I repeat: Care to be more specific?
Name something in particular Cole has been wrong about. And maybe I will explain how he was, in that particular instance, right.
Something perhaps to consider.
There are a lot of academics out there running blogs, and also suspicion that deans and dept. chairs tend to regard blogging as a frivolity. If one is up for tenure, the mere act of blogging could be a liability. Compound that issue with controversial content, and I think tenure-track professors are just asking for trouble when they choose to communicate via the blogosphere.
!!! What you’re describing here definitely is a threat to academic freedom! Just as much as denying an academic a job based on his/her having published a controversial book or article.
I don’t think Brain Glutton’s query in the OP about “academic freedom” has been properly addressed. Only Yale knows on what basis it apparently decided not to hire Cole, but that leaves larger issues to be considered.
Should universities consider appointments only on the basis of scholarly achievement? Is this even possible? Aren’t we a bit past the days (if they ever existed) of ivory tower professors who avoid political involvement? Are Ivy League schools and other elite universities in the habit of shunning professors for left-wing views?
Should universities consider appointments only through internal discussions? Should the views of individuals, organizations and the community at large be addressed, or does allowing outside input constitute a threat to academic freedom? Are only certain types of outside input viewed as threatening?
And lastly, does Cole’s non-appointment at Yale mean that viewpoints on the Mideast similar to his are not being allowed to flourish? Some doubt this.
More on U.S. universities and “diversity of opinion” regarding Mideast policy.
Did you know there were once “teacher loyalty laws” in some parts of the United States? In New York State, for example, state university professors had to sign oaths swearing that they were not communists, or face loss of employment.
Those laws were declared unconstitutional, thankfully. But I think the money quote from the SCOTUS decision is relevant here:
Of course, we’re not talking about someone being legally barred from employment here. Nevertheless, I think “a pall of orthodoxy” is still worrisome in the context of an individual university’s hiring decisions. The whole point of academic freedom is the right to heresy, and the belief that such a right is the engine that’s driven academic progress in the modern world. So yes, universities should be able to consider appointments solely on the basis of academic merit, because to consider the political opinions of a potential appointee is to subvert the entire point of academia to a political agenda. Lysenko would love such a thing; I do not.
I completely agree.
I have to wonder, though, if Cole’s expressed views on Mideast policy and George Bush fall a lot closer to academic orthodoxy than heresy. 
Well, that’s the point. The prevailing academic “orthodoxy” on foreign affairs is what the neocons are trying to change, and not for the better.