What is the science behind the "white fragility" ideology that people are being pressured to internalize and not question?

I wondered as I began to read the long NYT Magazine article "‘White Fragility’ Is Everywhere. But Does Antiracism Training Work?/Robin DiAngelo’s best seller is giving white Americans a new way to talk about race. Do those conversations actually serve the cause of equality?" by Daniel Bergner.

To leap into the text to find an answer to my question, I searched the page for "science." Look what I found instead of the science underlying the ideology:

Borrowing from feminist scholarship and critical race theory, whiteness studies challenges the very nature of knowledge, asking whether what we define as scientific research and scholarly rigor, and what we venerate as objectivity, can be ways of excluding alternate perspectives and preserving white dominance. DiAngelo likes to ask, paraphrasing the philosopher Lorraine Code: “From whose subjectivity does the ideal of objectivity come?”...

Robin DiAngelo is the author of the book "White Fragility." She's critiquing science — or "what we define as scientific research" — but is she doing science? There's a paradox here. Is her theory about white supremacy white supremacy or is it just completely unscientific?

And there's this:

[Glenn E. Singleton, a Black trainer whose firm, Courageous Conversation, has been giving workshops for over two decades, said that] “a hallmark of whiteness,” which leads to the denigration of Black children in school... is “scientific, linear thinking. Cause and effect.” He said, “There’s this whole group of people who are named the scientists. That’s where you get into this whole idea that if it’s not codified in scientific thought that it can’t be valid.” He spoke about how the ancient Egyptians had “ideas about how humanity works that never had that scientific-hypothesis construction” and so aren’t recognized. “This is a good way of dismissing people. And this,” he continued, shifting forward thousands of years, “is one of the challenges in the diversity-equity-inclusion space; folks keep asking for data. How do you quantify, in a way that is scientific — numbers and that kind of thing — what people feel when they’re feeling marginalized?” For Singleton, society’s primary intellectual values are bound up with this marginalization....

That's what we're dealing with — the radical dumbing down of America.

Now, pay attention to the article, which focuses not on whether the theory of white fragility has scientific support — which was my question — but about whether the cure for the problem — the "training" that is being foisted upon us — has scientific support.

Donald Green, a professor of political science at Columbia, and Betsy Levy Paluck, a professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton, have analyzed almost 1,000 studies of programs to lessen prejudice, from racism to homophobia, in situations from workplaces to laboratory settings. “We currently do not know whether a wide range of programs and policies tend to work on average,” they concluded in a 2009 paper published in The Annual Review of Psychology, which incorporated measures of attitudes and behaviors. They’ve just refined their analysis, with the help of two Princeton researchers, Chelsey Clark and Roni Porat. “As the study quality goes up,” Paluck told me, “the effect size dwindles.”

Still, none of the research, with its dim evaluation of efficacy, has yet focused on the particular bold, antisupremacist consciousness raising that has taken hold over the past few years — and that may well become even more bold now....

So don't expect the science to catch up with this snowballing trend. It didn't need science to get rolling, and science isn't going to get out in front of it or get in the way of it at all. The theory isn't based on science, and the theory critiques science as racist, and you don't want to be racist, so better get up to speed on all the many things that are considered racist by these people who've stepped up to define racism for you and who tell you it's racist to resist their definition of what is racism and what you've got to do about it.

But maybe it's like religion, operating in a different dimension from reason and science, and maybe, like religion, it has great power to help human beings meet the challenges of living in a world that is not paradise. But no:

If the aim is to dismantle white supremacy, to redistribute power and influence... do the messages of today’s antiracism training risk undermining the goal by depicting an overwhelmingly rigged society in which white people control nearly all the outcomes, by inculcating the idea that the traditional skills needed to succeed in school and in the upper levels of the workplace are somehow inherently white, by spreading the notion that teachers shouldn’t expect traditional skills as much from their Black students, by unwittingly teaching white people that Black people require allowances, warrant extraordinary empathy and can’t really shape their own destinies?

The author, Daniel Bergner, is delicate enough to put that in question form.