Not one of those things has anything whatsoever to do with “free speech>’

The purpose of the techniques is to prevent someone from speaking in a university context.

You are merely describing recruitment processes.

That is the means to obtain the end. It's a pretty elementary defect to not be able to distinguish between the two, nor see the connection between them. Read items in the Western canon – esp. Max Weber on the topic.

As far as I am aware, Professor Cole has a huge platform to spruik his sophomoric anti-Israel bile.

If you interpret his work as "sophomoric anti-Israel bile", do you think that is grounds for preventing him from lecturing to university students – i.e. censoring him on Yale's campus?

sophomoric anti-Israel bile

Except that none of it is sophomoric, but it seems to be a new wors you are fond of out fo context and over-use. Has anyone explained what it means to you Viva?

There are all forms of censorship, both direct and indirect, official and unnoficial. One could suggest that "free speech zones" are a form of supporessing dissent, while to actually criminalising it. Of course, the mere notion of a free speech zone, implies there are zones where free speech is not legal.

Similarly, by distorting a "recruitment processes", censorship is also enacted, albeit unoficially. Juan Cole was not denied a position because of his lack qualifications, but because his views were considered controversial.

Not one of those things has anything whatsoever to do with "free speech>' You are merely describing recruitment processes. As far as I am aware, Professor Cole has a huge platform to spruik his sophomoric anti-Israel bile.

How the hell can Yale stifle “free speech?”

Here's how:

[1] Get rid of staff who make comments that are unpleasing to management (or donors). This can be tricky. It usually involves one of three paths:

[a] Find some dirt on them and sack him/her for that, even though it was for speaking "against the interests of the university."

[b] Summarily sack the staff member for "speaking outside his/her field of expertise," knowing this is untrue; wait to see if the staff member persues it legally; let it drag out a bit to see how serious they are. If they drop it, then good; if not, then pay them out.

[c] Make life so unpleasant that s/he wants to leave (e.g. unfavourable timetables, large classes, support and foster student complaints, start rumours about incompetance, etc.).

[2] Don't hire staff likely to make comments that are unpleasing to management (or donors) in the first place, thus saving management the trouble of going through option [1].

Oh OK, let's not call Yale a "university." How the hell can Yale stifle "free speech?" The only institution that can stifle "free speech" is the state.

And pray tell us of your vast experiences at "actual" universities.

How is this an example of the stifling of free speech? Yale University is a private institution.

Call it "Yale" if you must, but don't call it a "University" if it seeks to stifle ideas and words that its donors don't like. One of the essential features of an actual university is that it allows freedom of thought and speech within its walls, irrespective of what its funders believe.

Douglas Feith a war criminal?

Oh yeah, that’s right. No convictions right? Were charges, much less any convictions ever made against Arafat? Surely, the only logical conclusion must be that he was a man of peace right?

Viva,

What relevance could history have with current affairs right? I mean, it's not like one influences the other now is it?

If Yale is a very liberal-left university, then try explaining how the moon bats at the American Enterprise Institute have so much influence at the place. Try explaining why leading Republican figures attend this university.

I presume that by former “terrorist” you are referring to is Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the former Taliban mouthpiece. Viva, you really got to get up to speed with the times. Did you not know that the Taliban are NOT considered terrorists by the State Department?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0502/dailyUpdate.ht…

However, I would not be very happy with a HISTORY professor shoving his views on contemporary political events down my throat.

Absolutely, better stick with impartial and balanced thinkers like Dershowitz to set the high bar for telling it like it is right?

If he wished to be a political pundit, rather than an historian and scholar, he should apply for a job with Foxnews or something.

Viva, you seriously need to read the labels on the bottles you a drinking from. Since when did Faux news ever allow a left wing pundit air time?

Critique of current affairs is fine. But this is not the role of the scholarly historian.

You wonder which was the greater imperative – the need to keep a fiercely independent spirit out of the citadel, or the implied financial threats of wealthy opponents with secret clout.

Just another American institution ethically biting the dust.