The Big Lesson From Regnerus's Bad Gay-Parenting Study ...

By this point in time it seems clear that something went really, really wrong with Mark Regnerus?s study arguing that gay and lesbian parents are bad parents. Regnerus claimed that gay and especially lesbian parents had too much ?household instability? to make them a family form worth investing in (by which I assume Regnerus meant that such families deserve no state benefits or privileges). Immediately there were questions about the study and Social Science Research, the journal that published it.

For one, there were rumors that the article had been pushed through too quickly, that the outside reviewers were closely connected to Regnerus as well as strong public opposition to gay marriage and should have recused themselves. Then there was, by Regnerus?s own admission, the fact that he labeled parents ?gay and lesbian? when in fact all he really had was data on children of divorced parents who had ever had a single same-sex relationship. Finally, there were the incredibly conservative funding sources of the study itself.

This week, Social Science Research gave a draft to The Chronicle of the results of its audit. Although the audit did not fault the journal?s editor, James D. Wright, nor the review process, it did fault the reviewers and cite serious flaws in the paper, particularly in its misidentification of parents as ?lesbian? and ?gay? when in fact only two of the people in that category were in long-term, same-sex relationships. As the journal?s auditor, Darren Sherkat, wrote: This misidentification should have ?disqualified it immediately? but did not because of ?ideology and inattention.?

On the same day that the internal audit was released, Scott Rose, an investigative journalist and a ?minorities anti-defamation professional,? released the evidence he will present to the University of Texas?s Inquiry Panel on August 3. According to Mr. Rose, in addition to Regnerus?s seriously flawed research design, there was in fact purposeful falsification of data and some seriously anti-gay funding. In fact, the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation both seem to be connected to the National Organization of Marriage (NOM). According to Rose,

1. Witherspoon Institute President Luis Tellez has been a NOM board member since NOM?s founding by;
2. ?Witherspoon Senior Fellow Robert George, who also is a Board member of;
3. The Bradley Foundation

NOM is a rabidly anti-gay marriage group that produced a series of ads that were so ridiculous that they seemed more like an Onion parody than right-wing propaganda. ?In March, the Human Rights Campaign Fund was given access to DOM documents that revealed a strategy

to drive a wedge between gays and blacks ? two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African-American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots.

Whatever the outcome for a particular journal or a particular scholar, this entire episode has revealed the 500-pound gorilla in the room: big conservative money is increasingly shaping social-science research. As universities scramble for alternative funding sources (as those same conservative forces cut funding to higher ed), they find themselves making pacts with highly ideological organizations that offer money for research that supports their world view.

The real lesson from Regnerus?s bad gay-parenting study is that we need a public debate about the importance of public funds for universities and research. Without such funding, it is like only having for-profit and conservative Christian book stores rather than libraries.

Source: http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-big-lesson-from-regneruss-bad-gay-parenting-study/50419

dorial green beckham mike kelly kristen bell colbert super pac colbert super pac sloth birth control pill recall