Read on Twitter
The person described in Rekers & Lovaas was a real kid who was alive and beautiful and vibrant, and who was treated with contempt by people in power. That is indefensible. 1/6 https://twitter.com/UCRGSOE/status/1359967468291125252
Retraction is not revisionism. No one is arguing that Rekers & Lovaas didn’t happen or that we need to stop talking about it. Instead, we are arguing that this paper does not deserve the recognition of the scientific canon because it describes extremely unethical behavior. 2/6
In their paper, Rekers & Lovaas describe Kirk Murphy as having “slovenly seductive eyes.” Whose interests does that language serve? Why does this deeply troubling sexualization of a four-year-old deserve the validation of continued publication? 3/6
Abusing and sexualizing a child isn't science. Rekers & Lovaas’ paper is a terrifying and shameful part of education and psychology's history, and it’s one that must be directly confronted. Kirk Murphy deserved to be treated with dignity in 1974, and he deserves the same now. 4/6
I am so sorry that @SEABScience believes that Rekers & Lovaas (1974) is not eligible for retraction. I believe that that position is untenable when viewed alongside actual history as well as the standards of the scientific community. 5/6
A refusal to retract serves no one except for two men who abused a kid in 1970, as well as those in the field who refuse to confront actions by people who use science to harm those who they are ostensibly committed to supporting. 6/6
@cmclymer, @GLSEN, and @MathewShurka, if you're able to uplift this message on your platform, I think it's an issue a lot more people need to know about. Science must reckon with its history of active violence committed upon kids who are LGBTQ.
