Oh, wait, that's too much work. They're just a bunch of whiners.
Edit: Not sure if the downvotes are because people don't get this was sarcastic, or if people do.
Either way: Try listening to the people complaining instead of just brushing them off as "whiners". I hope that clears things up.
That said, there is a clarification in the article that does need to be stated. The prof is not against rape, racism, sexism, PTSD counseling, etc. Rather, they are just a new person in a long line of fuddy-duddys complaining about the youth of today. I believe the prof's gripe was against the perceived laze or lack of courage that their student's exhibit. I think this comment in particular should be expanded on by the prof:
..Most disabilities that I am asked to accommodate seem to be unspecified and are remedied by providing the students with a separate, quiet location and an extra 30 minutes to take an exam.
If the prof can start to gather some stats on that and make a real case that the students are abusing these privileges, then some change may be possible. Until then, the prof is just another old man complaining about kids on their lawn.
But I also think I have a reasonable conception of what deplorableness is. And that includes persecution of nonbelievers for suspicion of heresy. Some people have founded a non-theistic religion regarding certain elements of social conduct, and its adherents act rather poorly towards those who do not share their beliefs.
They can believe what they want. But they can't force me to kneel before their altars.
Also, allow me to take a moment to endorse the use of the tilde ('~') as a "sarc mark".
~I'm sure it will catch on any day now.~
From the OP Article.
So let's take a look at Jeannie Suk's writing [0]
>One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.
And cited a real law student (female or not) who was actually offended by the word "violate" and asked for it to not be used because it was triggering. As well as some students suggesting rape law shouldn't be taught at all.
[0] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap...
Let's break the point down a bit. For an actual rape survivor, it's possible the word "violate" might be triggering. If that's the case in that room, then perhaps another word should be used.
As for not teaching rape law, while rape law is something that might be triggering to a victim, this is a rare example where not teaching it, at least if it's a requirement of the program, is a problem. There's a discussion that can occur about the appropriateness of teaching rape law in, say, an introduction to law course at the undergraduate level. Having the discussion is important.
Funny how the people who say that coddled students want to shut down all discussion, only to shut down discussion about what's appropriate to teach in general courses or for a university to endorse.
Similarly, if you can't handle law, you probably shouldn't be a lawyer.
I'm a "white NT cishet male", as well, and at a glance, you can't tell the decent people from the awful ones. It's about behavior, and in a space where most people who look like us act like shit, it's not unreasonable to generalize a lack of trust. It's not on them to be understanding, it's on _us_. because we're in the position of privilege in this situation.
No, it isn't. They are offended by something else about you.
How have I personally offended this person, for instance? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054067/Pictured-Div...