"As to academic freedom, Professor Charney’s complaint argues that the criticisms of his classroom performance, and thus the decision not to renew his appointment, really had to do with his “radical free speech” approach, in which he forced his students to discuss controversial viewpoints on hotly contested issues of politics and public policy. The panel finds no evidence, however, that anyone at Sanford objected to Professor Charney’s raising of any particular issue, or expression of any particular viewpoint, in his classroom. Indeed, Professor Charney stressed that he intentionally introduces provocative views on all sides of issues and that students would have difficulty determining his personal views.
The issue was not what Professor Charney discussed but how he handled discussion of difficult and emotional issues with and among students. Professor Charney perhaps could have made more effort to learn to manage classroom discussion of difficult topics in a manner that would have left all students feeling fully heard and respected."[1]
In short, not everyone felt warm and fuzzy when discussing difficult issues - something which I believe to be a near impossibility - not when we live in a world where even presenting a dissenting opinion can be considered offensive -- indeed letting the discussion go where it may, would probably make many people feel uncomfortable.
It's hard to say for sure on this quote alone. On one hand, I could read it the way you did -- I have my own qualms about what often feels like an arms race about getting offended. On the other hand, though, if I'm trying to be calm about this, I could also read it as pretty mundane bureaucrat-ese for "look, this guy was just being an asshole and we don't want him back".
Being the free speech guy / gal in charge of a classroom is a risky endeavor and requires the same amount of talent, calm, tact, neutrality, and wit that, say, a standup comic needs when trying to get people to laugh at a tough subject, and I can easily imagine an earnest but less than talented (in this specific way) educator losing their cool in a room full of jacked up and emotional undergrads debating Trump, abortion, I/P, pick your hot button issue.
"Could've made students feel more fully heard" could indeed be "sensitive undergrads whining", but it could also be "guy proclaims himself mischievous contrarian view-challenger but reveals himself to be pedantic narcissist / unhinged / aggressive / insert pretty unattractive trait or behavior here".
I see that emphasis on how he handled it and I wonder if if isn't the latter. Commanding a room is a difficult thing with way more art and god-given ability involved than people think, especially when the emotion in said room is running high. There's a reason diplomacy, marriage counseling, and the like aren't easy.
Like I said, who knows from the quote, but I've been in both kinds of room as a student. Neither would surprise me and I think we'd all do well to consider both possibilities.
The issue was not what Professor Charney discussed but how he handled discussion of difficult and emotional issues with and among students. Professor Charney perhaps could have made more effort to learn to manage classroom discussion of difficult topics in a manner that would have left all students feeling fully heard and respected."[1]
In short, not everyone felt warm and fuzzy when discussing difficult issues - something which I believe to be a near impossibility - not when we live in a world where even presenting a dissenting opinion can be considered offensive -- indeed letting the discussion go where it may, would probably make many people feel uncomfortable.
[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qrGaqKye_5hJxEAFYmTrzNYLJeX...