What I find most illuminating about this article by John Tierney that documents the discrimination against conservatives and Republicans in academia is that it once again reveals in the starkest possible terms the blatant hypocrisy of the Left and illiberal utopian statists of all stripes. When it comes to Title IX compliance, glass ceilings, or affirmative action, substantially weaker statistical correlations are trumpeted and accepted by the chattering class, politicians, and, most depressingly, the courts, as de facto evidence of discrimination against women and minorities.
While conventional wisdom likes to suppose that there is a very high correlation coefficient between conservatives and white men, and vice versa, I would guess that the conjunction of these two sets is, while significant, somewhat smaller than the Left thinks, and it is getting smaller all the time due to a growing trend of younger people towards conservatism, an ever-growing black middle class, and the impact of immigration.
So, what's it going to be? Since I seek intellectual and philosophical consistency in my positions, I'd prefer to abandon all quota-based solutions across the board and let the market solve whatever problem there is rather than introduce new quotas to effect some "desired" change in society. If there is a demand for less liberal colleges and universities, some enterprising chancellors and presidents are going to capitalize on it. If there isn't a demand, then perhaps this is all just a tempest in a teapot driven predominantly by anecdotal evidence. But will the Left maintain a consistent, coherent policy by now applying the same quota-driven restitution solutions for a clearly, and overwhelmingly, discriminated against class of people, or will it resort yet again to one set of rules for me and another for thee?
See! There are stupid questions.
(Title of the post changed from "Sauce for the Goose" after reading this.)