Putting this here so it is preserved for posterity. This is a trend I've been aware of for some time, but this article does a good job of showing the depth of the craziness.
I'll just make a few comments:
If you think that a university is a place where you should never be exposed to "uncomfortable" ideas, thoughts or speech... I suggest you've completely failed to understand the meaning of the word, or indeed the purpose of education.
If you think the "right" not to be offended trumps the right to free speech, I suggest that whatever you call yourself, "liberal" is not appropriate, and you really need to read some J.S. Mill...
If you think that a "free society" is one in which you never have to feel discomfitted, challenged or (yes) threatened by someone else's ideas or speech, one which protects you from these things... then you and I have radically incompatible ideas of what "freedom" means.
And if you think that you are acheiving a victory for a good society when you use intimidation and threats of disruption to shut down a debate... I am really very scared what your vision of a good society is. Its certainly not a free one.
"One day, these Stepford students, with their lust to ban, their war on offensive lingo, and their terrifying talk of pre-crime, will be running the country."
I fear for Western Civilisation.
PS. In the interest of fairness, I'll include here (even though it is included in the article as well) a link to someone defending the particular example of suppression of debate the author uses as their primary example.
I'm too tired to adequately critique this all the way through, but I'll just make 2 points:
1.Most significantly, the author simply assumes a whole host of things about the subject that is under debate. Those positions/beliefs are precisely what is being debated. By framing her argument to suggest that anyone who disagrees is attacking and threatening her, she excludes the very possibility of rational debate. If disagreement = threat/attack, then discussion is impossible.
2. She appears to have never even heard the phrase "chilling effect". Apparently, in her world, as long as no one is being actually arrested and thrown into a concentration camp, freedom of speech is perfectly healthy in our society. The fact that for that kind of censorship to be accepted, the first step is to create a society where people accept more and more restrictions on what its acceptable to say... well, she either has never thought about, or worse, she doesn't care.