The trouble here is that you're arguing from the enviable position of having a solution without a clear problem, and are trying to find a problem to justify it.

The trouble here is that you're arguing from the enviable position of having a solution without a clear problem, and are trying to find a problem to justify it. The concept got flipped in the chain here -- what is actually happening on these campuses is the establishment of "free speech zones", where a person can say what they like, and the establishment of rules that, on the rest of the campus, punishment will occur for saying things that could trigger or make someone feel unsafe. So, what's happening is that an entire campus is made to be this "safe" area. Is the assertion that there are so many people on any given university campus who might have a breakdown that the entire campus must walk on egg shells? Because that is the side of the debate you're arguing from.