IMHO the argument that darkroom work is no longer an art form is a bit silly if 3 other choices are also fundamentally analogue (ceramics, drawing and painting). Presumably in the ceramics class they still manipulate the clay by hand instead of designing something in a CAD program and having it made in China from injection-molded plastic, or in the painting and drawing classes presumably they are using real paints, pencils, paper, canvasses and other tangible materials instead of using digital tablets and Photoshop (or, at the very least, they start with the analogue processes before moving into digital work).
Essentially, my point is if they're going to teach hand-crafted artistic techniques, wet photography is one of them and is equally valid as any other form of art,
even if there is a digital equivalent which derives from the analogue process. As a side note, I found
this link from 2009 indicating the most expensive photographs sold at auction. Most if not all (I'm not 100% sure about Richard Prince's "rephotographs") were shot on film or some kind of silver process. (I know Gursky's work, at least, is shot on film but then manipulated and printed digitally, so not sure if that helps or hurts your argument.) So, the argument could be made that at least *some people* view photographs, at least partially "wet", as valuable art, based on these prices.
As for materials, well, they're certainly available now in good supply in many formats - if they are that concerned, maybe they should increase your budget so you can buy a walk-in freezer and stockpile them now
Again, surely certain types of ceramic glaze or types of paints have become unavailable over the years - clearly the ceramics and painting courses have adapted. The same is true of film and paper. Worst case, you could make your own wet plates from scratch and make salt prints