Sorry, here's a tl;dr, though I highly suggest that everyone read through it in its entirety:

In this article, Greg Lukianoff (a lawyer and president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) and Jonathan Haidt (an NYU social psychologist who did groundbreaking work on political psychology) discuss how college and university objections, restrictions, and bans on classroom content and campus speech - preventing "triggers" and "microagressions," objecting to "offensive" campus speakers - are turning campuses into monocultures, failing to teach their students vital skills needed to cope with common situations or learn about opposing views, and may even be setting them up for mental health problems like depression and anxiety.

The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse.... vindictive protectiveness teaches students to think in a very different way. It prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong. The harm may be more immediate, too. A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically.