It depends how the class is advertised. When I advertise mine, I mention both. If someone brings me in to teach a self-defense class and advertises it to their group as being physical self-defense, I minimize the non-physical. If they advertise it as something like how to avoid being a victim, I spend more time on the non-physical.But do you agree that most people are there to learn that and ONLY that, or do you agree they are expecting to learn some kind of PHYSICAL self-defense techniques too?
The point I'm getting at is that some people act like they are morally superior when someone says, "I'm teaching a self-defense class. What techniques should I show them?" More often than not, "technique" in this context means something you have to do with your body, like repel an attack by hitting someone in the throat. While de-escalation and situational awareness are all good, there is nothing wrong with teaching the techniques you would have to use when running and/or talking an aggressor down are no longer an option.
Frankly, if I advertised a class as "How to Avoid Being a Victim" and clearly advertised that it would include how to avoid dangerous situations, how to recognize threats, etc., then I would expect no problems if I did zero physical work with them. That's why I asked the OP what the expectation was. In a 2-hour timeframe, if no prior expectation had been set, I'd spend at least most of the time on non-physical work. I might show them one or two simple things they could do without much practice, but that's it. If it has been advertised as physical defense, then I'd probably teach at most 4 or 5 easy techniques in that span, building one on the others.