Connect with us

Six More Sociology PhDs Call For Retraction Of Regnerus Anti-Gay ‘Study’

Published

on

A hoax study on gay parenting funded by the NOM-linked Witherspoon Institute and marked by deliberate deception and fraud is currently being used as an anti-equality weapon in the courts and in the 2012 elections.

The anti-gay hoax was carried out by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin.

READ: Opinion: NOM Shill Mark Regnerus’ Long History Of Using Religion To Attack Gays

Witherspoon and Regnerus continue deliberately lying to the public about the study, alleging that none of Regnerus’s funding agency representatives participated in designing or conducting the study.

In truth, Witherspoon Program Director Brad Wilcox recruited Regnerus to do the work, was involved in getting him a $55,000 planning grant, and then collaborated with him on the booby-trapped study design before Witherspoon approved Regnerus for full study funding, which reached a known minimum of $785,000.

Even as Regnerus and Witherspoon continue lying by saying that Regnerus is independent of his anti-gay-rights funders, Regnerus is scheduled to promote the hoax side-by-side with his funders on November 3 in a clear, anti-gay-rights context at Princeton.

Although the American Medical Association and the President of the American Sociological Association have put their names to documents calling Regnerus’s methodology scientifically unsound, the sleazy, NOM-linked characters who commissioned the hoax continue to push it as though it were scientifically valid.

Previously on this site, Dr. Andrew Perrin has delivered a devastating science-based take-down of the Regnerus hoax. Moreover, Dr. Michael Schwartz as well as Dr. Lori Holyfield have called for the Regnerus submission to be retracted from publication.

Here, six additional Sociology Ph.D.s call for the Regnerus article to be retracted from publication, and a further three express their dismay over the Regnerus scandal:

 1) Gary J. Gates, Ph.D. is Williams Distinguished Scholar at the Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law:

“My position is clear. The fact that two of the three peer reviewers of the Regnerus paper were paid consultants undermines the review process to the point that I do not believe the academy should consider this paper to have undergone legitimate peer review. Elsevier should take steps to either formally retract the paper or subject it to an unbiased peer review process.”

2) Heidi Levitt, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Boston:

“I think it is appropriate to call for retraction. I have signed a letter of protest to that effect which outlines the reasons for retraction.”

3) Saskia Sassen, Ph.D. is Robert S. Lynd Professor of Sociology at Columbia University, and Co-Chair of the Columbia University Committee on Global Thought:

“I was one of the signers of the original letter and have throughout supported this effort.  I find this unacceptable; the Regnerus study should be retracted from publication.”

4) Wendy Simonds, Ph.D. is Professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Sociology at Georgia State University:

“I am not at all surprised by this whole situation, given Regnerus’s previous book on teen sexuality. In that book, he and his co-author present without criticism “research” of others in support of the notion that women who have unprotected sex (with the same partner of course) are less likely to be depressed than women who don’t *because* of the semen in their vaginas (imagine the pharmacological possibilities!!) as well as “research” in support of the notion that women regret abortions. Meanwhile, they also “show” that the more sexual partners young women have, the worse off they are in terms of mental health — while of course the same is not true of young men (then can handle being sluts mentally).”

“I support the retraction of Regnerus’s article, because the review process was not truly blind. Consultants and/or funders on projects should not serve as reviewers of papers that emerge from the projects in which they have been involved. Additionally, Regnerus’s “data” on gay and lesbian parents are unrepresentative of gay and lesbian parents, and, in my view, are presented so as to advance a homophobic agenda.”

5) Eric Anderson, Ph.D. is Professor of Sociology at the University of Winchester in the United Kingdom:

Dr. Anderson previously has described the Regnerus study as anti-gay propaganda, explaining that that is the only term he can think of to describe a study analysis and discussion that is designed to denigrate gay people outside the boundaries of empirical evidence. Asked if he is calling for the Regnerus paper to be retracted from publication, Dr. Anderson said: “Oh God yes. This research was not sociology as science; it was instead a coup d’état against gay parenting.”

6) Amy C. Wilkins, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Colorado:

In an e-mail response, Dr. Wilkins wrote: “I HAVE followed this case and am outraged about it.” and “Thanks for your persistence with this.”

7) Lisa Brush, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor at the University of Pittsburgh:

In an e-mail message, Dr. Brush wrote: “I have followed with considerable appreciation your lengthy and detailed posts on this issue, and have registered my dismay with the Regnerus article.” and “Thank you for your work on this issue.”

8) Sir William Timothy Gowers, British mathematician, is a Royal Society Research Professor at the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics at Cambridge University. He is the leader of a boycott against Regnerus’s publisher, Elsevier.

Gowers has said:  “a piece of blatant anti-gay propaganda has been published in the otherwise respectable journal Social Science Research. The research was, it appears, indirectly funded by anti-gay campaigners and is now being gleefully used to help Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. The refereeing process seems to have been accelerated as well. Most importantly, the paper is bunkum and shouldn’t have been accepted: its conclusion (that children do worse if they have gay parents) is not remotely justified by the data used. So who publishes the journal Social Science Research and is not interested in investigating whether proper academic standards have been upheld? I surely don’t need to spell it out.”

9) Nancy Naples, Ph.D. is Professor of Sociology and Women’s Studies in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences of the University of Connecticut:

“I am calling for the Regnerus article to be retracted from publication.”

 

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.

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

Trump Appeared Unaware His Budget Bill Cuts $1T From Medicaid: Report

Published

11 hours ago

on

July 2, 2025

By

President Donald Trump reportedly appeared to be unaware that the Republican budget legislation, formerly his “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” cuts approximately $1 trillion from Medicaid. In a meeting at the White House on Wednesday, Trump told moderate Republicans not to cut Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security.

“Trump still doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp about what his signature legislative achievement does,” NOTUS reports. “According to three sources with direct knowledge of the comments, the president told Republicans at this meeting that there are three things Congress shouldn’t touch if they want to win elections: Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.”

The legislation not only cuts $1 trillion from Medicaid, it effectively forces cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, and takes a large chunk—also possibly hundreds of billions—out of SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The President has repeatedly vowed he will not touch Medicaid.

And as recently as Tuesday, Trump wrote: “Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security Benefits are not being cut, but are being STRENGTHENED and PROTECTED from the Radical and Destructive Democrats by eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse from those Programs.”

READ MORE: ‘Every Reason to Be Scared’: Strategist Worried Trump Could Try to Rig or Cancel Midterms

“As the President has said numerous times, there will be no cuts to Medicaid,” a June 29 White House memo claimed. “The One Big Beautiful Bill protects and strengthens Medicaid for those who rely on it—pregnant women, children, seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families—while eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.”

That memo also claimed, “Medicare has not been touched in this bill— absolutely nothing in the bill reduces spending on Medicare benefits.”

At least 17 million people will lose health care coverage due to the bill’s cuts, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

READ MORE: ‘Special Place in Hell’: Top Dem Slams ‘Cult’ of ‘People Who Take Food Away’ From Kids

Critics blasted the President.

“No matter how far into physical or mental decline he was, there was never a single moment in Biden’s presidency that he appeared to be as checked out about what his administration was doing as Trump appears to be about this bill,” wrote Yahoo Finance reporter Jordan Weissmann.

“Imagine for a moment if Joe Biden did not know at a basic level of generality what the signature piece of legislation he was attempting to pass contained. The media outrage would be measured on the Richter scale but oddly, Trump is not held to this standard,” added another social media user.

And Bloomberg columnist Matthew Yglesias made this request: “Can a reporter ask Trump to explain what Medicaid is? Does he know?”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Threatens to Block NYC Democratic Mayoral Nominee He Calls a ‘Communist Lunatic’

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Every Reason to Be Scared’: Strategist Worried Trump Could Try to Rig or Cancel Midterms

Published

12 hours ago

on

July 2, 2025

By

In a stark warning, a top, veteran Democratic strategist says he believes President Donald Trump could try to rig or cancel the 2026 midterm elections, to retain control of Congress.

“I don’t put anything past him, nothing,” James Carville told former CNN reporter Jim Acosta, as The Daily Beast reported on Wednesday. “To try to call the election off, to do anything he can. He can think of things like that that we can’t because we’re not accustomed to thinking like that.”

The Beast noted that “Carville is so convinced that Trump will rig the midterm elections that he’s already started sounding the alarm.”

“You know people come up to me all the time and say, ‘James. I’m really scared,’” Carville told Acosta on “The Jim Acosta Show” (video below).

READ MORE: ‘Special Place in Hell’: Top Dem Slams ‘Cult’ of ‘People Who Take Food Away’ From Kids

“I said, ‘you should be, you have every reason to be scared. Don’t kid yourself,’” Carville added.

“This is scary s—!” Acosta replied.

“Yeah, it’s really scary,” responded Carville. “Really scary.”

The conversation was sparked by a viewer’s question.

“They want to know,” Acosta said, “Do you worry about vote tampering in the midterms?”

“Do you worry,” the host continued, “about Donald Trump and Stephen Miller and some of these types monkeying around with the midterms and the way we do elections in this country?”

READ MORE: Trump Threatens to Block NYC Democratic Mayoral Nominee He Calls a ‘Communist Lunatic’

“In the short word, yes, in the longer word, very,” Carville said.

He went on to suggest that Democrats will do well in the governors’ races in Virginia and New Jersey, which will be held this November.

“I think what may happen is he’ll see the writing on the wall in Virginia,” Carville continued. “This is what I think is gonna happen. In New Jersey, also. He’s going to see retirements and people are going to start coming in and saying, ‘you know we’re getting ready to lose. I got to change, and I got to get some distance,’ and he’s going to see all that coming and I don’t put anything past him.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘This Is Fascism’: Trump Sparks Fury After Calling to Deport U.S. Citizens

Continue Reading

News

‘Special Place in Hell’: Top Dem Slams ‘Cult’ of ‘People Who Take Food Away’ From Kids

Published

16 hours ago

on

July 2, 2025

By

U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), the Ranking Member of the powerful House Rules Committee, blasted his Republican colleagues for their support of President Donald Trump’s budget bill that will cut $1 trillion from Medicaid, hundreds of billions from Medicare, and greatly reduce the food program known as SNAP—also by hundreds of billions—while giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

As the House began voting on the legislation on Wednesday, giving members just one hour for debate in a rush to meet the President’s July 4 deadline, Rep. McGovern took to the floor.

The Massachusetts Democrat denounced Republicans’ “attack” on SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. “You can live without a lot of things, but you can’t live without food,” he reminded his GOP colleagues.

Speaking to “those Republicans who think that it’s okay to give [billionaire] Jeff Bezos a tax cut, and at the same time, cut food benefits for struggling families,” McGovern declared, “we don’t share the same values.”

READ MORE: Trump Threatens to Block NYC Democratic Mayoral Nominee He Calls a ‘Communist Lunatic’

“Unloading billions of dollars in new costs on states, money they do not have, will force them to cut benefits and throw needy people off of SNAP. It is a rotten thing to do,” he added.

“And I believe there’s a special place in hell for people who take food away from veterans, from seniors, from children, from foster youth, and from hungry families. This is sick. This is disgusting.”

He called the rushed floor vote “legislative malpractice.”

READ MORE: ‘This Is Fascism’: Trump Sparks Fury After Calling to Deport U.S. Citizens

“We are not on a deadline,” he reminded House members. “No looming crisis.”

“We’re here because Donald Trump wants a Fourth of July party to celebrate this garbage bill. He wants fireworks and flags and cameras, not for this country, but for himself. So he says, ‘Close your ears, close your eyes, and vote for this bill.’ Honestly, sounds more like a cult than a Congress to me.”

After listening to a Republican—who was standing next to a big poster of President Donald Trump and fireworks—call for members to support the bill, McGovern declared, “Cult much?”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Surrounded by Sharks’: After Touring ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ Trump Vows to Renovate Original

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.