As soon as someone says “critical race theory implies this… “ someone else will say it implies that, and another that it implies something else because it is made of wax and has little in the way of formal or solid foundations for its applications or interpretation. It could mean almost anything under the right torture and manipulation.
On Critical Race Theory, conservatives keep getting caught up in the word game. Remember that it is a theoretical model for the interpretation of sociology (in particular, of legal functions).
It is either true or false, real or imaginary, before it gets to any data. People keep getting muddled up as soon as statistics are raised that imply unjust applications of law based upon racial interests, or terminology about ‘races’, or the right interpretation of history and who can interpret it when really it’s just “critical” methodology applied to race in law.
It’s not really a big thing.
It’s not a persuasive position.
It’s not one readily defended by most folks of any inclination when they take the time to think about what is actually being said.
Now some will jump immediately to the fruit of its application, speaking to the actual problems in race, law, justice and history as validation for CRT but at that point CRT itself has become irrelevant to the discussion.
At that point we are just using the old tools of history, ethics and reason to make arguments toward certain preferred outcomes from certain existing conditions.