University Papaer Calls on University to Address Mark Regnerus' Ethical Lapses

Click image to enlarge - Photo Credit: Alex Dolan | Daily Texan Staff

Despite being located in a state where Republicans seem to celebrate the embrace of ignorance and condone shameless lying to further their racist, homophobic, reverse Robin Hood, agenda, the University of Texas at Austin is over all a top notch university.  Now, the student newspaper is calling on the University administration to deal with the ethical lapses and fabricated lies of Mark Regnerus who has pocketed money from far right anti-gay groups, generated false studies, and been slammed by federal judges.  Even his own department has distanced itself from his bogus claims and studies.  A piece in the Daily Texan suggests that students think that Regnerus needs to go and are questioning why Regnerus hasn't been disciplined or fired.  One obvious question is that of who is protecting him?  Here are article highlights:

As another gay marriage case goes before the Supreme Court, Mark Regnerus has once again been spared further university scrutiny for his New Family Structures Study.

Since 2012, the associate sociology professor has courted controversy for publishing observed differences between the children of parents who had a same-sex relationship and children living with both biological parents that suggested that the latter do better than the former in life. The criticisms have focused mainly on flaws in the study’s methodology, which established no causal link between the parents’ sexuality and the observed outcomes. Ethical concerns also include Regnerus’ alleged misuse of his findings in court and failure to stop misuse and misrepresentation of his findings by conservative groups such as Focus on the Family and the Heritage Foundation.

In early March, College of Liberal Arts Dean Randy Diehl wrote a letter, obtained by the Texan through an open records request, to Robert Crosnoe, chair of the sociology department. In the letter, it is revealed that despite objections from key figures in the college, no action will be taken on the ethical concerns raised about the NFSS, and Regnerus’ post-tenure, or six-year performance, review rating will remain “exceeds expectations.”

The twists and turns this story has taken are sometimes convoluted, but the potted history, at least as it pertains to this letter, is thus:

When Regnerus’ post-tenure review committee met in 2013-2014, it determined that his performance “exceeded expectations” based on his publication record. However, then-department chair Christine Williams disagreed, citing the controversy surrounding the methodology and conclusions of the NFSS.

[D]eferred to Robert Peterson, associate vice president for research, and his supervisor, Juan Sanchez, vice president for research. They did not believe that the charges leveled met the standards of scientific misconduct and declined to investigate.

The post-tenure review committee met again in January of this year and was tasked by Diehl with considering only methodological problems. Based on this charge, the committee found the following, as summarized and endorsed by Diehl: “Valid methodological concerns have been raised. … A key one is this: Because the design of the study ensured that the parental same-sex relationship variable was confounded with the family structure stability variable, it is not possible to conclude that the different life outcomes between the two groups were caused by the parental relationship variable.” Diehl, citing this finding and Regnerus’ original caution that the article did not deal with same-sex marriage legal rights, agreed that “no policy implications about same-sex parenting should be drawn from the study.” But the fact is Regnerus did use those findings in court.

[W]e are disappointed that he didn’t act on the serious ethical dilemmas caused by Regnerus’ reckless misuse of his study, not only because they don’t even give Regnerus a slap on the wrist, but also because his assertion that post-tenure review committees should not concern themselves with ethical issues sets a dangerous precedent and is also inconsistent with the University’s Comprehensive Periodic Review Guidelines. Section 10 of the guidelines states that “incompetence, neglect of duty, or other good cause” may be used to to initiate “appropriate disciplinary action.”

We don’t fault Diehl for having the impulse to keep the peace, but it should have been outweighed by the blinding  scientific errors and ethical lapses demonstrated by Regnerus.

Regnerus’ post-tenure review decision is final. However, for years now, Regnerus has turned a blind eye, and contributed directly, to the perversion of his findings by right-leaning activists. Diehl shouldn’t repeat his mistake. Instead of sitting idly by, he should take real action and more forcefully condemn not just the methodological, but also the ethical, shortcomings of Regnerus’ work.

Given the extreme anti-gay animus of the Republican controlled Texas legislature, one cannot help but wonder whether the university is afraid to fire Regnerus because of the political - and funding backlash - that might go with it.  Meanwhile, the University's reputation continues to be sullied by Regnerus' continued presence on the faculty.  Should Regnerus and/or his study be slammed in the coming U.S. Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality, the damage will only be magnified.  Regnerus needs to be fired and relegated to working some place like Liberty University or Regent University where no sane, thinking person takes the institution seriously.