Mark Regnerus said the conservative organization that funded his study played â€˜no roleâ€™ in the research. New evidence calls that claim into question.
When University of Texas professor Mark Regnerus released a study this summer portraying gay parents in a negative light, he insisted that the conservative funders who backed the research had no involvement in how it was designed, implemented, or interpreted.
But recently emerging evidence shows that a scholar affiliated at the time with the Witherspoon Institute â€” the socially conservative think tank that supplied the bulk of Regnerusâ€™ funding â€” did indeed play a role carrying out and analyzing the study.
In his peer-reviewed article, Regnerus said his research revealed different â€” and often unfavorable â€” outcomes for children of gay parents when compared to children raised by a mother and father in biologically intact families. Opponents of gay marriage immediately seized Regnerusâ€™ initial findings from the ongoing â€œNew Family Structures Study,â€ published in the July issue of Social Science Research. The study hasÂ been citedÂ in court briefs to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act andÂ by a federal judgeÂ in a decision upholding Hawaiiâ€™s ban on same-sex marriage. Opponents of marriage equality have also used it in state-level ballot-measure campaigns.
Right away, Regnerusâ€™ findings sparked a backlash, as critics said his study was methodologically flawed. Many have argued that Regnerusâ€™ actual comparisons â€” children raised in households with two biological parents compared to children raised in families where one parent had a same-sex relationship at some point, regardless of whether the child lived with that parent â€” did not correspond with his conclusions.
The research has also provoked questions, especially from gay-rights advocates, about whether the Witherspoon Institute â€“ some of whose leaders have ties to the National Organization for Marriage and other groups that advocate against gay marriage â€“ influenced the studyâ€™s design. Both Regnerus and Witherspoon have denied this charge.
It turns out that from 2010 to 2012, one of the studyâ€™s paid consultants wasÂ William Bradford Wilcox. For much of that time, Wilcox was also the director of Witherspoonâ€™s â€œProgram on Family, Marriage, and Democracy,â€ the program from which Regnerusâ€™ study was born.
Much of the new evidence regarding Wilcoxâ€™s involvement wasÂ unearthedÂ by New Civil Rights Movement blogger Scott Rose.
Wilcox is a conservative scholar and associate professor of sociology at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville, where since 2009 he has directed theÂ National Marriage Project, whose stated mission is â€œto provide research and analysis on the health of marriage in America, to analyze the social and cultural forces shaping contemporary marriage, and to identify strategies to increase marital quality and stability.â€ Among his many affiliations, Wilcox is on theÂ Board of Advisory EditorsÂ of Social Science Research, which published Regnerusâ€™ study.
Up until Oct. 2, the Witherspoon Instituteâ€™s websiteÂ identifiedÂ Wilcox as the director of the Witherspoonâ€™s Program on Family, Marriage, and Democracy (referred to in this case as the â€œProgram on Marriage, Family, and Democracy.â€) ThatÂ linkÂ is now defunct. The Witherspoonâ€™s tax form fromÂ 2010Â describes the launch of the â€œNew Family Structures Studyâ€ as one of the yearâ€™s main achievements of the Program on Family, Marriage, and Democracy.
Back in June, Rose filed a complaint with the University of Texas, accusing Regnerus of scientific misconduct concerning his study. As a matter of protocol, the university conducted an initial investigation andÂ concludedÂ in late August that â€œno formal investigation is warranted.â€ The university used that investigationÂ as a reason for not disclosingÂ to The American Independent any documents related to the Regnerusâ€™ study. Now that the investigation is over, the university is trying to prevent disclosure by arguing that the information related to the study is proprietary.
In response to aÂ public records request from RoseÂ for communications between Regnerus and Wilcox concerning the study, the universityâ€™s counsel asked Texasâ€™ attorney general to allow the university to withhold those documents. Rose provided TAI with a copy of the letter, which says that â€œProfessors Regnerus and Wilcox collaborated on the data collection and analysis that formed the basis of Dr. Regnerusâ€™s publicationâ€ on the New Family Structures Study.
The responsive documents include email exchanges between the Universityâ€™s Professor Mark Regnerus and a colleague, W. Bradford Wilcox, from the University of Virginia (TAB 6). The communications pertain to scientific research conducted by Dr. Regnerus and published in his New Family Structures Study. Professors Regnerus and Wilcox collaborated on the data collection and analysis that formed the basis of Dr. Regnerusâ€™s publication, thus, their communications reveal substantive analytical and scientific data that is protected from disclosure under Section 51.914,Texas Education Code. To release this information would facilitate third party appropriation of Dr. Regnerusâ€™s intellectual property.
In an employment authorization form obtained by TAI from the University of Texas, Wilcoxâ€™s role in Regnerusâ€™ project is described this way: â€œDr. Brad Wilcox will provide consulting work for Dr. Mark Regnerus on his New Family Structure Study. He will be assisting with data analysis. This is sporadic work throughout the spring semester and summer.â€ Rose has also reported on this form.
The form, dated April 24, 2012, indicates that Wilcox was to be paid $2,000 for his services from April through August, 2012, and notes that Wilcox has â€œworked with Dr. Regnerus on data analysis and structure in the past.â€
â€˜Provided input to Professor Mark Regnerusâ€™
From the beginning, Regnerus and the Witherspoon Institute have said Witherspoon had nothing to do with how the study was designed or implemented â€” other than providing roughly $700,000 for Regnerus to carry out the work.
In hisÂ initial articleÂ on his findings, Regnerus wrote: â€œThe NFSS was supported in part by grants from the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation. While both of these are commonly known for their support of conservative causesâ€”just as other private foundations are known for supporting more liberal causesâ€”the funding sources played no role at all in the design or conduct of the study, the analyses, the interpretations of the data, or in the preparation of this manuscript.â€
And the Witherspoon Institute, on itsÂ websiteÂ promoting the study, states: â€œIn order to insure that the NFSS was conducted with intellectual integrity, beginning from the earliest stages the Witherspoon Institute was not involved in the Studyâ€™s design, implementation, or interpretation.â€
Wilcox, Regnerus, and the Witherspoon Institute have all stood by previous statements that the Witherspoon was never involved in how Regnerusâ€™ study was designed or implemented.
Witherspoon President Luis Tellez told TAI in an email exchange this week that Wilcox was a fellow for Witherspoon from 2004 until the summer or fall of 2011 but that Wilcox was never a staff member at Witherspoon. Tellez confirmed that Wilcox served as the director of the Witherspoonâ€™s Program on Family, Marriage, and Democracy, while the New Family Structure Study was being developed, but he said Wilcox exited that position â€œwhen the NFSS was entering the period of implementation i.e. the survey was about to be fielded.â€
â€œIn his capacity of director of the program in Family, Marriage and Democracy Prof. Wilcox offered advice and assistance in various family related events or projects that the Witherspoon Institute decided to undertake,â€ Tellez said. â€œNever did Prof. Wilcox represent in any way the Witherspoon Institute when dealing with other scholars or the public. Prof. Wilcox, like any other fellow of the Institute, never was involved in the decision making of the Witherspoon Institute. More specifically, he was never involved in any decision making at the Witherspoon Institute in matters related to the New Family Structure Study.â€
According to Tellez, Wilcox did not advise the Witherspoon Institute on matters relating to â€œthe scope of the study, how it is to be conducted and how to interpret the results.â€
But Wilcox was involved in the process that led to the studyâ€™s creation, Tellez said.
â€œHis role was to help assemble an initial group of scholars, Mark Regnerus included, out of which came the idea of the NFSS,â€ Tellez said.
Tellez said Wilcox did not use his role at Witherspoon to pressure Regnerus to conduct his study in any specific way.
â€œWilcox participation in the NFSS was of course known to Witherspoon, at no point however he used his role in the NFSS or his connection to WI to convey any sentiments or wishes as to how the NFSS was being conducted or convey desired outcomes, etc.,â€ Tellez said. â€œThe only sentiments that were conveyed, and this were conveyed primarily to Mark,Â was to be sure the study was conducted in the most professional manner, that scholars from the ideological spectrum be included, to respect the findings whatever they were, etc. I said primarily conveyed to Regnerus, but because I knew Wilcox longer and had confidence inÂ his professional integrity, I would inquire with him occasionally as to whether this standards were being applied. Just to be sure all was well.â€
After TAI questioned Wilcox about his roles at the Witherspoon Institute and as a paid consultant on the study, Wilcox published aÂ blog postÂ on FamilyScholars.org Tuesday night, which he said was in response to questions asked by fellow FamilyScholars blogger Barry Deutsch. In the post, Wilcox downplayed his title as Witherspoonâ€™s director of the Program on Family, Marriage, and Democracy as â€œhonorific.â€ He said that from October 2010 to April 2012, he â€œprovided input to Professor Mark Regnerus about the design, analysis, and interpretation of the survey data associated with the NFSS,â€ but he emphasized that he did not make â€œfunding or programmatic decisions atâ€ Witherspoon. He also noted that he was among â€œa dozen paid academic consultantsâ€ who worked with Regnerus on the project.
â€œI viewed my consultation for the NFSS as collegial, that is, as providing academic advice that Regnerus was free to take or ignore (and he took some advice, and went his own way on other matters). I was not acting in an official Witherspoon capacity in relationship to him,â€ Wilcox wrote.
Regnerus also told TAI in a phone interview that he never viewed Wilcox as a â€œWitherspoon agent.â€
â€œHe never acted as a Witherspoon mouthpiece,â€ Regnerus said. â€œAs a consultant he did not represent Witherspoon.â€
Responding to Wilcoxâ€™s post,Â Deutsch wroteÂ Wednesday that Wilcoxâ€™s dual role at the Witherspoon and as a paid consultant on the study should have been disclosed, and that the omission was deceptive.
â€œThere is nothing unethical about Brad working with both NFSS and Witherspoon, in my opinion,â€ he wrote. â€œBrad is a known scholar with interests similar to those of Witherspoon and Professor Regnerus; it is natural that both the staff at Witherspoon and Professor Regnerus should seek his advice.â€
But, he added: â€œIn my opinion, Professor Regnerusâ€™ carefully-crafted statement about his funding sourcesâ€™ non-participation was deceptive. It omitted a relationship that was obviously relevant and should have been mentioned, and Regnerusâ€™ choice to omit that, and the use of wording which gave the impression that there was unequivocally no relationship to report, calls his credibility into question.â€
This article originally appeared atÂ The American IndependentÂ and is republished here by permission.
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.
Bombshell WSJ Report: Trump Pressured DOJ Attorneys to Sue States in the Supreme Court to Overturn Election
President Donald Trump pressured U.S. Department of Justice attorneys, possibly including former Attorney General Bill Barr, to file a lawsuit against four U.S. states in the U.S. Supreme Court, in one of his final attempts to overturn the election before leaving office.
The Wall Street Journal reports late Saturday night that effort “failed due to pushback from his own appointees in the Justice Department, who refused to file what they viewed as a legally baseless lawsuit in the Supreme Court.”
The Journal also confirms Friday night’s New York Times reporting that Trump attempted to remove his own acting Attorney General, Jeffrey Rosen, after Barr left the DOJ just two days before Christmas.
According to the Journal, “senior department officials threatened to resign en masse should Mr. Trump fire then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, according to several people familiar with the discussions.”
“Senior department officials, including Mr. Rosen, former Attorney General William Barr and former acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall refused to file the Supreme Court case, concluding that there was no basis to challenge the election outcome and that the federal government had no legal interest in whether Mr. Trump or Mr. Biden won the presidency,” the paper adds.
The paper does not specify the exact timeframe of when Trump tried to force DOJ to file the lawsuit, but based on its report it had to have been after December 11, when the Supreme Court dismissed what most election law attorneys considered a frivolous suit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, along with other Republican state attorneys general.
This is a breaking news and developing story.
GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy Says “Everyone” Is to Blame for Capitol Riots
While Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California has previously said that he thinks former President Donald Trump bears some responsibility for the January 6 coup attempt in which his supporters ransacked the Capitol to overturn the election that he and Republicans baselessly claimed was stolen, McCarthy added in a Thursday interview, “I also think everybody across this country has some responsibility [for the coup attempt.]”
McCarthy then said that anti-Trump Democrats, rude social media users, unprepared law enforcement authorities were all responsible too, even though Trump literally told his followers on the morning of January 6 to march to the Capitol and fight to stop legislators from approving the election victory of now-President Joe Biden.
“I think this is what we have to get to the bottom of, and when you start talking about who has responsibilities,” McCarthy said. “I think there’s going to be a lot more questions, a lot more answers we have to have in the coming future.”
It’s especially telling that his Senate counterpart, now-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has directly blamed Trump for the riots.
“The mob was fed lies,” McConnell said Wednesday. “They were provoked by the president and other powerful people, and they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like.”
After months of making baseless claims that a national conspiracy of widespread voter fraud stole the election from him, a claim laughed out of courts 60 times over for lack of evidence by judges that Trump himself appointed, Trump held a “Stop the Steal” rally on the morning of January 6 in which he said, that he won the election “by a landslide” and encouraged his followers to “stop the steal” by going to the Capitol. If people don’t “fight like hell,” Trump said, “you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Russia Explodes with Protests Against Putin Poisoning and Jailing His Biggest Opponent
Russian citizens in 38 cities are protesting the country’s sham elections in which Russian President Vladimir Putin has felt so threatened by the opposition candidate, anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny, that he has had him imprisoned and poisoned in an attempt to silence his voice and kill his movement.
The Russian presidential elections are a complete sham used to legitimate Putin’s power. In the last election, Putin “won” nearly 77 percent of the vote amid claims of ballot stuffing, the Kremlin choosing which candidates get to run, police arresting any anti-Putin protesters and pro-Putin candidates receiving far more financial backing than his opponents.
Navalny himself, a popular anti-corruption campaigner who is one of Putin’s most outspoken critics, according to The Week, has previously been barred from running due to a trumped-up and controversial fraud conviction allegedly masterminded by Putin. In August 2020, Navalny was poisoned with a nerve agent called Novichok and survived his hospitalization. Navalny has said he got a Russian federal agent to reveal how he was poisoned, though the Kremlin has denied any involvement.
Three days ago, Navalny was jailed once more for allegedly violating his parole. He now inhabits Matrosskaya Tishina or Sailor’s Silence, a jail in Moscow’s north-east region that has housed high-ranking prisoners that authorities have wanted to cut off from the outside world since the Soviet era, according to Reuters. The jail is notoriously deadly.
Russian citizens across the nation have seemingly had enough and have begun protesting his imprisonment, as the videos below attest. Hundreds have been arrested as police fight to maintain control.
The U.S. Embassy in Russia has weighed in by saying, “We’re watching reports of protests in 38 Russian cities, arrests of 350+ peaceful protesters and journalists. The U.S. supports the right of all people to peaceful protest, freedom of expression. Steps being taken by Russian authorities are suppressing those rights.”
Putin can’t rob the Russian people of hundreds of billions of dollars over twenty years and expect to get away with it. This is the reaction of the Russian people, chanting “Putin vor” which means “Putin thief”. It’s happening all over Russia right now. https://t.co/UhVSdWVeBX
— Bill Browder (@Billbrowder) January 23, 2021
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 23, 2021
Сейчас в центре Петербурга pic.twitter.com/F0piyWGyRZ
— Дождь (@tvrain) January 23, 2021
Images from Russia today are transfixing: thousands all across the country defying authorities and protesting for @navalny’s release. So brave.
— Susan Glasser (@sbg1) January 23, 2021
I’m just hoping against all hope this guy somehow independently came up with this outfit. https://t.co/VBKuZxhOHq
— Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) January 23, 2021
US embassy in Russia weighs in. https://t.co/99OJgKSXS1
— Bianna Golodryga (@biannagolodryga) January 23, 2021
Protests are taking place across Russia today, calling for Navalny’s release.
This is Vladivostok, in the country’s Far East pic.twitter.com/luO4oudeH9
— Matthew Luxmoore (@mjluxmoore) January 23, 2021
— Kevin Rothrock (@KevinRothrock) January 23, 2021
— Jake Rudnitsky (@Rudnit) January 23, 2021
BREAKING: Clashes between riot police and Alexei Navalny supporters / protestors in Yekaterinburg, Russia. – #Protests
— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) January 23, 2021
— Global News (@GlbBreakNews) January 23, 2021
Иркутск: «Мы не уйдём!» pic.twitter.com/9HIsGgXAcp
— Борис Золотаревский (@ZolotorevskiyB) January 23, 2021
- FRAUD2 days ago
Busted: GOP’s Madison Cawthorn Paralympic Story Is a Lie – According to Athletes
- 'SENATORS SHOULD BE COMPETENT'3 days ago
AOC Smacks Down Ted Cruz After He Says Paris Climate Agreement Is About the ‘Citizens of Paris’
- News3 days ago
Dems Blast McConnell for Threatening to Filibuster Power Sharing Agreement – So GOP Can Block All Democratic Votes
- NOT HOW THIS WORKS3 days ago
‘How Can You Have Unity if You’re Taking Away Everything We Like?’: Fox News Blasts Biden for Scrapping Trump Policies
- CULTISTS2 days ago
QAnon Congresswoman Announces ‘I’ve Just Filed Articles of Impeachment’ on Joe Biden – Over Debunked Conspiracy Theory
- 'RESPECT AND DIGNITY'2 days ago
Biden’s LGBTQ Executive Order Is Just the Start – Here Are the Other Pro-Equality Actions the Administration Is Taking
- News3 days ago
Revealed: Real Reason Trump Didn’t Fire FBI Director Chris Wray – Total Self-Interest Says NYT’s Haberman
- News2 days ago
Federalist Society Co-Founder and 150 Legal Scholars Say Trump Can Be Still Convicted in Senate Trial: Report