THINGS THAT MAKE YOU SAY D'OH! Today's Homer Simpson moments. (The voice went to Northern Illinois University.) First, there's Andrew Sullivan.

I guess I should say that Condi Rice's race and gender are not the most important things about her career and abilities. But I'm still amazed at how little credit this president gets for promoting a black woman to such a position, and, more importantly, by his obvious respect and admiration for her. His management style is clearly post-racial, and his comfort with female peers is impressive. You know, Bill Clinton was celebrated for his progressiveness, and ease with African-Americans. But it's inconceivable that he would have given so much power and authority to a black female peer. Why does Bush get no respect on this score? I guess it reveals that much of the left's diversity mania is about the upholding of a certain political ideology, rather than ethnic or gender variety itself. Depressing.

Andrew, you had to guess? Even the Most Enlightened (TM) among you can do with a modicum of repetition of this point. What's that old William Buckley line about those who profess to value differing points of view are shocked to discover that there is one?

Next up: James at Outside the Beltway, who discovers that Some People Who Say "Armitazh" are surprised with What's Out There.

At the birthplace of the free speech movement, campus radicals have a new target: the faculty that came of age in the 60's. They say their professors have been preaching multiculturalism and diversity while creating a political monoculture on campus.

I believe the correct response is either Homer's, or "No S#@* Sherlock!" Reading on, meet our old friend George Lakoff, author of Moral Politics (details, compare prices, read Doc Searls), who pushes the party line.

One theory for the scarcity of Republican professors is that conservatives are simply not that interested in academic careers. A Democrat on the Berkeley faculty, George P. Lakoff, who teaches linguistics and is the author of "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think," said that liberals choose academic fields that fit their world views. "Unlike conservatives," he said, "they believe in working for the public good and social justice, as well as knowledge and art for their own sake, which are what the humanities and social sciences are about."

Let's deconstruct that. First, you have to pay us. Most of us will not put up with contingent work at niggardly salaries. We have hobbies for that. Second, spare us the preening. It isn't wearing well in Red America, and I've seen how petty and self-interested such Enlightened People (TM) become in committee meetings. A much more clever man than I long ago (details or compare prices) expressed his distrust of those who pretended to traffic for the public good. I have read and understood the passage. Let's look for a simpler explanation.

The ratio of Democratic to Republican professors ranged from 3 to 1 among economists to 30 to 1 among anthropologists. The researchers found a much higher share of Republicans among the nonacademic members of the scholars' associations, which Professor [Daniel] Klein [of Santa Clara] said belied the notion that nonleftists were uninterested in scholarly careers.

"Screened out, expelled or self-sorted, they tend to land outside of academia because the crucial decisions - awarding tenure and promotions, choosing which papers get published - are made by colleagues hostile to their political views," said Professor Klein, who classifies himself as a libertarian.

Martin Trow, an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley who was chairman of the faculty senate and director of the Center for Studies in Higher Education, said that professors tried not to discriminate in hiring based on politics, but that their perspective could be warped because so many colleagues shared their ideology.

"Their view comes to be seen not as a political preference but what decent, intelligent human beings believe," said Dr. Trow, who calls himself a conservative. "Debate is stifled, and conservatives either go in the closet or get to be seen as slightly kooky. So if a committee is trying to decide between three well-qualified candidates, it may exclude the conservative because he seems like someone who has poor judgment."

End result: an echo chamber of people who know nobody who voted for the Speaker of the House.