I thought the conclusion to my first post (which you complained was missing) was quite obvious - that if we conclude, in the case of male/female imbalance, that it's because of residual sexism (prejudice/discrimination), then in the second case (liberal/conservative), it would be reasonable to conclude the same. And (tying it back to geebee's comment that I was replying to), it's probably discrimination on the part of college administrators, who lean even more liberal.
I thought that inference was pretty obvious - so obvious that I assumed you understood it when you made your comment, and that you therefore just didn't want to admit the point. The alternatives were to assume the worst of your honesty (the course I took), to assume the worst of your understanding, or to assume the worst of the clarity of my post. In charity, I should have chosen the last, but... I didn't.
At any rate, you said:
> Well, since female is something you are, while conservative is something you think, I imagine the reason for the latter discrepancy is probably quite different from the reason for the former.
The "discrepancy" we were talking about is differences in the rate of hiring. My comment was (trying to say) that, if we suspect discrimination for the male/female imbalance, shouldn't we suspect it for the liberal/conservative imbalance? Suspecting bad faith on the part of your comment, then, you certainly seemed to be saying that it was OK to not hire conservatives, but not OK to not hire women.
But, presuming good faith on your part, then what were you trying to say?
> Well, since female is something you are, while conservative is something you think, I imagine the reason for the latter discrepancy is probably quite different from the reason for the former.
So what do you think the reasons are? How does what you are vs what you think affect the situation? You complain that I didn't conclude my point, but you left a lot to the imagination also.
> I'll say this much: I do think it's wrong to not hire somebody because they're female, and I don't think it's necessarily wrong to not hire somebody because they express some arbitrary opinion that I think is bad. For instance, if somebody told me in an interview that "women should be legally considered property, without any rights of their own," I would not hire that person.
I would hope you would not hire that person! But do you think that the liberal/conservative imbalance in social science departments are because almost all the conservative applicants are deplorable?