[nkurz]

I didn't inject ideology into this discussion. If you want to be consistent this article shouldn't be allowed either. This is blatant racism, sexism, and classism.

The irony is that your "summary" seems to have confused the author's preface describing current trends with her personal opinion. In fact, the majority of the article argues the opposite side, saying that a proper legal education is more important than the risk of offense:

I am a cold-calling Socratic professor of criminal law who devotes about the same number of hours in class to sex offenses as to homicide. The subjects are comparable in their interest, difficulty, complexity, and relevance in the world in which we live. I treat them with the same level of seriousness and rigor.

She then goes on to explain why she doesn't use trigger warnings because she thinks they are counterproductive. She's making an essentially conservative argument, while you are mistakenly complaining that it's too biased to the liberal side. Dan isn't complaining that you brought ideology into the discussion, but that your "summary" was simplistic and wrong.