However, the school's official rules tell students they should not engage in, "profanity, crude, vulgar, or offensive language, and disrespectful behavior [including] gossip, dishonesty, and malice." The school has a right to define behavior requirements for the student body (all of whom are adults who can choose to attend or not). However, if they are going to post an attack on a student who wishes to expand the speech restrictions on campus, it seems reasonable for them to explain why the student's ideas about restricting speech are bad and their ideas are good.
In a more general sense - most people agree there should be some limits on speech (fire in a theatre, etc). However, when someone suggests a limit on speech they don't like the reaction is like the one in the article: shocked disbelief that someone would want to restrict speech! I don't have strong feelings about "safe spaces" and the like, but I don't think the idea is that strange or hard to understand and that people should at least talk about it within our never-ending discussion about how we want to live with each other.
A christian extremist complains about a student who had complained about a sermon, and says that viewpoints need to be challenged. It's useful to see if that extremist is a massive hypocrite or not. In this case it seems he is.