example, Regnerus repeatedly has used in his study’s defense, that the University of Texas’s Institutional Review Board approved of his study protocol.

And, Regnerus says that, as though UT’s IRB – (when it approves a proposed study’s protocol) – were approving the proposed study’s scientific legitimacy.

But, UT’s Institutional Review Board did not evaluate, or approve, the scientific soundness of Regnerus’s study protocol.

With my existing knowledge of how universities generally operate, I believed that Institutional Review Boards only consider whether proposed studies are safe for their planned human participants.  I thought, furthermore, that an IRB might also consider such things as, for example, whether a study plan properly provides for its human subjects’ confidentiality.

But, Institutional Review Boards — as far as I knew – do not consider the scientific soundness of a proposed study.

To fact-check whether that is the case for the University of Texas at Austin, I contacted the Office of the VP & Chief Financial Officer with the following inquiry:

“My understanding of the function of the Institutional Review Board in approving a study plan, is that the board confines itself to determining whether the study plan is ‘safe’ for human participants. i.e, IRB approval in no way implies an endorsement of any other aspect of the study plan, apart from its determinable safeguards for the safety of the human participants? Is my understanding of that correct?

That office responded, by informing me that they had in turn contacted UT’s Office of Research Support. The UT spokesperson told me: “Yes, your understanding of the IRB approval process is correct:  the safety of human subjects participating in a research project.”

That is to say, Regnerus repeatedly tells the media and the public that UT’s Institutional Review Board approved his study protocol – as though UT’s Institutional Review Board  had approved THE SCIENTIFIC SOUNDNESS of his study plan — when in fact, UT’s IRB made no judgment whatsoever about the scientific soundness of Regnerus’s study plan.

And look what Regnerus told the National Review’s Robert Verbruggen on July 19, 2012:

Significantly, the University of Texas’s Institutional Review Board approved the protocol.” (Bolding added).

Significantly,” Regnerus said.

Regnerus very obviously is depending on public ignorance of the function of a university’s Institutional Review Board, in hopes of being able to hoodwink the public into believing — erroneously — that UT’s Institutional Review Board approved the scientific soundness of his study plan.

That Regnerus’s Witherspoon/NOM funders are heavily involved with the National Review, hardly makes Regnerus’s duplicitous, disingenuous statement in that publication look any better.

Regnerus should immediately make a public statement, acknowledging that 1) UT’s Institutional Review Board did not evaluate his study plan for scientific soundness, and apologizing for 2) any of his past statements that were ambiguous or misleading on this point.

You should know, additionally, President Powers, that Regnerus was interviewed by Andrew Ferguson for The Weekly Standard, in an article so favorable to Regnerus that it showed a drawing of poor little Regnerus on the magazine cover, being tortured by masked men in black hoods.

As you can see, I am not putting any black hood over my face, and my criticisms of Regnerus are firstly, science based, and secondly, geared towards exposing the fact that Regnerus appears to be politically in collusion with his study’s funders.

Regnerus told Ferguson that his study’s test-group, control-group comparison is “arguably unfair” to gay parents.

Were the key issue fairness, there would be no arguing about the fact that Regnerus’s test-group, control-group comparison is unfair.

However, the issue is not one of fairness; the issue is one of scientific legitimacy. Regnerus’s cherry-picked control group is not scientifically legitimate, given the comparison he made with it to his test group.

Cherry picking a control group so that a “study” demonizes the minority test group that the study’s funders want demonized is dishonest, and a form of lying.

A weasel, not a sociologist of genuine integrity, says that his test-group, control-group comparison is “arguably unfair.”

Why is the University of Texas at Austin not acting more quickly against Regnerus, an academic fraud corrupted by an organization whose heads have authority over an organization guilty of at least 18 counts of campaign finance law violations; an academic fraud who cheapens the value of every UT degree for as long as he is not disciplined?

Hopefully, you are aware of the documented fact that the Regnerus “study” was only published through corrupt peer review.

Sincerely,

Scott Rose


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.

OPINION

‘Stop Bringing Up Nazis and Hitler’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Smacked Down by Democrats

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was strongly criticized by two Democratic Congressmen after the Georgia Republican’s remarks about “Ukrainian Nazis” and her attempts to paint Ukrainians as Nazis.

“Stop bringing up Nazis and Hitler,” U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) urged, after Greene’s remarks suggesting there is a large Nazi problem in Ukraine, during a House Oversight Committee hearing. “The only people who know about Nazis and Hitler are the 10 million people and their families who lost their loved ones, generations of people who were wiped out. It is enough of this disgusting behavior, using Nazis as propaganda. You want to talk about Nazis, get yourself over to the Holocaust Museum. You go see what Nazis did. It’s despicable that we use that and we allow it and we sit here like somehow it’s regular.”

Moskowitz began by telling the Committee his “grandparents escaped the Holocaust.”

“So my grandmother was part of the Kindertransport out of Germany. Her parents were killed in Auschwitz. My grandfather, her husband escaped Poland, from the pogroms,” he continued.

READ MORE: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

“There are no concentration camps in Ukraine. They’re not taking babies and shooting them in the air ’cause they’re Jewish. There’s no gas chambers. There’s no ovens. They’re not railing people in, they’re not ripping gold out of people’s mouth. They’re not taking stuff out of their home. They’re not trying to erase a people. They’re Ukrainians.”

Greene’s remarks over the weekend had caused anger.

“It’s antisemitic to make Israeli aid contingent on funding Ukrainian Nazis,” Congresswoman Greene declared Sunday from her official government social media account, as legislation to support Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan moved to the top of Speaker Mike Johnson’s priority list in the wake of Iran’s attack on Israel. Her implication appeared to be Ukrainians are Nazis – a Putin talking point.

Greene on Wednesday spent several minutes again implying there are many Nazis in Ukraine, as she was refuted by a top scholar, Yale professor of history Timothy Snyder. Dr. Snyder is the author of a dozen books, including two on Nazis and the Holocaust, and is an expert on the Holocaust, Central and Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and serves on the Council on Foreign Relations.

Responding to Greene’s remarks, Snyder told the lawmakers, “no far-right party has ever crossed three percent” in a Ukrainian election.

READ MORE: ‘Scared to Death’: GOP Ex-Congressman Brings Hammer Down on ‘Weak’ Trump

Greene was also criticized by U.S. Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL), who called her out for her “hypocrisy” and reminded her that in 2022 she “spoke at event led by white supremacists.”

That event was hosted by white supremacist Nick Fuentes:

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Big Journalism Fail’: Mainstream Media Blasted Over Coverage of Historic Trump Trial

Continue Reading

News

‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Published

on

After Democratic House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin blasted Republican Chairman Jim Comer, declaring “somebody needs therapy here” during a heated verbal brawl Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) mockingly urged committee members to come together to “begin Comer’s therapy session.”

In a viral three-minute walkthrough of the discredited far-right wing chairman’s efforts, including making false claims and use, as Moskowitz noted, Russian disinformation to try to build a case against President Joe Biden, the Florida Democrat appeared to put the final nail in the impeachment coffin.

Moskowitz told the committee members Chairman Comer has to “face the fact that he was taken by the Russians,” and “was used by the Russians.” He also noted the committee has “already lost” Comer “to Russian propaganda.”

“I mean, we got to build a forcefield around the Chairman to make sure we don’t lose him to Chinese propaganda as well.”

READ MORE: ‘Big Journalism Fail’: Mainstream Media Blasted Over Coverage of Historic Trump Trial

Moskowitz made clear, through his well-known wit, that Comer “no longer has impeachment” as an option to use against President Biden.

The video has gone viral, with over 175,000 views in just over one hour.

Read the transcript of Moskowitz’s remarks and watch the video below or at this link.

“Let me start by saying, obviously Chairman Comer’s not here, but I think in light of what we witnessed earlier, I think it’s important that together as a committee that we begin, Chairman Comer’s therapy session, right. You know, a member of the other side wanted to confirm what the title of the hearing was, right, Chinese propaganda. Well, we know the title of the hearing certainly isn’t about impeachment anymore. And Chairman Comer has suffered tremendous loss, and we all know in our life, what it’s like to suffer tremendous loss. There’s all sorts of different stages of grief and that’s the loss obviously, of his of his impeachment hearing. And everyone deals with that in different ways and sometimes it takes time to grieve and struggle and and fill that hole that void that now exists now that he no longer has impeachment.”

“The only way we as a committee are going to help Chairman Comer get better is we have to get to the root cause. Right? So for today’s therapy session, okay, I want to talk about denial. Right? The denial that the impeachment hearings are over, and the denial, obviously, that he started with the 1023 form, which was Russian disinformation. And so, you know, Chairman Comer’s psychology teaches us that, you know, someone might be like him, using denial as a defense mechanism. And signs include that you refuse to talk about the problem. You find ways to justify your behavior, you blame other people or outside forces for causing the problem. You persist in your behavior by consequences. You promise to address the problem, maybe in the future, or you avoid thinking about the problem. And so in addition to these signs that Chairman comer has been displaying, as we saw at the beginning, he also might be feeling hopeless or helpless.”

READ MORE: ‘Scared to Death’: GOP Ex-Congressman Brings Hammer Down on ‘Weak’ Trump

“I just want the chairman to know that we’re pulling for him. We really we really are. I know, I know. It’s been hard to become someone who was used by the Russians. But the good news is, is that he’s this hearing today on Chinese propaganda, because we’ve already lost him to Russian propaganda. I mean, we got to build a forcefield around the chairman to make sure we don’t lose him to Chinese propaganda, as well.”

“In fact, you can see behind me, these are quotes from the chairman, Chairman Comer. Every single solitary time and there are hundreds more that he went on TV in interviews and talked about this 1023 form, which was all Russian disinformation. But we gotta make the Chairman understand that it’s going to be okay. We will get him through this, but he’s got to recognize, gotta recognize that denial is not just a river in Egypt. He’s gonna have to face the fact that he was taken by the Russians.”

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Big Journalism Fail’: Mainstream Media Blasted Over Coverage of Historic Trump Trial

Published

on

The media’s ability to shape public opinion is well-documented, and by the end of the second day of the first criminal trial in history of a former U.S. president critics are slamming the content, framing, and focus of mainstream media organizations. The biggest concerns: refusing to cover the former president’s apparent inability to stay awake in court, too much identifying information of potential and chosen jurors, and even subtle descriptions that can be used to feed into false perceptions the trial is “unfair” or, as the ex-president likes to say, a “scam.”

Overnight, CNN’s Oliver Darcy’s “Reliable Sources” newsletter blasted mainstream media outlets that “strangely show little interest in reporting on Donald Trump’s courtroom naps.”

“Imagine, for a moment, if President Joe Biden were to be caught openly sleeping at an important hearing,” Darcy posits. Trump was caught “nodding” off repeatedly several times over the first two days of trial (there is not trial Wednesdays). “Then imagine it were to occur at another important hearing the next day. Not only would right-wing media outlets like Fox News run wild with coverage questioning his fitness for office, mainstream news organizations would no doubt also treat the snooze fest as a serious news story. But, for some unknown reason, Donald Trump falling asleep at his historic criminal trial in New York (as he apparently did, again, on Tuesday) has been met with a rather muted response.”

READ MORE: SCOTUS Justices Appear to Want to Toss Obstruction Charges Against Some J6 Defendants: Experts

Noting, “It’s important,” Darcy asks, “why has much of the press fallen asleep at the wheel?” and serves up some examples – or lack thereof.

“ABC News and NBC News didn’t even bother mentioning it on their evening newscasts and many major outlets haven’t even filed straight stories on it. To be frank, if not for The NYT’s Maggie Haberman reporting on the matter Tuesday, it’s unclear whether the public — which is relying on news organizations to be its eyes and ears in the courtroom, given cameras are barred — would know about it.”

“It’s all the more bizarre given that Trump has made attacking ‘sleepy Joe’ a central tenet of his campaign, framing the president as lacking the stamina to serve in the nation’s highest office. Which is to say, the fact that Trump is the one apparently unable to stay awake in his own criminal trial isn’t a trivial story.”

Jennifer Schulze, a media critic who was a Chicago Sun-Times executive producer, WGN news director, and adjunct college professor of journalism, pointing to Darcy’s criticism, calls it “a big journalism fail.”

READ MORE: ‘Scared to Death’: GOP Ex-Congressman Brings Hammer Down on ‘Weak’ Trump

The ex-president is facing 34 felony counts for falsification of business records when he paid hush money to an adult film actress then allegedly tried to cover it up, which some say is election interference.

New York State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan is overseeing the Trump trial, and ordered the identities of all jurors and prospective jurors to remain anonymous. Trump has a proven track record of alleged attempts to intimidate witnesses, judges, prosecutors, and others involved in his trials.

Some are concerned the media went too far in posting and publishing some possibly identifying information internet sleuths could use to piece together their names.

“There is seriously far, far too much identifying information about prospective jurors, several of whom are now empaneled, coming out in the press,” warned attorney and author Luppe B. Luppen.

Here’s how Fox News host Jesse Watters used that information to target one empaneled juror, while attempting to discredit the trial.

Fox News’ Sean Hannity went after “Juror Number One,” who is the foreperson.

It is not just Fox News targeting jurors.

Even The New York Times’ coverage of jurors drew the ire of critics.

READ MORE: ‘Your Client Is a Criminal Defendant’: Judge Denies Trump Request to Skip Trial for SCOTUS

Here’s how The Times’ Jonah Bromwich reported on the jury foreperson:

“The foreperson who was just selected — that’s juror one, the de facto leader of the group who will likely help steer deliberations — works in sales and enjoys the outdoors. He is originally from Ireland, but will help decide the former American president’s fate.”

University of Wisconsin—Madison professor of political science, who has a Ph.D. in Government, criticized the Times’ reporting.

“100% certain if the foreperson were native born, they would not have written this sentence and used the formulation of ‘former president’ subtly implying the foreperson from Ireland is somehow not a real American.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.