College courses do not exist to provide an opportunity for student to "speak freely". They are not open forums for students to express themselves. Self-expression may be a part of a college course, but the school has absolute discretion to decide how much latitude is allowed. Treating the professor and the students as having comparable interests fundamentally misrepresents the basic nature of a college court.
"Protesting a t-shirt that pictured a professor who created a theory that states that students who get in on affirmative action are not as good of a match for the college, because they wouldn't have been admitted otherwise."
The professor says that the colleges are not good match for the students. You are subtly changing the focus of his theory to make it seem more offensive.
"At worst, it's a continuation of the idea that writing in a style of a non-white cultures is somehow worse or less professional."
That doesn't make sense. Writing styles don't have ethnicities, and pretending otherwise is leftist mind-killing. Different styles are more predominant among different ethnicities, but there is no such thing as a "white" writing style.
"To students who are affected by AA, that teacher was basically saying "you don't belong here." "
You are simply flaunting your ignorance. This took place at UCLA, which is part of the UC system, which does not have AA. Even if there were, the professor's writings was not directed towards UCLA students. The idea that no professor should express any thoughts as to who should be admitted, because those that the views do not benefit will take offense, is absurd. And again, you are phrasing it in the most offensive way possible. He isn't saying "You don't belong here". he's saying "You would have better expected outcomes if you went elsewhere".
I also wonder at your choice of the word "affected". Why such a obfuscatory term?
I agree with the bulk of your post, but one part is false.
Self-expression may be a part of a college course, but the school has absolute discretion to decide how much latitude is allowed.
This is not true in a public university (such as UCLA) in the United States, which is bound by the First Amendment. I won't get into the details, but UCLA can restrict self-expression in some ways, but not others - it definitely does not have absolute discretion. Similar rules apply in many other jurisdictions.
Since many LRers are fairly recent college graduates, it seems worthwhile to ask to what extent would people here agree with reports of rampant irrationalism such as this one: http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_4_racial-microaggression.html from a right-leaning journalist known for her book The Burden of Bad Ideas (which I'm certainly not promoting).
Some other sources like Massimo Pigliucci (see http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/) who seem more alarmed by creationism or the idea that all climatology is one big conspiracy, are also quite bothered by extreme relativism in some camps of epistemology, and sociologists of technology and science.
To what extent, if any, do you think PC suppresses free speech or thinking? While sociology and epistemological branches of philosophy have partisans who to me seem to advocate various kinds of muddled thinking (while others are doing admirable work), in your experience, is that the trend that is "taking over"?
To what extent if any do you think any of that is leaking into more practical or scientific fields? If you've taken economics courses, where do you think they rank on a left to right spectrum?
Also, have you observed much in the way of push-back from conservative and/or libertarian sources endowing chairs or building counter-establishments like the Mercatus Center at George Mason University? And I wonder the same about any movement strictly concerned with rationality, empiricism, or just clear thinking.
My mind is open on this -- so open that it's painful to be around all the hot tempers that it can stir up.
Thanks, Hal