This rather odd piece is making the rounds (thanks to reader David Zimmerman for sending it to me initially).  It is titled, "5 Reasons to Be Skeptical of 'Campus Coddling' Scare Pieces," alluding to this.  Oddly, though, there's only one actual reason given, since the other four points are irrelevant to whether or not these "scare pieces" are accurate.   Here are the five purported reasons:

1. Most of the examples to support these pieces are purely anecdotal

True, but what in the world would data even look like in this context?  And the denial that there is a problem is, of course, anecdotal too.  What's clear by now is that there are a lot of anecdotes from a lot of different places; if they have anything in common that would caution against generalizing it is that they come overwhelmingly from elite colleges and universities, which probably have disproportionate numbers of coddled, spoiled narcissists in the student body.

2. Conservatives are in fact more likely to be “sensitive” and “babyish” about content, yet all the alarm is about liberalism.

Even if this were true, it would be irrelevant to the claims about the "New Infantilism" on campus.  But is it true?  The author offers this further non-sequitur:

A recent op-ed in the Washington Post also used facts and numbers to push back on the idea that “political correctness” was a left-wing phenomenon.  Citing a survey about censorship, Catherine Rampell noted that: “In almost every category, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to endorse book bans.” Why is no one calling these censorious types squeamish babies who demand to be coddled?

Well, for one things, the attempts to ban books are not happening at colleges, typically, but at the pre-collegiate public schools, and one typically calls those trying to ban books more unpleasant names, e.g., "fascists" or "the Texas Taliban."

3. There may be real ways that millennials have a different cultural outlook, but no one is exploring the cause and effect of technology and culture on that outlook.

The question is how widespread the New Infantilism is, the question about its cause is separate, so this is irrelevant.

4. There are crises in academia, but they are not solely curricular or student-caused.

The author mentions the problems confronting adjuncts, as one example.  Who could disagree?  But the truth of the presence of the New Infantilism on college campuses does not depend on whether there are other more serious crises in the academy.

5. PTSD is not a being a baby. 

No one called those suffering from PTSD "babies."  Someone with PTSD is entitled to systematic accomodations under the Americans with Disabilites Act, and should receive them. 

Given how absurdly unresponsive this piece is, one might note that another problem confronting universities is graduating nitwits who can't reason–though, as a friend on facebook quipped, for a site called "flavorwire," coming up with one feeble reason out of five alleged ones isn't bad!