My favorite aspect of Chomsky's work is that he made anarchism a thing that people heard about in the days before the internet. Kinda. He was an access point to radical(ish) thinking, and sometimes even used the a-word, though he never actually offered much up that would allow someone to delve further. I sometimes appreciate his encyclopedic memory regarding international affairs & statecraft (which is a decidedly non-anarchist field of study).
After I initially posted this answer (a minute ago) I noticed that you not only talk about him as a professor, but as one from "one of the most important universities in the world," and I feel like I need to address this in particular - Chomksky's prominence and the prominence of MIT are two very different things. Whatever my criticism of him and his politics, his lefitsm is severely out of place at MIT, a school whose importance in the world has far more to do with the research and work done to support the military industrial complex that Chomsky is so critical of, as well as their work in furthering the technological developments of the information age (that term makes me want to upchuck), which, I expect, Chomsky is wholly uncritical of. To use his association with MIT as an attempt to prop up his credentials doesn't do him any favors.
Here is some stuff that might be worth reading as a curative to Chomskitis (inflamation of Chomsky):
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/topics/noam-chomsky
Here is another question that might explain some of the ambivalence most of us have about the profess'r:
http://www.anarchy101.org/4310/is-noam-chomsky-an-anarchist-or-libertarian