At least some of the public discourse on Mark Regnerus’s new study seems to be turning a corner: from critically discussing the findings (which is good and necessary), to calls for excommunicating him from mainstream media institutions and irrational, unfounded charges of “anti-gay preaching.”
At The New Republic’s blog The Plank, with the headline “It’s Time for Mark Regnerus to Get Collectively Dumped,” Molly Redden references his co-authored book Premarital Sex in America (published by Oxford University Press), and on the basis that she doesn’t like his sociological analysis of sex and youth — which she asserts (I’m glad she knows, by the way) is nothing but “his personal retrograde ideas about sex and marriage” — calls for media outlets to dump him as respectable sociological voice on anything about sex and youth.
At The Huffington Post, Eric Ethington slanders Mark Regnerus, calling him a “biased researcher” (again, I’m glad he knows), and accusing him of doctoring the findings to fit his bias. On what basis does he make these serious charges?
Mr. Regnerus has a long, sad history of anti-gay preachings, including an op-ed in The New York Times, attacks on a Pew study, and speeches at Bryan College (another article here), all showing this man’s heavy anti-gay leanings and immediately revealing that his so-called “study” shows nothing more than what he had predetermined it would show.
The only problem is that in the Pew study and the Bryan College link, he never addresses gay anything.
In the NY Times — which invited the respondents to address the “evolution” of marriage — Regnerus obliquely references same-sex marriage, but it’s hard to see how it fits the characterization of “anti-gay preaching.”
The last article Ethington links references a student’s take on a Regnerus talk at a college chapel, at which Regnerus apparently offered his view that marriage is an institution that is first and foremost a “spiritual establishment” (that was the student’s words) that neither the State nor the Church has the authority to change.
So at a private chapel, Regnerus offers a little bit of his own commentary on the nature of marriage — and this commentary reveals that he has an “anti-gay bias” and that that bias dictated his study? Even supposing that Mark Regnerus is personally opposed to same-sex marriage (which we don’t know, and frankly, don’t need to know), does this similarly mean that Judge Walker, who is gay, cannot offer rulings on gay marriage, or that same-sex marriage proponents cannot study issues pertaining to gay marriage? And does this mean that we should embark on search-and-destroy missions to the nooks and crannies of the Web to find out the personal views of every sociologist who has ever written about anything?
It’s one thing to critique a study.
It’s another thing to respectfully disagree with a person.
But it’s another thing altogether — and very sad and shameful and downright lazy– to slander people and to call for media censorship of people whose analysis you don’t personally like and agree with.
Categories: General
amen brother
Excellent post, David.
And yet….he framed his study in about the only way he could that would demonstrate more negativity associated with LGBT persons (even setting aside the dubious claim that being an unmarried adult, or an LGBT adult is a “negative outcome”). His study was structured in a way that deliberately sifted the LGBT parents into (overwhelmingly) single or divorced families, and then compared them with married heterosexual families.
And he didn’t have to do this. He had a lot of data. He could just as easily have compared LGBT parents raising children together with heterosexual parents raising children together. Or he could have drilled down the data and compared functional LGBT families with dysfunctional LGBT families, functional heterosexual families with dysfunctional heterosexual families, and then compared outcomes—asking questions like what do functional families have in common? and what do dysfunctional families have in common and what steps can we take to improve families?
But….those aren’t the questions the funders of this study want answered. Yeah, color me skeptical—funders can and do frame the parameters of study, based on what they’re willing to fund.
Again, what questions are Family Scholars asking? How to assist all families in achieving optimum functioning? Or only assisting certain families, while trying to get other families to (somehow) not exist (say, by withholding support from other families via public policy)? Go take a look at fannie’s post on sexism in the workplace. Even in 2012, while some of us are focused on eradicating sexism in the workplace (and everywhere else), certain people (disproportionately powerful people, and disproportionately male, might I add) think that’s the wrong question: that sexism is not a problem in the workplace, because women don’t belong there (and especially in positions of decent pay and certainly of power) to begin with. One of the background funders of Regnerus’ study, Opus Dei, takes that position—they are *literally* medieval in outlook.
Question framing matters, and this isn’t Regnerus’ first rodeo.
Something you might want to consider is the avalanche of slander and vilification that we gay Americans are forced to deal with every day. So when something like this comes out, intimately linked to one of the most malicious actors in the anti-gay industry, Robert George, people are likely to react. It seems that you think them to be overreacting, and maybe they are being rude, but take into account how much nonsense is hurled against us. I notice that I’m using violent terms, but that’s what it feels like: that I and my husband are being assaulted. And so this demand for civility, the somewhat up-rolling-of-the-eyes headline, can seem to someone like myself to be part of the problem.
I see nothing wrong with Ms. Redden’s opinion piece: clearly she holds Regnerus in contempt and lays out for us the reasons why. Which seem pretty reasonable to me. I tried to read the other stuff but Regnerus’s religiosity became too oppressive and the day outside here in upstate New York was too lovely and too real. The roses are opening and daylilies, my fave, are on the way. Are his remarks anti-gay? Not explicitly, but his world-view would seem to be – going on his own words – anti-woman, anti-modern, anti-human nature… Taken all together this ‘study’ (to borrow Tony Perkins’s scare quotes for gay) takes on the unhealthy shimmer of propaganda: like the bad lobster glowing in Scrooge’s cellar.
This is why people might be reacting in a visceral way that might seem puzzling and/or deplorable. But remember that we have read for some years now the pensées of Ms Gallagher – a married woman who insists I conform to biblical norms while exempting herself of the need to use her married name or wear a ring: sidebar: I wear my wedding ring – thoughts that seem to me to be literally insane. Am I to treat propaganda as if it has meaning in the real world? Am I to be expected to treat her for-profit dictats as if they make any rational sense? So you see, ‘civility’ takes on a culture war meaning: (spoiler: this will offend all kinds of people) fags STFU.
Did Regnerus’s university conduct survey? No. Did committed anti-gay industry pay for survey? Yes.
In my work when I’m approached to do something I consider iffy I turn it down. Did Regnerus turn down boatload of iffy money? No.
Has Regnerus made himself into the scientific front for the Manhattan Contract? Duh
Why would civility be an issue? What is your issue here?
Sidebar: ‘Culture War’ is a term invented to disguise gay bashing as moral rectitude.
Demonizing people with whom you disagree, calling them ugly names and questioning their integrity and motives, can be a boatload of fun, especially if you think it’s justified (and who among us who demonizes others does NOT think it’s justified?), and especially if you can come up with grad-school-level theories about the uses and misuses of civility rhetoric, and especially if you notice (and who among us doesn’t?) that demonizing one’s opponents is all the rage these days, it’s what huge and growing numbers of our most successful commentators aspire to excel at. All that conceded, and as someone who has criticized the study fairly strongly, I’m with David Lapp on this one.
I’m with David Lapp on this one, too.
Attacks on the author of this study are not useful or productive. They’re also logically irrelevant. If this exact same study had somehow been produced by someone with a long resume of pro-gay publications, it wouldn’t matter — the study would STILL not be useful as a measure of same-sex parenting outcomes, for the exact same reasons.
Ethics and civility aside, as a matter of successfully making an argument to the general public, I don’t think treating Regnerus as if he were Fred Phelps is a wise thing to do, tactically.
First of all, he’s not Fred Phelps. Not everyone who disagrees with us is interchangeable.
Secondly, personal attacks on Regnerus from pro-gay people actually help the folks who oppose gay rights, by giving them more ammunition for their “gay bullies and fascists” line of argument.
The argument that the study is simply a badly designed study that doesn’t show what people claim it shows, is a much better and more persuasive argument than attacking Regnerus is.
* * *
I think civility is better, because civility is about being kind, and being kind is always better. But at the same time, I don’t think civility requires us to refuse to ever discuss bias in any context. It’s just that in this particular context, where we should be focusing on why this study has nothing to say about same-sex parenting, changing the subject to an alleged and unprovable bias in Regnerus’ secret heart is not a good idea.
Oh, and La Lubu, you wrote:
No, he couldn’t have done this — his sample of lgbt parents raising children together was too small to have used for any statistically significant comparisons.
Which just goes to show that designing good social science is hard. Regnerus was operating from the assumption that if he used a random sample, he’d get a better study. But in fact, because he used a random sample, he gave up on having enough subjects raised by same-sex parents to be able to say anything about same-sex parenting with any statistical rigor at all.
Regnerus has inadvertently proven that the sort of study he says should be done of same-sex parenting, is not actually viable in the real world.
You’re right about the sample of long-term parenting in same-sex couples being too small. Here’s what Regnerus has to say about that in the Patheos interview:
A sample of 10 is too small. So, why not frame the study by comparing the folks raised by parents, (at least) one of whom had a same-sex relationship outside of or after marriage…..with folks raised by parents, (at least) one of whom had a different-sex relationship outside of or after marriage? Or would that not lead to the differences the funders of the study were hoping to highlight?
Let’s revisit Regnerus’ conclusion again:
High drama? Social gamble? Flee? Really? (nice emotive rhetoric, Regnerus! couldn’t have done better myself!) And daring to say that a study that compares households—the vast majority of whom are the result of breakups or divorce—to those in which there were no breakups or divorce, and to then conclude that households in which parents are same-sex are more “unstable” because of….why, exactly?….is intellectually dishonest is “demonizing”?
The cited articles in this post that criticize Regnerus use terminology like “ill-conceived”, “embarrassing”, “statistical acrobatics”, “laughable”, “flawed”, etc. Those aren’t personal attacks, or demonizing. It also isn’t demonizing to point out Regnerus’ history of promoting sexist ideas (ideas that he seems to personally believe in and value). It’s true he doesn’t have a strong history of being publically anti-gay; his previous forays into the public sphere have mostly revolved around decrying the greater economic choices and personal autonomy of women—-something I regard as sexist, though I’m sure some folks would consider that a “personal attack”.
@JeffreyRO5: Your 11:45 p.m. comment from last night was deleted. You have violated our civility policy. This is your final warning.
That’s also my biggest concerns. The attacks on Regnerus only give fuel to the claim that SSM advocates are “uncivil” and unreasonable. I think there is good reason to question whether Regnerus should be used as an unbiased academic source in the media, but the reality is that his a voice that is currently being pushed as an alternative. Instead of questioning his bona fides, better to question the many problems in his research (including who is paying for his research). Those are legitimate questions that go beyond namecalling.
From a political perspective, anti-SSM people have been very successful at shifting the debate to how they are being called mean names and how gay activists are just bullies attempting to harm their business, churches, etc. This kind of approach only fuels that perception.
On the other hand, there is danger in an known anti-gay group funding a study that equivocates about gay marriage, but ultimately provides much-desired ammunition against gay couples. People to whom such research might be influential may disregard it because of its funding.
The only people who think gay people are being uncivil in their pursuit of equal legal treatment are people who oppose same-sex marriage. Many of us find it uncivil to deny minority groups equal rights under the law, or to advocate a public policy that harms children.
Jeffrey:
I’m pretty sure we’ll get called that even when we do everything possible to be as reasonable and civil as possible, because for many, seriously proposing same-sex marriage is (in and of itself) uncivil and unreasonable.
Oh, or what you said in your second post.
As a mainstream journalist who covered the study, I have to say that I could see the whole stink coming (and so, from what I can tell, could Regnerus). Bloggers live for that kind of controversy, and it’s always a little dismaying that reasoned argument gets so little attention. But in the end I was pleasantly surprised at how fair much of the mainstream coverage was. in among the polemic, there were several pieces of well-argued criticism. The study had flaws, as had the studies before it. But it also had interesting data, and people didn’t miss that.
As a former prominent university researcher, I was kind of surprised Professor Regnerus was willing to go so far out on a limb to make unsubstantiated statements about gay parenting. I found it suspicious, because his data were so inadequate in that regard. I’m not naive about getting funding, and having results at least coincide in some way with what the funder wants to see, but Mr. Regnerus may have crossed a line.
Future funders will want to see his work and like lots of professions, you’re only as good as your most recent accomplishment. Unless he has made the decision to become what we called a “political researcher”, meaning, he has aligned himself with a political group or advocacy position, he may find it challenging to obtain funding for future projects.
As one professor noted, if you wanted to design a study to make same-sex parenting look bad, you could not have come up with a better methodology than Professor Regnerus did.
[...] Regnerus, and Our Enlightened Public Discourse (familyscholars.org) Share with others:EmailPrintFacebookTwitterMoreStumbleUponDiggRedditLinkedInTumblrPDF via JoliprintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]