Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Internal Documents Confirm Regnerus Study’s Political Origins, Conflicts of Interest

Jim Burroway

March 11th, 2013

Last summer’s study in the previously obscure journal Social Science Research by Mark Regnerus claiming to demonstrate that children of gay and lesbian parents fare much worse than children of heterosexual parents raised quite a number of eyebrows, beginning with the bizarre apples-to-elephants comparison he had to contort his data into performing in order to attempt such a claim. While the logical fallacy was, appropriately, the main focus of criticisms of his so-called study, it was noted that the expensive study was paid for largely by $700,000 in grants from the staunchly anti-gay Witherspoon Institute, giving Regnerus a level of funding that few researchers — and, let’s say it, none with his previously unknown stature — would even dare to dream of. This guy was entrusted with a hell of a lot of money, and if it’s not plainly obviously by now, someone managed to grease the skids at the middling-ranked Social Science Research to give the study preferential treatment so that it could be fast tracked to publication. The paper itself was withheld for as long as possible from those whom might give it a critical eye in an attempt to make sure that the first press reports were favorable.

Earlier this month, the University of Texas, Regmerus’s employer, began releasing documents and emails related to the study in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from The American Independent. At least some of those documents are now posted online. The American Independent’s Sofia Resnick went through those documents and found that the Witherspoon Institute, which provided three-quarters of the study’s overall funding, communicated its expectations of the study’s results ahead of time, and even provided an analyst to help manipulate the data to generate the foregone conclusion:

Records show that an academic consultant hired by UT to conduct data analysis for the project was a longtime fellow of the Witherspoon Institute, which shelled out about $700,000 for the research. Documentation about University of Virginia associate sociology professor W. Bradford Wilcox’s dual roles contradict Regnerus’ assertions that the think tank wasn’t involved with how the study was designed or carried out.

The records also confirm what I noticed last June: the “expediency” with which the study was conducted and published. And what what the driving force for that “expediency”? Why, the Supreme Court, of course:

In the early stages of the New Family Structures Study – before data was collected and long before any results were known – the Witherspoon Institute’s president, Luis Tellez, made it clear to Regnerus that expediency was paramount.

“Naturally we would like to move along as expeditiously as possible but experience suggests we ought not to get hung up with deadlines, do what is right and best, move on it, don’t dilly dolly, etc.,” Tellez wrote in a Sept. 22, 2010 email. “It would be great to have this before major decisions of the Supreme Court but that is secondary to the need to do this and do it well. I would like you to take ownership and think of how would you want it done, rather than someone like me dictating parameters but of course, here to help.”

…“As you know, the future of the institution of marriage at this moment is very uncertain,” Tellez wrote in the letter, dated April 5, 2011. “It is essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society. That is what the NFSS is designed to do. Our first goal is to seek the truth, whatever that may turn out to be. Nevertheless, we are confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study as long as it is done honestly and well.”

The study’s purpose, as you can see, wasn’t to advance science, but to influence the Supreme Court. Also, those last two sentences can be seen as a classic cover-my-ass statement from Witherspoon, because, of course, we know that the study was certainly not done “honestly and well.” In fact, as I noticed when the study first came out, “If one wanted to intentionally create Lesbian Mothers and Gay Fathers groups which were least likely to look like an intact biological family, I can’t imagine a better way to do so than to take the steps Regnerus has taken here.” And if there is any question about whether Witherspoon was communicating its expectations about the study’s outcomes before it was even conducted, consider this fundraising plea from Witherspoon to the Bradley Foundation, which ended up kicking in $200,000 for the study before it was even launched:

“The [University of Texas at Austin’s Population Research] Center has requested that The Witherspoon Institute work with it in raising the necessary funds, and given the importance of the project, the Institute has committed to doing so, with Dr. Mark Regnerus’ assistance,” Tellez wrote, “We are quite sure that if we do not intervene, the project will not be funded in a timely fashion. And this is a project where time is of the essence.”

Tellez went on to explain that the crux of the New Family Structures Study – whether kids raised by gay parents fare as well as those raised by straight parents – “is the question that must now be answered – in a scientifically serious way – by those who are in favor of traditional marriage.”

On June 15 of last year, I noticed that the Regnerus paper was rushed to print in an unusually expedited manner. In fact, the paper itself, it turns out, was submitted before the study was even completed. And as I noted before, the study’s data was withheld from those who might give the report a critical eye:

Michael Rosenfeld, a social demographer who teaches at Stanford University, said the journal had asked him to write a commentary of the paper but gave him a two-week deadline – a time frame Rosenfeld said is unusually short in the academic world. Rosenfeld told The American Independent that he still doesn’t know why Regnerus’ paper was seemingly rushed.

“One of the things about academic publishing is that it’s not in a hurry,” Rosenfeld said. “It’s more important to get it right than to rush it into print. So, I was sort of perplexed as to what the hurry was about.”

Rosenfeld said he agreed to review the paper on the condition that he could see the data. But Regnerus’ team refused.

“I’m a data-analysis person,” Rosenfeld said. “So, for me I wasn’t going to have anything to say about Regnerus’ paper until I could actually see the data and figure out for myself whether what he had done was reasonable or not. And I didn’t want to have a debate with him about the data when he could see the data and I couldn’t. That didn’t seem like it was going to go very far.”

Regnerus originally invited Rosenfeld to participate in the study, but Rosenfeld declined, citing “he unusual way the project is funded.” The journal’s editor, James D. Wright, continues to deny that Regnerus’s paper received special treatment, despite an independent audit criticizing the journal for overlooking serious flaws and Wright’s own admission that he was enticed, at least partly, by the opportunity to raise his journal’s relatively low Impact Factor.

Resnick’s full report is required reading and provides essential information describing how the study came into being and the alarm bells it raised among those who came to understand its origins long before it was published.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Michael C
March 11th, 2013 | LINK

I would like to thank BTB, TAI’s Sophia Resnick, Scott Rose, and StraightGrandmother for their diligence and tenacity on this story.

Ben in Oakland
March 11th, 2013 | LINK

Ditto.

Hunter
March 11th, 2013 | LINK

It’s telling that Regnerus did not go through NIMH for funding on this. That should have been a red flag right at the beginning, since NIMH is the first resource for research of this sort.

Priya Lynn
March 11th, 2013 | LINK

Hunter, are you suggesting that Regnerus didn’t go to NIMH for funding because he thought they’d reject him, or criticize him, or what?

TampaZeke
March 11th, 2013 | LINK

How shameful that the respected University of Texas chose to stop their investigation and hitch their wagon to this man’s political agenda presented as science.

UT has a lot of explaining to do and they need to start explaining ASAP before their credibility is forever ruined.

StraightGrandmother
March 11th, 2013 | LINK

Please keep in mind that Judge Walker issued his decision on August 4, 2010. Keep that in mind. Now read very carefully the e-mail found on page 8 of this .pdf doc

http://www.scribd.com/doc/129660276/Mark-Regners-and-Witherspoon-Institute-Collaboration-Report

Hunter
March 11th, 2013 | LINK

Priya Lynn: I recall reading some comments he made way back when, when asked about the funding sources, about NIH and NIMH being “very stringent” in their study design requirements, or words to that effect. My inference was that he figured it wouldn’t pass muster with them.

StraightGrandmother
March 11th, 2013 | LINK

Hey SCOTUSblog blogged about this. I Tweeted them at 9am and at 9:30 their blog was posted.

That’s great this gets this to a wider audience :)

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/monday-round-up-160/

Priya Lynn
March 11th, 2013 | LINK

Very interesting, Hunter.

StraightGrandmother
March 11th, 2013 | LINK

Hunter I think you are remembering a video Regnerus made for his school newspaper. He talks about getting $$ from the NIH vs Witherspoon just writing him a check
http://youtu.be/VttYt2NXb6Q

Jay
March 11th, 2013 | LINK

W. Bradford Wilcox and Mark Regnerus are both charlatans. They should face censure from their universities for their unethical conduct.

Andrew
March 12th, 2013 | LINK

Jay, I had my own conversation with Regnerus, and I have absolutely no doubt that this was done with total intention. This is nothing short of a hatchet job.

That said, he was very careful in the means through which he engaged in misrepresentation.

Rather than commit overt fraud by creating his own numbers, he’s carefully framed the research in a manner designed to create the outcomes he desired. Then he mis-interprets the meaning of the results.

But it’s not possible to outright accuse him of academic fraud, because these are precisely the kinds of errors (or actions) intended to be rooted out through the process of peer review. And that has happened. He’ll never be confused with a group of reputable social scientists.

Even the telltale misrepresentations in the grant process may not be enough to qualify for censure or removal. More’s the pity.

Unfortunately, as anyone who has followed the climate debate can attest, the general public is not as well informed. It just takes a few well-paid activists to muddy the water and sow doubt in the average person – and give cover to those who are dogmatically opposed to us (and who actually know better).

Be aware that academic freedom remains the hallmark of every reputable campus – it is the lifeblood of academia – and unpopular and even poorly conducted research is frequently tolerated (esp. once someone has tenure). Regnerus’ll have to scrounge for grant money, and he won’t get positions of note… but to “decide” what fraud is (except in cases where the numbers were just made up) is to imperil the whole system, and they will be *very* reluctant to do what we wish they would – pitch him out.

Don’t despair – that academic freedom works 99.999% in our favor… this is a very small price to pay, primarily because no one is fooled by such a piss-poor hatchet job.

Hunter
March 12th, 2013 | LINK

It occurs to me, vis-a-vis Andrew’s comment and those by others on other threads, that the impact of this study on the general public is overstated. It’s being touted by the usual suspects, who have limited credibility with the public at large, and doesn’t seem to have had any impact on people’s attitudes toward same-sex marriage, which was the intent. And there are plenty of counters to it — such as this piece from NYT: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/we-found-our-son-in-the-subway/ — and this couple was also viewed by Anderson Cooper: http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/television/2013/03/11/watch-anderson-cooper-talks-gay-dads-who-found-their-baby

Add to that the letter to the Supreme Court from a girl in NC with two mothers, which has also received widespread coverage (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/03/06/sotomayor-responds-to-6th-graders-letter-on-marriage/)

These are just two examples. And they’re about real people, not scientific papers.

Andrew
March 12th, 2013 | LINK

Hunter, I think you may well be right – never underestimate the power of people magazine over wall street journal… as long as it doesn’t cost anyone anything like turning down the thermostat or carpooling.

And SSM doesn’t – and it’s obvious – and that’s why we’ll ultimately win.

Darina
March 12th, 2013 | LINK

StraightGrandmother, I admire your energy and dedication.

Jim, is it OK for me to quote you in Bulgarian if I post a link to your original publication(s)? I’ll be (to my knowledge) the first person who tries to write objectively about the Regnerus study in Bulgarian, for the audience of a new LGBT news site, and I may want to use some of your materials (especially your first analysis of the study).

Jim Burroway
March 12th, 2013 | LINK

Darina, yes by all means. Spread the word as far as you can.

Donny D.
March 14th, 2013 | LINK

I’d just be happy if this study is completely discredited but Regnerus learns from this and doesn’t try anything more to support social conservatism.

But I’d be REALLY happy if he repudiates this study sometime in the not too distant future.

Donny D.
March 14th, 2013 | LINK

And it looks like I was being naive about good old Mark Regnerus in my previous post. Here’s him hooking up with NOM:
http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2013/03/anti-gay-parenting-study-author-casting.html

Darina
March 16th, 2013 | LINK

And Regnerus’s name is here on Page 2 by the merest chance:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/124588517/Perry-Windsor-Amicus-Brief-of-Social-Science-Professors

(Credit where credit is due; I found this link here: https://iranianredneck.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/coming-out-of-the-closet-homophobes-pope-benedict-and-mark-regnerus-come-out/)

StraightGrandmother
March 16th, 2013 | LINK

Oh Donny D no doubt about it Regnerus is riding this thing like a sled.

Regnerus appearances:
Princeton University Love & Fidelity Conference November 2, 2012
Attended also by Robert Oscar Lopez (Love & Fidelity gets free office space from Witherspoon Institute)
http://www.loveandfidelity.org/2012-conference-schedule/

National Review Institute Annual Summit January 25, 2013
(Attended with Wilcox & Maggie Gallagher)
http://nrinstitute.org/summit_agenda.php
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kids-need-both-mom-and-dad-says-gay-man-opposed-to-gay-marriage-89018/

Columbia University a Family Conference February 16, 2013
(Attended also Brad Wilcox)
http://christineandlyndonplothow.blogspot.com/2013/02/lyndons-conference-part-2.html

Ruth Institute, a NOM affiliate organization, Protect Marriage Conference May 30, 2013
http://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/2013/03/12/protect-marriage-conference-in-san-diego-may-30/

It is truly laughable when Regnerus claims to be an impartial scientist. Jim maybe you can roll that video he made to his school newspaper two days after after publication. Compare his statements to the evidence recently uncovered.
http://youtu.be/VttYt2NXb6Q

Darina
March 17th, 2013 | LINK

StraightGranmoter, just look at that amicus brief (the link in my previous comment right above yours). Just admire the “impartial scientist” practically citing himself to oppose self-sex marriage (unless I’ve suddenly stopped understanding English).

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.