Christian Smith, the William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society and the Center for Social Research at the University of Notre Dame writes in the Chronicle of Higher Education:
Whoever said inquisitions and witch hunts were things of the past? A big one is going on now. The sociologist Mark Regnerus, at the University of Texas at Austin, is being smeared in the media and subjected to an inquiry by his university over allegations of scientific misconduct.
Regnerus's offense? His article in the July 2012 issue of Social Science Research reported that adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships, including same-sex couples as parents, have more emotional and social problems than do adult children of heterosexual parents with intact marriages. That's it. Regnerus published ideologically unpopular research results on the contentious matter of same-sex families. And now he is being made to pay.
... The very integrity of the social-science research process is threatened by the public smearing and vigilante media attacks we have seen in this case. Sociology's progressive orthodoxy and the semicovert activism it prompts threaten the intellectual vitality of the discipline, the quality of undergraduate education, and public trust in academe. Reasonable people cannot allow social-science scholarship to be policed and selectively punished by the forces of activist ideology and politics, from any political quarter. University leaders must resist the manipulation of research review committees by nonacademic culture warriors who happen not to like certain findings.
Science already has its own ways to deal with controversial research results. Studies should be replicated. Data sets should be made public and reanalyzed. And new and better studies should be conducted. Eventually the truth comes out. By those means, Regnerus might be shown to have been wrong or perhaps be vindicated. That is how science is supposed to work.
By contrast, political attacks like those on Regnerus are contemptible and hurt everyone in the long run, including progressives. Everybody—especially officials at the University of Texas at Austin—needs to be vigilant in protecting scholars and their research against those inside and outside of academe who seek to silence scholars whose research runs counter to the current orthodoxy.
14 Comments
Gay identity politics takes another victim, academia and social science research. Once a credible organization, even the APA succumbed to political ideology of the extremist movement, according to a former APA president. And extremists still say their SS"m" just won't impact anyone else.
Neither reason, nor majority vote, nor scientific study, nor religious beliefs, nor children's best interests are welcome at the table.
Hold on to your hats, they're going to take us for a ride!
Mr. Smith has no idea what he's getting himself into; the threats, the harassment, and dirty tricks that homosexualists like to employ on those who do not march in lockstep with their views. Good to see someone standing up for research, science, and truth over political agendas, but it's a tough fight going up against these clowns.
The issue was the lack of comparison. Comparing intact families to broken families is not a direct comparison and the paper did nothing to further research in this area. Comparing intact hetero and same sex households- that would be appropriate.
@Good News
"Going"? We're ON the ride! Where's my barf bag?
I was expecting a vigorous and reasoned defense of Regnerus, and I got it from this article.
But I was pleasantly surprised when Smith began to discuss the rigid, close-minded nature of many in the sociology circles. Sometimes, for me, it's hard to believe they are educated professionals.
The sort of liberal orthodoxy that abounds in these groups will only further damage the credibility of the social sciences in the minds of Americans. I say “further” because the damage is already being done.
Many times when I read articles reporting on social scientific studies, I see at least one commenter disparage social science research as worthless.
I believe that when the social sciences do something meaningful, such as proffer gold-standard research on the social conditions of this nation and use it to better people in real-time, then the field will be valued and taken seriously, outside of the sociological environment.
If sociologists continue to hold fast to liberal orthodoxy and remain intolerant, they'll lose their public message.
That's what I don't understand about SSMers: what point is it to have professionals bend over backwards to validate your ideas, but as a result, no one takes them seriously anymore? No one can take a professional seriously when they are disgusted with Regnerus’s study, but have given a warm welcome to the previous same-sex parenting research.
Great job by Christian Smith.
@Richard,
The study noted the complete lack of viable subjects in the random sampling; which probably explains why pro-marriage corruption studies cherry picked their test subjects.
Same-gendered households are not even plentiful enough to qualify as rare.
>>Science already has its own ways to deal with controversial research results. Studies should be replicated. Data sets should be made public and reanalyzed. And new and better studies should be conducted. Eventually the truth comes out. By those means, Regnerus might be shown to have been wrong or perhaps be vindicated. That is how science is supposed to work.
Exactly, but consider who we're dealing with...a group that is terrified to allow further studies because they well know if such studies vindicate this one, their party is over. And they know we know it. So they must continue with their philosophy of "Why shed more light on a subject when preserving ignorance is the most effective tool we have in reaching our goals?".
"Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good." -- 1 Thessalonians 5:21
3cheers for Mr. Smith!
Richard said something very odd.
He said: "Comparing intact hetero and same sex households- that would be appropriate."
Why did you compare hetero and "same-sex"? Did you really mean two-sex and one-sex? Or did you really mean to compare by sexual orientation?
If the latter, please state your reasoning for giving homosexual orientation greater weight than the mom-dad duo in an intact marriage.
Oh, wait, did you mean to propose comparison of an intact married scenario (mom-dad and their offspring) with a non-intact scenario (mom-or-dad and children -- and another adult of the same sex as the mom-or-dad)?
The latter would lack either mom or dad. It would not be intact. You thus advocate a comparison of intact and not-intact.
Regnrus is not to blame for the problem that SSMers have with studying their favored subset of nonmarriage. About 90% of the adult homosexual population does not reside in same-sex households; about 97% of the adult homosexual population does not reside in same-sex households with children.
The HRC's own census analysis pegged the adult homosexual population at 5% of the general adult population. So you would have researchers hold out for your stated standard: 3% of that 5% which is something like 0.15% of the adult homosexual population.
But what do you think is the point of chasing after that tiny pool of homosexual adults?
I mean what is it about homosexuality that you think makes a big difference compared with other non-intact scenarios. You know, scenarios in which there is either a lack of the other sex or the child was attained by means other than the procreative relationship of mom and dad?
Is it same-sex sexual behavior that makes all the difference, do you theorize? Or is it same-sex sexual attraction? Or gay identity politics,perhaps?
If you are going to use hundreds of millions of dollars to pursue your supposed standard for research on this gay emphasis, then, you need to begin with the narrative that would explain how that gay emphasis is a big differentiator.
Instead, the gay identity politics of the critics of the Regnerus study is like a frog on a fence post. How did it get there?
Wow, brilliant thread, folks!
There is a problem with Smith's credibility. He did not disclose that he was one of 17 professors who signed a letter of support for Regnerus' study . Nor does what he wrote talk about why the study is being criticized. He pleads the victimhood card.
The homosexual movement isn't known as the "Gay Mafia" or "Gay Gestapo" for nothing.
Smith's credibility is only questioned by those whose agenda is to promote sexual identity politics for the price of marriage neutering.