Even if there is just evidence that a practice has been accepted without serious scrutiny and is efficacy is not being verified.
He linked to a secondary opinion and argument source. Fine, it is not a primary data source. This does not invalidate the arguments.
As far as I can understand you have to actually show harm in those microaggressions causing trouble and then show that your intervention aimed at reducing them is effective in terms of previously perceived problems. Likewise you have to evaluate any side effects.
So the accusation is even more levelled at the decision person who approved the training and not at the training itself. They are being indirectly accused of biased and bandwagon thinking. (If you carefully read the article you link to you'd know that. No offense intended.)
By the way, he said that training is incorrect (logically) and not based on evidence. Easy to disprove by showing evidence. Have any? The "not backed by evidence" link is pretty strong.
It'd you cannot get through the paywall, here's different review. (0) Especially the section about impact of microaggressions is interesting - and this is on more studied racial ones. Suggesting interventions with this kind of evidence is not responsible.
Apparently engaging with evidence is outmoded or something.
For example, he states that "there's currently very little transparency into the extent of our diversity programs" and "these programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives", but he doesn't have or know the names of these programs? How is that actionable?
Damore states that Google's "Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence", but the hyperlink for that text does not go to an example of Google's training materials, but to an Atlantic article [0] that mentions has literally zero references to Google, because it's a critique of policies and training adopted by colleges. How is that Atlantic article, titled "Why it's a Bad Idea to Tell Students Words Are Violence", relevant unless Google is using the same slidedeck as UC Santa Cruz?
Sorry for the rant. Getting annoyed at the implication that people who unload their worldview as a memo should be be treated as a principled dissenter, even if the dissent lacks evidence and logical arguments when scrutinized.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-it...