Regnerus Doc Dump

Today, to coincide with the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, I am releasing public records that are relevant to the controversy surrounding Mark Regnerus and the publication of his discredited, anti-gay New Family Structures Study.

These documents were obtained through open records requests. The University of Central Florida is still withholding certain records covered under a request I made of them, and my lawsuit — which seeks to compel the release of said records — is currently pending in circuit court in Orange County, Florida.

Emails Relating to the Publication of the Mark Regnerus Study

Wright to Sherkat at on Encyclopedia Oct 2011 by JohnMBecker

WrightToAmatoBeACommentatorAmatoEggebeenRosenfeld by JohnMBecker

WrightToMarkOnOsborneAndHePushedBackProductionApril26-2012 by JohnMBecker

From Elsevier Most Downloaded Papers by JohnMBecker

Wright to Regnerus About Petition by JohnMBecker

WrightToMarkAndRegneusOnWilliamsInstituteStudyByDonBarrett by JohnMBecker

Wright to Regnerus June 25 Calm by JohnMBecker

WrightCommentingOnChristianSmithArticleToJasinskiAndDonley by JohnMBecker

WrightTellsSherkatNotToReadCommentsToHisAuditJuly27-2012 by JohnMBecker

ICantBelievePPLAreStillInterestedPlusRoseJuly27-2012 by JohnMBecker

WrightAndSherkatAtDenverASA by JohnMBecker

WrightToSherkatIDidNotPublishGatesReviewOfYourAudit by JohnMBecker

Wright Quoting Sherkat to Not Reveal to Jasinski by JohnMBecker

WrightToWilcoxAboutHisJobWitherspoonOct1-2012 by JohnMBecker

Regnerus Crap and Benjamin Franklin by JohnMBecker

Sherkat Encyclopedia and Rose by JohnMBecker

Wright on Schumm to Reporter by JohnMBecker

ReporterInsideHigherEdPotential Conflict of Interest Involving NFSS(1) by JohnMBecker

Information Provided by the University of Texas

UT FOIA March 13 2013 FOIAofSherkatFOIA by JohnMBecker

UT FOIA May 28 -1-WilcoxEMailsFamilyGroupsConstruction by JohnMBecker

UT FOIA May 28 -2-AmatoEMails by JohnMBecker

UT FOIA May 30 -2 QuickReportOfExpenses by JohnMBecker

UT FOIA May 30 -3VouchersOfPaymentToConsultants by JohnMBecker

Accounting PayeesInfoOn66PageVouchersMay30 FOIA AlphaSort by JohnMBecker

Accounting FOIA RequestForVouchers by JohnMBecker

Accounting BalanceSheetsData May30FOIA AlphaSort by JohnMBecker

Arevalo Salary by JohnMBecker


2007CovenantMarriageBookMaggieGallagher1 by JohnMBecker

2007 Covenant Book Ask Maggie for Money by JohnMBecker

2007CovenantBookAskMaggieForMoney2 by JohnMBecker

2007 My Buddy Steve Nock by JohnMBecker

2007NockSurveyCallingPeopleSuckers by JohnMBecker

2007SSMProjectWrightThinksGaySexASin by JohnMBecker

2007SSMPlanningNorvalGlenInvitedAmatoOnBoard by JohnMBecker

2007SSMPlanningAug2007AmatoAndWilcox by JohnMBecker

2007SSMRandolphWontFundTryTempleton by JohnMBecker


  1. Scott Rose

    There are a lot of very interesting things in these documents.

    One of the revelations most damaging to Wright is that instead of conducting an honest inquiry into Wilcox’s role in the study, he asked Wilcox himself for a link to his deliberately misleading “public statement.” In that public statement, Wilcox lied. He claimed he was just one among a group of study consultants, and that despite having the title of Witherspoon’s Director of the Program for Marriage, Family and Democracy, he never acted in any official Witherspoon capacity vis-a-vis the study or Regnerus. We know from other documentation that that is a lie. Moreover, Wilcox in his public statement played fast and loose with the timeline of the NFSS. He states — inaccurately that he was involved with the study beginning in October, 2010. We have September 2010 e-mails he wrote about the study. Then, he says that he attended an initial meeting about the NFSS in Austin. He doesn’t give a date for that “initial meeting.” The first Austin meeting was held in January, 2011. The actual first organizational meeting of the NFSS was held in August/September 2010 in Washington, D.C.; Wilcox was there, and so was Maggie Gallagher. At that time, the NFSS grant had not even been awarded, so Wilcox can not possibly have been compensated as a “consultant” for his participation in that D.C. meeting. He was there as a Witherspoon Program Director. That he deliberately obscured this fact in his “public statement” means that he lied to the public about his role in the NFSS. And, counter to the Committee on Publication Ethic’s “Code of Conduct for Journal Editors,” Wright relied on Wilcox’s deliberately misleading statement, instead of insisting on getting at the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Of course, we know that since, Wright confessed to “Inside Higher Ed” that Wilcox was permitted to do peer review.

    Then there is Sherkat’s and Wright’s cavalier attitude towards their critics. In one e-mail, Sherkat asks Wright “What are these people whining about now?” Wright answers by saying that they are whining because he decided not to publish Gary Gates’s essay “An Illegitimate Review Process.” Wright has never explained why he refused to publish Gates’s essay (after having told the public that any credentialed person who wrote to him with concerns about Regnerus/Marks would see their concerns published. Gates in his essay, meanwhile, very clearly articulates that because the peer reviewers had fiduciary conflicts of interest, the academy should not consider that the Regnerus paper was put through peer review. Additionally, Wright did not publish the names of the signers of Gates’s letter to the journal and the editorial board expressing concerns about the lack of intellectual integrity in the Regnerus and Marks papers, and the suspicious circumstances of their publication. By the time of Wright’s November, 2012 issue, the then President of the American Sociological Association had signed that letter. (The present ASA President, Dr. Cecilia Ridgeway, signed a new letter in April, 2013 telling Wright that in order for “Social Science Research” to begin to restore its intellectual integrity, the Regnerus paper must be retracted.

    Then too, there’s the matter in these new documents of “Inside Higher Ed” contacting Wright about the bogus methodological defense of Regnerus by Walter Schumm, who has said that gays shouldn’t be allowed in the military because it is easier for them to have oral sex. Wright published the Schumm piece in his November issue, marking it as an “Original Research Paper” though it had not been peer reviewed. Additionally, Schumm was an NFSS consultant — which Wright did not disclose. When “Inside Higher Ed” asked him about that, he got snippy in his e-mails and said that he had “no opinion” on whether Schumm’s fiduciary conflict of interest should have been disclosed. Wright added to the reporter that he took for granted that everybody submitting unsolicited commentary for the November, 2012 issue had a stake in the matter — (as if that eliminates the need to disclose conflicts of interest with Regnerus’s funders!) Additionally it has to be noted — Wright claimed that he invited anybody who wrote to him with concerns to submit a commentary. So, the submissions were not exactly “unsolicited.” Wright can’t make up his mind whether he did or did not “invite” people to submit material, i.e. he’s lying to the public. And, even though he assumed that everybody who sent him material “had a stake” in the matter, he published Schumm but not Gates, showing that Wright has a stake in the matter, on the political gay-bashing side.

  2. Scott Rose

    Here is a relevant FB comment from Claude Summers Thanks to Scott Rose and John Becker for unearthing damning emails that reveal just how sleazy and unethical James Wright and everyone involved in the Regnerus hoax are. What Wright, Wilcox, Regnerus et al. did is disgusting. At least, now their lies are being exposed.
    4 minutes ago ยท

  3. Steven Seral

    Thank you so much for pursuing this and for sharing this material. I will review this with interest.

    Two questions:

    1. Have you posted all of the documents they produced or only a selection? If the above only reflects a selection, will you post the rest?

    2. With respect to the documents that they continue to refuse to produce, are you going to pursue a court order to compel production? Although there is no guaranty that the withheld documents are smoking guns, it is a fair bet that the withheld set is far more likely to contain smoking guns than the set voluntarily produced.

    Finally, please let the gay blogosphere and gay media know about your efforts and about this document dump. There was no blog coverage of this document dump. This is an important story and it should be getting coverage across the blogosphere. And you should be getting the credit you deserve.

  4. Scott Rose

    To: “”

    Hi Dr. Smith:

    I’m sure you remember me.

    When the Chronicle published your “auto-da-fe” post on Regnerus, you had told their reporter that you were not Regnerus’s dissertation chair.

    I then sent the Chronicle editors documentation showing that you were Regnerus’s chair, and they corrected the error of fact.

    One thing I’d like to know now — because you often have said that you are “not a conservative” — is if you support LGBTer’s legal equality, including the right for consenting adults of the same sexual orientation to marry each other.

    I’m extremely disturbed by your July 23, 2012 e-mail to Regnerus editor James Wright, in which you tell him, essentially, that Regnerus “got it right” because gay couples raising children have inherently unstable relationships.

    For reference, your e-mail to Wright can be found at this link, in the document titled “WrightCommentingonChristianSmithArticle”

    Firstly, are you aware that — as per documentation had through FOIA requests — Knowledge Networks itself told Regnerus that to study actual young adult children of gay parents, he would have to do some targeted sampling? The company itself told Regnerus that its Panel alone would not be adequate to a sample including young adult children raised by gay parents.

    The issue here is that Regnerus did not screen enough total people in the general population to get at the tiny national minority that purportedly was the topic of his study.

    The weaknesses in the NFSS data are such that, nothing you wrote in your e-mail to Wright — demonizing gay parents — would stand up to cross-examination, were you in a court as an “expert witness.”

    Moreover, it is alarming that somebody of your position elected to fraudulently demonize gay parents in that way to the editor who published two articles on gay parenting without having a single gay parenting sciences expert peer review them.

    In the period covered by the study — and particularly in more hostile anti-gay jurisdictions — it often happened in divorce cases that where a custody battle took place, and one parent could convince the court that the other parent was homosexual, the court forbid the homosexual parent from unsupervised visits with the children.

    Regnerus asked no questions that would allow anybody to know whether that was the case for any of his respondents. However, in that, and many similar plausible scenarios involving Regnerus’s respondents, the respondents actually suffered from the instability of their opposite-gendered parents’ unions, but then were chiefly raised by the heterosexual parent.

    You nonetheless want to attribute all of the perceived bad outcomes to gay parents. And, you had the nerve to suggest that the gay parents are at fault because gay adult parenting relationships are inherently unstable.

    What do you have to say for yourself now?


    Scott Rose

Post a comment

You may use the following HTML:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>