grade inflation?

i recently came across a syllabus by a phd student instructor who put a clause in his/her syllabus regarding "grade inflation". basically this person was telling her/his students that because there is a "problem" within the academy today regarding the easiness of getting an "a" in a course s/he will be grading the class "strictly", i.e. don't expect an "a" in this course. i find this disturbing because it seems as if these students are being punished because of a systemic problem within the academy that has nothing to do with them...a problem that i personally don't see as concrete or material but more or less self congratulatory on the behalf of the instructor for teaching a "tough" class...but that's just me. in no way am i saying that we should just give out "a"s to students just for showing up or for any other such reason that maybe considered "non rigorous" by current traditional standards but why is grade inflation these students' problem? why does this instructor feel the need to couch her/his terms in this manner in order to justify their own strict approach to grading and thus shoring up the already problematic issue of static abstractions?....just grade them...isn't that a power dynamic enough to deal with without adding to the ethos of an already existing position? it's hard enough getting the students to actually read and engage with the learning process. i find useless power plays regarding strict grading as somehow more academically rigorous than an "easy" class absurd. it also takes away from actual teaching (which may be the point). as you can tell i hate grading in general...it is a commodity that the students expect to get (because they have issues of entitlement which are extremely problematic) but it is also a commodity that instructor's tend to think that they can possess and distribute through insane power plays that surface in language that, in turn, attaches itself to academic performance and, inevitably, intelligence. i read such rhetoric as an instructor assuming the gatekeeper position not only in the classroom but also in the academy (a position that is also a static abstraction) and thus telling the students from the very beginning of the term that they actually are 1) assuming that they are getting an "a" (which many are not) and 2) because of that assumption or presumption they will not get the desired "a" because they're not serious students anyway and that they don't belong in the academy. i guess i'm more concerned with my students actually learning something rather than trying to figure out how they need to manipulate a power dynamic in which they will get an "a". it all becomes about getting SOMETHING from the instructor and this "SOMETHING" has nothing to do with learning at all but rather getting the first letter of the alphabet and its corresponding points tallied and printed on their transcript.

PS: don't even get me started on plagarism statements!