An Academic Auto-da-Fé
Bill McGurn ·
July 24, 2012 at 9:08pm
That's the headline over a remarkable essay in the Chronicles of Higher Education. It's an account of the progressive reaction to a study by the University of Texas's Mark Regnerus. Here's a taste:
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 relationships. And now he is being made to pay.
Thanks to First Things for the tip. Worth reading the comments too.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: An Academic Auto-da-Fé
This, of course, follows the Chronicle of Higher Education's firing Naomi Shaeffer Riley as a blogger after she posted a perfectly appropriate comment on the ridiculous subjects chosen for dissertations by Women's and Gender Studies doctoral candidates.
Free speech appears to belong only to those whose speech falls within the pre-determined parameters of the leftist academy.
It's a sorry commentary on American higher education.
Aug '10
Re: An Academic Auto-da-Fé
The proof in three words:
John Walker Lindh
Oct '10
Re: An Academic Auto-da-Fé
Aren't these tactics fascist--or at least, the Nazis used them; they believed in both psychological and physical terror. Gay adoption is a difficult, complicated issue; we should openly debate the pros and cons; this business of shutting up debate and terrorizing your enemies has got to stop.
Edited on July 24, 2012 at 10:00pmApr '12
Re: An Academic Auto-da-Fé
Thanks for the article Bill, this is an important issue on more than one level. It emphasizes how deeply politicized the "social sciences" have become and it casts a shadow over the unicorns and rainbows propaganda of homophiles.
Yet this is only the latest of manufactured indignities to protect imagined victim groups from an honest dialog, such responses are intended to quash all discussion and sweep it under the rug for purely political reasons.
The house the Left built is supposed to be flawless in every way. How else are they going to maintain their pretense to a moral high ground and attract naive fools?
Jun '10
Re: An Academic Auto-da-Fé
It doesn't help to confuse the issue, Bill. Regnerus himself places heavy qualifications on the findings, primarily focused around the paucity of same-sex couples raising children as compared to the number of traditional families in this country; in other words, he needs a larger sample. When long-term gay relationships are isolated, the gap in outcomes narrows significantly, almost into insignificance. The remainder track evenly with divorced and, particularly, single-parent homes.
Ramesh Ponnuru writes, in his excellent article for the 09 July issue of National Review covering this study and the loony left's reaction to it, that Regnerus "does not show, or attempt to show, that they had these worse outcomes because they had gay parents." Regnerus "suggests further that household instability may play the leading causal role in generating divergent outcomes." Stability matters when raising children. That's the message that can be clearly taken from this study. Ascribing anything else to it, no matter how much it supports the cause, is unwarranted, unsupported, and unhelpful.
Edited on July 24, 2012 at 11:01pmJun '10
Re: An Academic Auto-da-Fé
There are exceptions to every rule, but it doesn't hurt to explore what's typical. For example, in general, married 25-year-olds make better mothers than single 15-year-olds. Only because that conclusion doesn't enter the political arena, you can say it. But put the word homosexual in there, and you don't dare go near it.
Sep '10
Re: An Academic Auto-da-Fé
Interesting. I had an run-in with Chris Smith when I was a grad student; I wasn't in sociology, but I happened to offend him en passant by stating that the sociology papers I had read (not his) were badly written. (I stand by that; they were atrocious.) Back then he seemed to be a typical academic lefty. Perhaps he's... evolved.
Nov '10
Re: An Academic Auto-da-Fé
Casey Taylor: It doesn't help to confuse the issue, Bill. Regnerus himself places heavy qualifications on the findings, primarily focused around the paucity of same-sex couples raising children as compared to the number of traditional families in this country; in other words, he needs a larger sample. When long-term gay relationships are isolated, the gap in outcomes narrows significantly, almost into insignificance. The remainder track evenly with divorced and, particularly, single-parent homes.
Ramesh Ponnuru writes, in his excellent article for the 09 July issue of National Review covering this study and the loony left's reaction to it, that Regnerus "does not show, or attempt to show, that they had these worse outcomes because they had gay parents." Regnerus "suggests further that household instability may play the leading causal role in generating divergent outcomes." Stability matters when raising children. That'sthe message that can be clearly taken from this study. Ascribing anything else to it, no matter how much it supports the cause, is unwarranted, unsupported, and unhelpful.
Even if everything you say is true, it doesn't justify the "wall of hate" ((tm) Maggie Gallagher) directed at Regnerus.
Jun '10
Re: An Academic Auto-da-Fé
Umbra Fractus
Even if everything you say is true, it doesn't justify the "wall of hate" ((tm) Maggie Gallagher) directed at Regnerus. · 10 minutes ago
Nor was I making any justification. The Left is nasty and morally bankrupt when it comes to this sort of thing (see the made-up Chik-fil-A controversy). But drawing false conclusions -- publicly, mind you -- from unsupported data is the very thing we criticize the Left for when they do the same with, oh, I don't know... climate change, drugs, even this specific issue. It's just lazy, and we're better than them.
We're winning on the climate change front specifically because we stay away from inserting ideology into what should be a factual discussion on the merits and rigor of the applicable data. The same standard should apply here.
Edited on July 25, 2012 at 3:40amJun '12
Re: An Academic Auto-da-Fé
The academic histrionics are a scandal, or at least would be were it not for the ideological proclivities of the professoriate. It is too early to tell where this issue will end up after further study with sufficient data sets and longitudinal rigor. However, I have my doubts that as consensus coalesces around sufficient data that the results will weigh favorably for SSM. Why? Relatively complex civilizations have been around for several millennia. Homosexuality, likewise has been a known phenomenon for virtually all of recorded history (admittedly with varying degrees of acceptance). Yet SSM has never in all his time arisen as a viable alternative to heterosexual union. It strikes me as unlikely that post-modern, western secular metrosexuality has unearthed some hitherto unrecognized variant on what is for all intents and purposes the foundational social arrangementof virtually every society in history. Time will tell, I reckon.
Nov '11
Re: An Academic Auto-da-Fé
Casey Taylor
Umbra Fractus
Even if everything you say is true, it doesn't justify the "wall of hate" ((tm) Maggie Gallagher) directed at Regnerus. · 10 minutes ago
But drawing false conclusions -- publicly, mind you -- from unsupported data is the very thing we criticize the Left for
Where has Bill drawn any conclusions? I don't see any.
Sep '10
Re: An Academic Auto-da-Fé
This is nothing new. The left sees itself as fighting an implacable, crazed foe when it comes to gays. They think anyone who questions the assertion that gay and straight are equivalent in every way are one small step from releasing packs of rabid German Shepherds onto the local Gay Pride parade. It's completely irrational and there's practically no hope of normal conversation. It's like talking to a schizophrenic. They see and hear things that aren't there.
Re: An Academic Auto-da-Fé
Casey, I think your comment an example of what the article indicts. All I did was post the Chronicles essay to see what people made of it. My characterization of it -- "It's an account of the progressive reaction to a study by the University of Texas's Mark Regnerus" -- was limited to summarizing the gist of the gist of the Chronicles piece for the Ricochet audience; I made no mention of the actual Regnerus findings. The headline was taken directly from the Chronicles. I maintain that my summary is fair, and that your assertion is not.
If you read the article, you will find the author making exactly this point, to wit that Regnerus, far from extrapolating wildly from his findings, "also acknowledges the limitations of his study in his article, as he has done in subsequent interviews." He also notes that the "findings can be interpreted to support legal same-sex marriage, as a way to counter the family instability that helps produce the emotional and social problems."
Aug '10
Re: An Academic Auto-da-Fé
Actually, the Chronicle published an essay defending Regnerus. In contrast, the article published in Inside Higher Ed (CHE's main competitor) had an overall tone of "Mark Regnerus: threat or menace?"
While I don't see any fault with the Chronicle, the reaction of social science academics has been disgraceful. I know many of the people involved in this dispute which makes it all the more painful. The only bright point I see is IHE's quote from Eric Olin Wright (who, for what it's worth, is a Marxist) opposing the disciplinary hearings against Regnerus on principle.
Finally, the idea that the Regnerus study is terrible science can only be described as motivated reasoning. I also agree that the findings ironically support SSM.
Edited on July 26, 2012 at 2:25amJun '10
Re: An Academic Auto-da-Fé
Bill McGurn
Casey, I think your comment an example of what the article indicts.
If you read the article...
I did read the article, thank you, as well as the study, and have been following the conversation closely. The question is, which is more important, the reaction to the study, or the study itself? That's what I was speaking to. So a little less elbow, please.
Regnerus did good work, for which he's being grossly and unfairly pilloried, but Smith only lightly touches on those findings in his article, which is less a defense of Regnerus than a caution against giving free rein to academic thought police. I understand that your point was to show how unfairly Regnerus is being treated, that certain cows are still sacred in the academy. What bothers me, and I think it's fair criticism, is that the "gist of the gist" doesn't give fair shrift to Regnerus' own interpretation of his results, even less so than Smith's article. The Left's reaction is ludicrous, but we would only know that if we know the bare facts of the study.