I understand that you're trying to push for teaching a language that might have more modern, real world applications, but CS is not ( at least in the undergraduate world ) about learning the modern or bleeding edge. Leave that to post-graduation, in your free time, or during a graduate program.
The best you can do is extending the CS curriculum to teach "Introduction to Web Programming" or the like utilizing Python and/or Javascript, or offering it as an elective. The closest thing to replacing Java in CS undergraduate curriculum is Go or Rust or some similar, newer language, but the jury is still out on how useful as educational tools they are.
Pretty much any language will work fine for teaching data structures.
If your instructor is showing you a cool animation of a list with less than 30 elements being sorted by X algorithm, he's doing it badly. Or at least if that's all he's doing. There are by the way many schools that do just that, under the rationalization that the point of the class is to have the student practice what he learned at Programming 101. I attended such course in the day, and then went to teach the same course some years later, but I don't think the results were any good.
IF he have you run your algorithm against input taken from /dev/random, first 100KB, then 1MB, then 10MB, then 100MB he's a little less bad. IF he makes you do the whole sequence a dozen times an plot each resulting data points in a graphic with logarithmic scale, he is not bad at all.
Then you can start to discuss Big-O notation, but for the resulting graph to make any sense you need that the program written by the student to have a relatively strong correlation with what the computer is actually doing. It will not do, by example, if the runtime environment decides to implement you list as a dictionary object instead of a raw array. Also, having a relatively precise clock like Java's currentTimeMillis will reduce the possibility that you embarrass yourself if the practice do not seem to match the theory.
If the course is being taught at graduate level, you may want to run a second experiment, this time with input sizes of 1KB, 256B, 64B, 16B. At this point you will be able to discuss stuff like the Little-O notation, the constants involved in both notations, and how those are derived from Limits of the time function.
For this you will absolutely need the best clock available in your hardware, so C because a must. It will also help if you can run cc -s on your code and see what assembly is behind your code. I know it is overly ambitions, but that's how I would like to have learn about this stuff.
For the Data Structures comment, please see the second sentence that begins with "The concepts are what matter in DS...". What I am saying is, how about a new language? It would be super cool to have to rectify Data Structures theory with the real world issues of something like Javascript.
For the other comment about keeping things static, you know there was a time all these course were taught in Assembly. So are you arguing we should have never even evolved past that?
Anyway, I was hoping more for fun/brainstorming/idea generation. How might I have worded it differently to get that instead of shallow objections?