Interesting for two reasons:<p>First, the Times reporter wrote "intentional discrimination, one of the most frequent and volatile charges made by conservatives, turned out not to play a significant role."  While the actual paper mentioned this as a potential cause, and cited conservative commentators like D'Souza and Horowitz, it wasn't one of the six hypotheses actually tested by the sociologists - I assume because it's hard to test this in a quantitative manner.  In other words, the Times reporter is editorializing.<p>Second, the ending quote from Neil Gross: "The irony is that the more conservatives complain about academia’s liberalism, the more likely it’s going to remain a bastion of liberalism."  If political typecasting is an issue for academia, then gender-based typecasting is almost certainly an issue for certain male-dominated professions.  Yet a sociologist who said "The irony is that the more women complain about [profession's] preponderance of males, the more likely it's going to remain a bastion of males" would be widely criticized.  There's a double-standard at work here.