@Jeffro: don’t you think labeling a source solely because it doesn’t agree with your political viewpoint is very close to saying that they are “apostates” and therefore no argument they make, regardless if it is correct or not, can be trusted.
You claimed a secondary source, I claimed a primary source, you claim a secondary source with clearly distorted language, which does not dispute but rather editorializes the primary source is more trustworthy because the primary source is run by your political “apostate”.
If you can claim a primary source where CocaCola says that they did not run the class and/or that the primary sources somehow fabricated their evidence (there are screenshots). They claimed ipso facto it being available in their training regiment that it does not mean mandatory (why would you green-light unverified, racist training module as a corporation that large is beyond me), but there are 3 witnesses that says it was.
I already said, it is entirely possible, training is not mandatory for all employees but that some managers may have exceeded their authority. Again, where does Coca Cola state that they have reprimanded the managers that forced the training on these employees?