Person X takes issue because she’s the one living among the rats and is not amused by Y’s attempt to diminish her plight.
But that’s not what happened here. The student and the professor engaged in a discussion about HISTORY, not CURRENT EVENTS. Neither of them live in the building called “HISTORY”; they are both observing it from afar. Neither of them is more or less qualified, therefore, AS A RATIONAL PERSON, to draw conclusions from that observation than any other; however, the professor, due to educational background and profession, gets the benefit of the doubt as being correct; the student, of course, is free to raise whatever evidence she cares to if she disagrees. Sans that, we have no reason to believe she is correct, and the professor incorrect.
Now, if this was a debate about CURRENT EVENTS, and the disagreement was something about what the student was personally experiencing but the professor was not, THEN your building analogy would hold. The student could be said to be “living in the building.”
Seriously, there is a grown-up woman who tried to destroy the future of a student because she dared to politely challenge her in an academic way and your more pointed criticism is for the student?
Destroy the future of a student? Hyperbole much?
I think we can both agree that the professor handled the matter unprofessionally. But “destroy the future of the student?”. Please. One of the first things the new graduate learns after taking that first job is that nobody gives a crap about anything that happened prior to their employment. It’s all about performance.