Texas Professor Supported By University in Controversial Same-Sex Family Study

In a strong defense of academic freedom, the University of Texas-Austin has issued a report supporting sociology Professor Mark Regnerus who is being attacked for a study (How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships?) that found children of same-sex parents have a higher rate of depression and welfare participation than kids raised by heterosexual couples. The support, however, only came after a formal inquiry that appeared triggered by a New York blogger who denounced the study.

The inquiry itself raised academic concerns after a four-member advisory panel of senior university faculty members was impaneled and seized Regnerus’ computers and 42,000 emails. but the university stressed that this was just an inquiry and not a formal investigation. It found that the peer-reviewed study met academic standards for research.

The abstract of the study states:

The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that fielded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements. In this debut article of the NFSS, I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types. The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents. The results are typically robust in multivariate contexts as well, suggesting far greater diversity in lesbian-parent household experiences than convenience-sample studies of lesbian families have revealed. The NFSS proves to be an illuminating, versatile dataset that can assist family scholars in understanding the long reach of family structure and transitions.

I personally question what can be taken from such a study, even if the underlying data is found to be solid. The study itself reflects the greater diversity in same-sex families and I seriously question the notion that such families have some fundamental and inherent element that produces these statistical differences. Those concerns have been raised by others.

The study is clearly protected by academic freedom and issued a statement that

“The University of Texas at Austin has determined that no formal investigation is warranted into the allegations of scientific misconduct lodged against associate professor Mark Regnerus regarding his July article in the journal Social Science Research,” the school said in a statement. “As with much university research, Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study touches on a controversial and highly personal issue that is currently being debated by society at large. . . . The university expects the scholarly community will continue to evaluate and report on the findings of the Regnerus article and supports such discussion.”

The “inquiry” was triggered by blogger Scott Rose who accused Regnerus of scientific misconduct in two letters to the school, including violating ethical standards and “possible falsification” of research. Rose also noted that as a Catholic funded by a conservative institute, Regnerus was biased. Here is Rose’s letter. While noting that he does not view Regnerus as political active, Rose lists what he considers a damning record leading up to and following the report, including the role of Regnerus’ Church:

To sum up the case: 1) Regnerus admits that the way he carried out his NOM-Robert George-funded study was not in the best long-term interest of science; 2) Regnerus converted from evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism; his Church is very aggressively involved worldwide in fighting against gay rights, including in the United States, where in June – July 2012, while making use of Regnerus’s study, NOM and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops are joined in running the “Fortnight of Freedom” event; 3) in his Christian Trinity College biography, Regnerus says that he thinks his anti-gay-rights faith should inform his research and all his work; 4) Regnerus admits in his written study that he cannot claim any causation between having a gay parent and a bad child outcome, but, nonetheless; 4) he appears on ABC television, unambiguously suggesting that his study did show that homosexual parents are dangerous to children, and, his activity in misrepresenting his study that way to the public is 5) totally in line with the manner that NOM and Regnerus’s funder George’s other anti-gay groups are promoting Regnerus’s study. 6) In multiple ways, Regnerus’s study was designed fraudulently to stack the deck against “gay” parents to make them look dangerous to children, which enhances NOM’s anti-gay propaganda by which homosexuals are conflated with pedophiles. 7) Regnerus rushed his study to publication, apparently to meet a deadline set for him by his funders, and certainly against the interest of maintaining scientific integrity in the study. 8) Regnerus took a $35,000 “planning grant” from Witherspoon/Robert George, which obviously implies that had Witherspoon/George not liked the study plan, it would not have funded the study. 9) Sociologists from Brigham Young University were involved in the study design. This might in part explain why the study design was so heavily stacked against gay parents, in favor of “intact biological families.” BYU has an “Honor Code” that forbids members of the university community from doing anything that suggests that homosexuality is morally acceptable. To include BYU personnel in a study of gay human beings, is akin to asking the Ku Klux Klan to design a study about Jews.

Here is a summary of the study’s findings in Slate. He states that past studies tend to replicate assumptions of no differences in these families:

The rapid pace at which the overall academic discourse surrounding gay and lesbian parents’ comparative competence has swung—from the wide acknowledgement of challenges to “no differences” to more capable than mom and pop families—is notable, and frankly a bit suspect. Scientific truths are seldom reversed in a decade. By comparison, studies of adoption—a common method by which many same-sex couples (but even more heterosexual ones) become parents—have repeatedly and consistently revealed important and wide-ranging differences, on average, between adopted children and biological ones. The differences have been so pervasive and consistent that adoption experts now emphasize that “acknowledgement of difference” is critical for both parents and clinicians when working with adopted children and teens. This ought to give social scientists studying gay-parenting outcomes pause—rather than lockstep unanimity. After all, many children of gay and lesbian couples are adopted.

While I am gladdened by the support of the University, I remain concerned over the degree to which this researcher was subject to such an intrusive search and inquiry due to the controversy caused by his paper. This type of inquiry and the seizure of a computer has an obvious chilling effect on academics who may reach conclusions that are unpopular. The privilege of being an academic at a major university comes with the obligation to reach supportable, well-documented conclusions regardless of any personal preference. The fact that this professor may have conservative religious or political views should not alone qualify for a formal investigation — whatever it may be called.

The article raises an interesting question of the potential for a defamation lawsuit. However, just as I tend to favor academics in such disputes on the question of academic freedom, I tend to support writers like Rose on matters of opinion. The letter linked above includes some details that are legitimately grounds to raise in questioning the study, even though I find most of points as rather removed from the merits of the study itself. The question of me is the basis for the intense inquiry. What makes for legitimate opinions in opposition to a study are not necessarily a valid basis for a formal inquiry and panel review of a study. Such concerns generally go to a dean who makes a decision on whatever true academic misconduct or falsification has been raised with sufficient support to warrant an investigation. I do not see that basis here. The general inclination must remain with the support of academics to engage in debate over controversial questions without being called to account by the respective departments.

What do you think?

Here are the underlying Texas letters and report:


Source: Chronicle of Higher Education

24 thoughts on “Texas Professor Supported By University in Controversial Same-Sex Family Study”

  1. The University of Texas is a school that above all honors white supremacists (Simkins Residence Hall). Its no wonder they dislike gays and will do anything academically possible to discredit this group. White supremacists often say that gays reduce the population growth of the white race.

  2. In case someone has been asleep all day, Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brandon Ayanbadejo spoke publicly in favor of Maryland’s marriage equality ballot initiative. That triggered a reaction from former Maryland state legislator Emmett Burns Jr. wrote to Ayanbadejo’s boss, team owner Steve Bisciotti. Burns wrote, in part, “I am requesting that you take the necessary action ….. to inhibit such expressions from your employee.” Burns noted at the bottom of his letter that he was “cc” to the media.

    Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe was, to say the least, offended by Burns’ letter. He wrote a reply that is a thing of beauty in its scathing vivisection of Burns. I have edited a few words a bit so it will get past the WordPress moderation bot:

    Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

    I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland’s state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

    1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should “inhibit such expressions from your employees,” more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person’s right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindf@cking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

    2. “Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement.” Holy f@cking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who’s “deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland”? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you’re going to say that political views have “no place in a sport”? I can’t even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for “beautiful oppressionism”).

    3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you’ll start thinking about penis? “Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!” Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

    I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

    In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterf@ck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I’m fairly certain you might need it.

    Chris Kluwe

    P.S. I’ve also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your “I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing” and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. A$$hole.

  3. “The letter linked above includes some details that are legitimately grounds to raise in questioning the study, even though I find most of points as rather removed from the merits of the study itself.”

    I realize I’m entering dangerous ground here, but in this case particularly, I think removing “the merits of the study itself” (which, given the flawed methodology and the open manipulation of the data, are minimal) from a wider context is missing the point of the controversy.

    Regnerus has said that his faith “informs his research,” which to me is a statement that, particularly in the social sciences, raises questions about built-in bias. There was a report (perhaps by Scott Rose, although I don’t remember exactly where I read it) that Regnerus was approached by the Witherspoon Institute to conduct the study in the first place and given a planning grant. The Institute reviewed the plan and granted a significant amount of money for the study. Regnerus by-passed the NIMH, which would be the normal source for funding because the approval process is more rigorous and time-consuming. The study was rushed, and the paper submitted for publication before the study was even complete. The paper was fast-tracked by the journal and there are reported conflicts of interest in the review and comment process, according to the journal’s own internal audit. Although the study claims that it cannot be used to indicate anything about gays as parents, Regnerus himself immediately turned around and said the opposite. Copies of the study were first provided to known anti-gay organizations, and the first notice appeared in the Deseret News, a quasi-official arm of the LDS Church.

    And this is all happening in an election year with marriage initiatives (themselves of dubious constitutionality*) on the ballot in four states. Is it any wonder that there’s an uproar?

    (* This is a question that I find interesting, but I don’t know the law well enough to come to a conclusion. Perhaps the attorneys here might want to weigh in: Do the people have the right to withhold fundamental rights from minorities by referendum? Or, for that matter, by legislative action?)

  4. First of all, how do you set up an appropriate set of controls for this study? Second of all, who cares? Third of all, what’s the fuss about? Fourth of all, huh? Fifth of all, did they count variable factors — oh nevermind.

    I remember a cartoon of a huge auditorium with five or six people sitting in it (smiling), and about 2,457 empty chairs. A huge banner across the stage announced:


Comments are closed.