Douglas Allen of Canada’s Simon Fraser University is a bigot operative in the so-called National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute, which exists mainly to promulgate rhetoric demeaning of gay human beings.
Specifically, Allen is one of the evil “researchers” in NOM’s “expert witness project,” which churns out anti-gay junk science papers whose authors then never appear under oath at trial as “expert witnesses.”
Others in NOM’s “expert witness project” include the notorious political gay-basher Mark Regnerus, author of a hoax paper, and Loren Marks, who famously lied to the court about the gay parenting literature when he was under cross-examination in advance of the Proposition 8 trial in California.
Take, for example, what Allen did with Dr. Michael Rosenfeld’s study: “Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School.”
Because Rosenfeld found that children of gay parents do as well in school as children of heterosexual parents, Rosenfeld became a prime target for the NOM anti-gay propaganda and lying machine.
Seeing the “success” that the NOM project had with Regnerus’s anti-gay junk science, Allen applied some of Regnerus’s same junk methodology to a reanalysis of the Rosenfeld paper, concluding that gay parents infect their children with cooties, causing them severe problems with academic progress.
Allen’s conclusion did not read exactly like that, but it might as well have, given the nonsense of his re-analysis.
For his bigot attack, NOM’s Douglas Allen had two co-writers, both of whom are religious anti-gay bigots, Katherine Pakaluk and Joseph Price of Brigham Young University. BYU’s Honor Code prohibits all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings (i.e. dating, making out). There is no similar restriction against expressing heterosexual feelings. No one may advocate homosexuality or promote homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.
With infinite patience and politesse, Rosenfeld published a commentary on NOM’s Allen’s bigot attack against his paper, decimating the bigots’ malicious handiwork.
As turns out, not only does Allen ignore Rosenfeld’s corrections of his deliberately misleading “reanalysis,” he uses his reanalysis as the basis for hate-mongering publicly against gay people.
For example, Allen told gay-bashing lies about his commentary in a pre-publication podcast with the Ruth Institute’s Jennifer Roback Morse. At the 14:15 mark of the podcast, Morse asks Allen if the alleged (but not actual) “35% increase likelihood” of failing a year in school — (if one is among Allen’s commentary’s children raised by gay parents) — is “due to just the gayness,” with other variables — such as poverty — coming on top of “just the gayness.”
Allen tells her that is correct.
However, that is not what Allen’s commentary says. Allen’s commentary does not at all demonstrate causation between having gay parents and dropping out, so the phrase “due to just the gayness” is plain wrong. Allen’s commentary also does not find that gay parents’ children have a likelihood of higher than 35% of being held back a year, so Morse’s statement that other variables, such as poverty, come on top of “just the gayness” creates a false impression, a false impression which Allen irresponsibly reinforces to the Ruth Institute listenership.
In an e-mail exchange, Rosenfeld told this reporter: “I have had the funny experience of receiving phone calls from non-academics who have heard Allen describe his critique of my paper, and based on his (apparently misleading) description, are outraged against me. The outraged people who have heard Allen speak call me and want to know if I have read Allen’s critique. I say, “Of course I have read it, I published a response in the same journal Demography, right alongside the critique,” and they say “What journal was that?” because they have never heard of the journal Demography, much less read my papers in the journal.”
In other words, even after NOM’s Douglas Allen is thoroughly debunked in his gay-bashing distortions — even after he has been caught lying about his own “commentary” in a NOM podcast — he continues his anti-gay propagandizing to the public without even addressing the science-based criticisms made of his “expert witness project” doo-doo dumps.
Recently, NOM’s Douglas Allen struck again with the paper “High school graduation rates among children of samesex households.” The anti-gay hit piece appears in the September, 2013 issue of “Review of Economics of the Household,” which has an exceedingly low impact factor hovering around .708.
Again in this paper, NOM’s Douglas Allen attacks Rosenfeld.
NOM is obsessed with the Rosenfeld paper, because it shows that children of gay and heterosexual parents make equivalent progress through school.
Interesting, is it not, that NOM’s “experts” never talk about the impact of anti-gay bullying on gay students’ progress through school.
“Allen’s footnote claim in his new paper (2013 Review of Economics of the Household) that my 2010 paper failed to take account of problems in the census is wrong, flat out.”
He continues: “One way to account for census bureau mis-coding of same-sex married couples is to exclude the subjects (in the case of my 2010 paper, the children) whose parents both had their marital status recoded (from married to “unmarried partners”). I discuss this procedure in the “methods” section of my 2010 Demography paper, and I produce alternate values based on this procedure in the footnotes of my tables.”
Then, Rosenfeld makes this observation, devastating to NOM’s dishonest bigot Douglas Allen: “Allen’s analysis did no such thing, by the way.”
Rosenfeld continues: “There are only a very limited set of things researchers can do to address Census Bureau coding problems, and I did the appropriate things. Allen’s claims (in the 2013 Review of Economics of the Household paper) about my 2010 paper failing to take care of Census data problems is wrong, no surprise there. I think it is safe to say that if Allen thought there were credible problems (that he could convince – peer – reviewers of) in the way I used the data in my 2010 Demography paper, he would have mentioned those problems in his published critique, but he did not do so.”
“The difference between Allen’s results and my results are simple; I only included children who were actually raised by same-sex couples. (Bolding added). He included a wider set of children, many of whom had been raised by other families (or orphanages, or foster care), and he attributes all the problems those children were having to the (ed. apparently gay headed family) they were living with at the time of the census.
In his 2013 paper, NOM’s Douglas Allen relies on a secretive slice of the 2006 Canadian census — he could have manipulated that secretive slice in any way, and nobody would be able to fact-check his work. As Rosenfeld says: “Misleading research can go wrong in so many different ways, one really has to study the data in order to figure out where the research has gone wrong.”