First of all, I take issue with the unbalanced sources the author used to make his point. Each of the sources listed as examples of a social justice warrior gone wrong or an oversensitive kid were heavily laced with satire and condescension. Should we thus read into his opinions the same level of satire and disrespect for nuance as his references had?
Now on to the real issue: are students demanding to be treated with kid gloves? The author refers to requests for trigger warnings and so-called 'safe spaces' to demonstrate that students demand to be coddled. To this point: trigger warnings are not about shielding people from ideas they disagree with. They are not about censorship. Trigger warnings are used to alert people who have experienced trauma that the traumatic issue is about to be brought up. Using one does not mean that the topic is not still addressed. Rather, it gives people time to mentally prepare to deal with the material and excuse themselves if they cannot. Trigger warnings are not needed because sensitive people are unwilling to deal with contrary opinions. (When was the last time you saw a rape victim be asked to consider that maybe rape is a good thing, after all?) Students come to the classroom ready to challenge their intellect, not their emotional stamina (see this). Recognizing the difference between the two is important for educators to be successful. The author references a situation in which a rape victim in a classics course was upset by graphic descriptions of sexual violence (a hint of discomfort). The teacher emphasized the beauty of the prose, but the girl was still upset. The issue here is not that descriptions of rape are inappropriate for anyone to hear, ever, but that a student, at that moment, could not handle listening as the descriptions were uplifted. Rather than insist on the inherent beauty of the prose, the teacher could have simply let her excuse herself from the situation and carried on teaching.
Overall, it seems his fear has grown out of events relating to the campus climate, not necessarily the classroom environment. Two articles he cited referred to university policies towards sexual assault and student/faculty sexual relationships. While these policy debates certainly affect the academic climate as a whole, they are not necessarily indicative of students who need to be shielded from any offending views or rigorous academic debate.
Finally, I agree with the author that there is a tendency in academia away from challenging intellectual environments and towards a system of easy As to placate students. It's also true that the decline of tenure has made the career track of the academic tenuous at best. However, I disagree with the impulse to place the blame on students. Where is the pushback from administrators when students make unreasonable demands? Instead of blaming students for being too sensitive, we need to see a stronger push for tenure that can protect professors who engage challenging ideas, and support from administrators of faculty who set clear expectations about what is acceptable in an academic context and what is not.