My personal reading of the very limited information is that this was a clash of personalities and priorities rather than malice on either side. The principal probably came in expecting that a DEI seminar would be about methods to make students from minority backgrounds feel more included; the speaker presumably felt that the point of the session was to develop the tools examine one’s own biases and reduce the implicit prejudices of our society and ourselves.

Thus, when the conversation turned to personal and societal biases, the principal felt unexpectedly attacked (as those who appreciate their societies often feel in such unexpected conversations) and became defensive. The speaker, on the other hand, probably took the defensiveness, without any context to ground it in, as some chud playing dumbass games and playing argumentative in a session they were forced to be in, and reacted with understandable hostility. The other facilitator seemed to recognize this to some degree by pointing out that the point wasn’t to play apologist for one country or the other.