That professor was clearly wrong to dismiss the student, and perhaps he or she might have mentioned beforehand that there is violence and sexual assault in Ovid, but that’s as far as I’d go.

That's exactly what a trigger warning is. The author would go as far as using trigger warnings.

In the end, anybody can claim offense or triggering about anything: liberals about conservative politics, pacifists against violence, women against sexism, minorities against bigotry, Jews against anti-Semitism, Muslims against any mention of Israel, creationists against evolution, religionists against atheism, and so on. This ineluctably leads to a bland homogenization of all literature, and a stifling of challenging viewpoints

I think this is arguing that anything with a trigger warning will be removed from classrooms? That's the exact opposite of how trigger warnings work. You put trigger warnings on stuff you WILL be discussing, not stuff you WON'T be discussing.

It's hard to figure out what the point of this article is. The rhetoric implies it's an article encouraging the continued diversity of university texts, even those with challenging material, and it's also angry about trigger warnings. Trigger warnings presuppose the continued diversity of university texts, even those with challenging material. No one would argue for them if we just spent 3-4 years reading See Spot Run.