Then make cogent arguments why the Democrat, Liberal/Progressive agenda is better than what Trump, and Republicans want to do. I'm not saying I agree with divisive statements, but Hillary called us Deplorables, then recently said they could not be civil until they took back power.  Eric Holder than said it was OK to kick people in which he disagreed.  Antifa, and BLM are Democrat supported groups that use violence, and intimidation.   

So who is the uncivil ones?

BOTH sides have made statements that promote uncivility. I would put the video in the OP in the category of less-than-helpful issuances from the right. As I read his post, that's all SkyDog was getting it, that satires intended to make the other side look stupid rarely lead to productive discussion.

PBS had an interview a night or two ago with Ben Sasse about his new book. Has anyone read it? I'm considering getting it as I thought most of what he said was spot on. (Then again, that might be a good reason NOT to waste my dollars on it.)

There is often a disconnect between students viewing themselves as the customer because in their minds many are NOT paying their tuition.  The government, through loans, and loan guarantees are seen to be paying their tuition.  It is "free money" to them, and that is why many don't think they have to pay it back.  Want to see why universities charge so much for tuition, and room and board?  Blame the government.  They charge as much as the max loan amounts.

I think you're partly right, in that the government is to blame, but they charge not so much whatever the "market" will bear (whatever the government will loan their "customers"), but what they need to in order to stay afloat with the administrative glut that is the reality inside all universities in recent years. This is pretty far above my pay grade, but my impression is that most of that glut is to comply with federal regulations. A couple of examples are the ADA and Title IX. Thus my employer has an Academic Achievement Center that's largely designed to improve the experience of students with disabilities (and also those for whom English is a second language), and a Title IX officer and associated staff.

Last year I sat on the calendar and scheduling committee, charged with setting important dates and scheduling final exams. You would not believe how hard it was to settle on when to start the so-called spring semester in January. Most of the colleges wanted the third week in January, but the graduate college needs to start the first full week of the year because they are on what amounts to trimesters. Why is this a problem? Because some undergrad seniors take courses in the graduate college, and federal regulations require that the semesters be synchronized and of equal length, among other requirements, as part of the eligibility conditions for federal financial aid. Even the financial aid office could not tell us for certain what it would take to get the university in compliance with the federal regs. Eventually we had to kick the problem up to the faculty senate for a final decision. I would bet good money that the end result will be yet another office created whose responsibility it will be to stay abreast of this and related information. Faculty positions are frequently cut, but administrative ones never are; they only multiply.

Excellent talk.

In the context of the university, I believe that the reason this "safety culture" is supported and allowed to thrive on campus is the paradigm that the student (or his/her parents) is the customer, and the customer is always right. Students bring safety culture into the university because they have been raised into that mindset in grade school and high school, and the university administration is afraid to do its job and challenge it for fear of losing the customer. The result is that students have virtual veto power over speakers invited to campus. If you invite a social scientist with a controversial theory that offends some members of a group who have been indoctrinated with "safety" or "victimhood" culture, those students and their supporters can raise enough of a stink to get the invited speaker disinvited. This has happened many times, and in some cases has led to much worse than disinvitation, including activists (who may or may not be directly connected to the students) harrassing, stalking, and/or making threats against the unfortunate would-be speaker.

He is absolutely correct that this is not in the best interest of the students. University is not about fostering an environment where students won't get their feelings hurt; it's about challenging preconceptions, learning to think for yourself, and gaining the skills to defend your principles with reasoned arguments. Censoring controversial ideas because they might offend someone is contrary to the purpose of the university. The only situation where it might be justified is where the would-be speaker is advocating physical violence, or where there is reason to expect that violence might erupt as a result of the event. But lectures by controversial speakers have been canceled for reasons that have nothing to do with threats of violence... and it has happened many times.

I'll just add that so far I know of no such student-forced disinvitation at my current institution. But I'm still fairly new here, and the subject hasn't come up in discussions I've been part of... yet.

Depends, will the funding and studies truly be independent, or will they be to justify a desired outcome?

Not sure what you mean by the funding part. Obviously I agree that the studies need to be independent and unbiased.