You know you cannot publish internal corporate documents without authorization? Even if he knows that these specific interventions in Google do not work he cannot publish that evidence.

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.

(0) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4762607/