An out of court settlement very strongly suggests they thought they'd lose if it went to court. Separating the political inclinations of researchers and the political implications of their research is a fool's errand in any case. If the departments would have been happy with getting them to research more ideologically congenial things instead that would have just as bad. Suppressing research because you don't like its results is not truth seeking.

There is a very large difference between 68-32 and 98-2. The first is the vote among postgrad holders in 2008, the second the liberal-conservative gap among social psychology postgrads.

I do not care about Republicans. I care about the truth. If social psychology and other academic disciplines are overwhelmingly liberal they will be less likely to approach the truth because of a lack of viewpoint diversity.

Sure, an out of court settlement suggests a losing judgement, but the article suggests this was probably due to some poor comments the dean made to the press. What I'm proposing is that this didn't exactly come out as a clear judgement that says there was political discrimination going on.

I also believe that diversity is important, but I feel like diversity in this case isn't that important. Take for instance my earlier preference for AoE over Candy Crush. Is there a reason why I should look to create a diverse distribution of Candy Crush/AoE players in my workplace?

Similarly, what is it about this distribution in academia that gives it a particularly quantifiable effect on Republicans? Is there evidence of an effect? Why aren't we talking about third-party candidates or non-voters?

What evidence is there that a lack of diversity in political views in social psychology leads to a lack of truth in that discipline?

So if the dean had been more circumspect they'd have gotten away with it? This would not make me feel better about applying for grad school if I was a conservative.

As to your last three paragraphs I suggest reading the journal article. If you want to continue the discussion after doing that feel free.

There was no evidence-driven judgement in favor of there being political discrimination in this case.

Perhaps I was being confusing, so I'll try again: What quantifiable evidence (not anecdotal, not hearsay, "may be" or implication) is there that this ratio of liberals to conservatives is an indicator of negative outcomes for conservatives?

Are you discussing the Miller or Gottfredson case? I think the fact that I know of two cases of people dealing with really severe difficulties in getting tenure by osmosis, without seeking them out speaks to their commonness.

I think we may be speaking at cross purposes. I care about this because ideological diversity leads to a greater diversity of viewpoints, which makes it more likely that the hypothesis will be examined from a number of viewpoints, so any flaws are more likely to be discovered. This is a social psychology result that has held up to replication.

What do you mean by negative outcomes for conservatives? I would have thought that denying one tenure for one's political opinions would be a pretty negative outcome for any academic.