"Evangelical" means spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, which says that Jesus died to win forgiveness for your sins. Disapproving certain behaviors isn't really on the tin.
There is nothing in Christian Evangelism that inherently implies that University teachers are right about everything and have no need to engage with students' understanding of Christianity.
Facts of the underlying matter aside, this is an incredible immature piece that I expect from a young student who hasn't learned logic and rhetoric or didactics, not a University President.
Saying "War on Christmas is alive and well in Christianity" is like saying "Daesh is alive and well in Islam". It is smearing a much larger group for the misbehavior of a small segment of demagogue extremists.
What I find interesting is that such posts, which epitomize Poe's law, despite seeming ambiguous (since you don't know if OP really believes/means "X" or "not X") can still be correctly interpreted as garbage posting by readers. You don't need to figure out if they are sarcastic or not.
You can usually dismiss a pseudoscientific/pseudointellectual article by spotting the headline claim "How <controversial claim that is not well established as true> happened", instead of claiming "A case to prove of <controversial fact>"