What, exactly, is CRT?

[Trausti]

Someone in this picture is the daughter of two professional basketball players. But it's impossible to guess who it is because heredity is pseudoscience.

 

[KeepTalking]

Someone in this picture is the daughter of two professional basketball players. But it's impossible to guess who it is because heredity is pseudoscience.

You are the first person in this thread to make the comment "heredity is pseudoscience".

Why do you think heredity is pseudoscience?

 

[Politesse]

Someone in this picture is the daughter of two professional basketball players. But it's impossible to guess who it is because heredity is pseudoscience.

If heredity were pseudoscience (a claim no one but yourself has or would make), there might actually be room to posit that the ancient mystical concept of race holds some sort of scientific water. But, it doesn't. Precisely because science has uncovered a lot about genetics and how the transmission of traits actually occurs.

It's also interesting that you are singling out the transmission of a statistically unusual trait between parents and offspring, despite the fact that the sorts of crass stereotypes racists traffic in would usually never so much as posit the possiblity of a tall "Asian" woman unless an "Black" or "White" ancestor were involved. It's almost as though a person's specific genetic background tells you a lot more about what physical traits you might expect them to exhibit, as opposed to lazy generalizations based on cultural constructed categories of "race".

I appreciate that you and Bomb #20 are being so open and straightforward about your racist views and how they connect to your opposition to CRT, though. It is refreshing, in a conversation so often dominated by obfuscation and dogwhistling these days, to encounter someone who just openly admits to believing in the pseudoscience of biological race. Rather than needing to talk about CRT as a whole, we're now specifically addressing just the premise that you truly object to, and though its a bit off topic for the social science forum, I do think the moribund nature of falsely biologized academic racism is important to understand if we're going to have a reasonable conversation about Critical Race Theory.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with this is the same problem that persists through an awful lot of sociology research: a failure to control for other factors.

After controlling for just a few variables—including the income and education level of the child’s parents and the mother’s age at the birth of her first child—the gap between black and white children is virtually eliminated at the time the children enter school.

"Accounting for other factors" is a pretty good summary of intersectionality theory, which is a bulwark of CRT thinking, so you're going to need to be more specific (and empirical) if you're going to make a meaningful case here.

In other words, the facts don't matter.

 

[Politesse]

"Accounting for other factors" is a pretty good summary of intersectionality theory, which is a bulwark of CRT thinking, so you're going to need to be more specific (and empirical) if you're going to make a meaningful case here.

In other words, the facts don't matter.

I think they matter a lot. So, why haven't you presented any?

 

[ZiprHead]

"Accounting for other factors" is a pretty good summary of intersectionality theory, which is a bulwark of CRT thinking, so you're going to need to be more specific (and empirical) if you're going to make a meaningful case here.

In other words, the facts don't matter.

I think they matter a lot. So, why haven't you presented any?

I'm wondering how Loren knows what facts were or weren't included in in the formulation of the CRT.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why are you dragging this into a discussion of rhetoric rather than presenting your evidence, if you have any?

Because "Race is a biological fiction" is rhetoric; it isn't science. You're the one who claims it's falsifiable; why won't you describe the potential observations that would falsify it?

Just pointing out here that Politesse is continuing not to reveal what observations it would take to falsify the proposition he claims is falsifiable, and that he's keeping quiet about his reasons for his refusal.

You say that the arguments of educated people are irrelevant because they differ from the ways non-specialists use words,

Quote me. You say I say things I don't say because you are trying to make this about me so it will no longer be about your failure to meet your burden-of-proof.

Just pointing out here that Politesse has a history of putting words in my mouth.

So, where does that leave us? Well, it turns out it leaves us here...

I appreciate that you and Bomb #20 are being so open and straightforward about your racist views and how they connect to your opposition to CRT, though.

It leaves us with Politesse deliberately choosing to use a libelous trumped-up ad hominem attack on me. I do not have racist views; I did not make any racist claims. Furthermore, Politesse obviously knows perfectly well that I didn't -- he is undoubtedly justifying his malicious invention about me in his own mind by choosing to apply some dishonest ideologically-motivated non-common-usage-based made-up definition of "racist", to go along with whichever non-common-usage-based made-up definition of "race" he's relying on for his CRT claims.

It is refreshing, in a conversation so often dominated by obfuscation and dogwhistling these days, to encounter someone who just openly admits to believing in the pseudoscience of biological race.

Not satisfied to try to settle a question of natural science by reducing it to namecalling other posters, Politesse goes on to try to settle it by namecalling the entire practice of studying that question scientifically.

If biological race were really a pseudoscience then why would Politesse have so much trouble pointing out what potential observations it would take to falsify the proposition he claims is falsifiable?

Rather than needing to talk about CRT as a whole, we're now specifically addressing just the premise that you truly object to,

A third reason it's odd is that it's not at all clear what on earth any of this has to do with the rest of your short list of CRT core ideas. I'm pretty sure if someone falsifies that particular claim of CRT in a manner that's convincing to a CRT-believing social scientist, the information will just fall away from her like water off a duck's back. She'll simply tweak her mental concept of CRT just enough to let it ignore the existence of biological races -- and that won't be much tweaking at all. So what the bejesus is it that you think follows from the alleged fictionalness of biological races, and what the bejesus is it that you think would follow from the hypothetical genuineness of race as a biological phenomenon, that are of any sociological significance? Why is whether races are biologically real important to CRT believers -- so important that in the short list of core ideas, it's idea number one?

<crickets>

It's hard to tell what ideas number two through ten amount to until we know what the heck they have to do with idea number one. First Politesse needs to clarify how CRT alleges they relate to idea number one; then we can check whether those premises are falsifiable and/or objectionable. It may well turn out they're simply more equivocation fallacies.

and though its a bit off topic for the social science forum, I do think the moribund nature of falsely biologized academic racism is important to understand if we're going to have a reasonable conversation about Critical Race Theory.

Quite possibly -- CRT does seem to talk a fair amount about the continuing after-effects of mistakes made by people long dead. But of course that's not what Politesse is talking about; he's deliberately insinuating that I'm advocating biologized academic racism. He probably does this because making false damaging accusations against other posters out of malice and with reckless disregard for the truth is a lot less effort than backing up his claim that "Race is a biological fiction" is falsifiable.

Then again, a lot of the opposition to CRT derives from its widely perceived tendency to teach its adherents to lie about their outgroups.

 

[Jarhyn]

Just pointing out here that Politesse is continuing not to reveal what observations it would take to falsify the proposition he claims is falsifiable, and that he's keeping quiet about his reasons for his refusal.

You say that the arguments of educated people are irrelevant because they differ from the ways non-specialists use words,

Quote me. You say I say things I don't say because you are trying to make this about me so it will no longer be about your failure to meet your burden-of-proof.

Just pointing out here that Politesse has a history of putting words in my mouth.

So, where does that leave us? Well, it turns out it leaves us here...

I appreciate that you and Bomb #20 are being so open and straightforward about your racist views and how they connect to your opposition to CRT, though.

It leaves us with Politesse deliberately choosing to use a libelous trumped-up ad hominem attack on me. I do not have racist views; I did not make any racist claims. Furthermore, Politesse obviously knows perfectly well that I didn't -- he is undoubtedly justifying his malicious invention about me in his own mind by choosing to apply some dishonest ideologically-motivated non-common-usage-based made-up definition of "racist", to go along with whichever non-common-usage-based made-up definition of "race" he's relying on for his CRT claims.

It is refreshing, in a conversation so often dominated by obfuscation and dogwhistling these days, to encounter someone who just openly admits to believing in the pseudoscience of biological race.

Not satisfied to try to settle a question of natural science by reducing it to namecalling other posters, Politesse goes on to try to settle it by namecalling the entire practice of studying that question scientifically.

If biological race were really a pseudoscience then why would Politesse have so much trouble pointing out what potential observations it would take to falsify the proposition he claims is falsifiable?

Rather than needing to talk about CRT as a whole, we're now specifically addressing just the premise that you truly object to,

A third reason it's odd is that it's not at all clear what on earth any of this has to do with the rest of your short list of CRT core ideas. I'm pretty sure if someone falsifies that particular claim of CRT in a manner that's convincing to a CRT-believing social scientist, the information will just fall away from her like water off a duck's back. She'll simply tweak her mental concept of CRT just enough to let it ignore the existence of biological races -- and that won't be much tweaking at all. So what the bejesus is it that you think follows from the alleged fictionalness of biological races, and what the bejesus is it that you think would follow from the hypothetical genuineness of race as a biological phenomenon, that are of any sociological significance? Why is whether races are biologically real important to CRT believers -- so important that in the short list of core ideas, it's idea number one?

<crickets>

It's hard to tell what ideas number two through ten amount to until we know what the heck they have to do with idea number one. First Politesse needs to clarify how CRT alleges they relate to idea number one; then we can check whether those premises are falsifiable and/or objectionable. It may well turn out they're simply more equivocation fallacies.

and though its a bit off topic for the social science forum, I do think the moribund nature of falsely biologized academic racism is important to understand if we're going to have a reasonable conversation about Critical Race Theory.

Quite possibly -- CRT does seem to talk a fair amount about the continuing after-effects of mistakes made by people long dead. But of course that's not what Politesse is talking about; he's deliberately insinuating that I'm advocating biologized academic racism. He probably does this because making false damaging accusations against other posters out of malice and with reckless disregard for the truth is a lot less effort than backing up his claim that "Race is a biological fiction" is falsifiable.

Then again, a lot of the opposition to CRT derives from its widely perceived tendency to teach its adherents to lie about their outgroups.

I would like to point out that the issue is more that CRT is not falsifiable for the same reasons the theory of evolution is not: all the evidence is in.

You could disprove it, but the dusproofs are unattainable, in the same way disproof of evolution is: DNA has been directly observed, it's chemistry has been observed mutating, mutations are directly observed to produce results.

To disprove evolution you would have to disprove chemistry.

To disprove CRT you would have to disprove all the events that happened with regards to the drug war, racist redlining, and Jim Crow. Those things happened. It's a matter of historical record, or that family connections to wealth breed future wealth. And now, we have a world where the momentum of poverty and it's near-universality among entire hereditary structures causes it's inescapability.

Good luck disproving CRT, for the same reasons I would wish you such sarcastic good luck disproving the theory of evolution.

 

[Politesse]

Just pointing out here that Politesse is continuing not to reveal what observations it would take to falsify the proposition he claims is falsifiable, and that he's keeping quiet about his reasons for his refusal.

You say that the arguments of educated people are irrelevant because they differ from the ways non-specialists use words,

Quote me. You say I say things I don't say because you are trying to make this about me so it will no longer be about your failure to meet your burden-of-proof.

Just pointing out here that Politesse has a history of putting words in my mouth.

So, where does that leave us? Well, it turns out it leaves us here...

I appreciate that you and Bomb #20 are being so open and straightforward about your racist views and how they connect to your opposition to CRT, though.

It leaves us with Politesse deliberately choosing to use a libelous trumped-up ad hominem attack on me. I do not have racist views; I did not make any racist claims. Furthermore, Politesse obviously knows perfectly well that I didn't -- he is undoubtedly justifying his malicious invention about me in his own mind by choosing to apply some dishonest ideologically-motivated non-common-usage-based made-up definition of "racist", to go along with whichever non-common-usage-based made-up definition of "race" he's relying on for his CRT claims.

It is refreshing, in a conversation so often dominated by obfuscation and dogwhistling these days, to encounter someone who just openly admits to believing in the pseudoscience of biological race.

Not satisfied to try to settle a question of natural science by reducing it to namecalling other posters, Politesse goes on to try to settle it by namecalling the entire practice of studying that question scientifically.

If biological race were really a pseudoscience then why would Politesse have so much trouble pointing out what potential observations it would take to falsify the proposition he claims is falsifiable?

Rather than needing to talk about CRT as a whole, we're now specifically addressing just the premise that you truly object to,

A third reason it's odd is that it's not at all clear what on earth any of this has to do with the rest of your short list of CRT core ideas. I'm pretty sure if someone falsifies that particular claim of CRT in a manner that's convincing to a CRT-believing social scientist, the information will just fall away from her like water off a duck's back. She'll simply tweak her mental concept of CRT just enough to let it ignore the existence of biological races -- and that won't be much tweaking at all. So what the bejesus is it that you think follows from the alleged fictionalness of biological races, and what the bejesus is it that you think would follow from the hypothetical genuineness of race as a biological phenomenon, that are of any sociological significance? Why is whether races are biologically real important to CRT believers -- so important that in the short list of core ideas, it's idea number one?

<crickets>

It's hard to tell what ideas number two through ten amount to until we know what the heck they have to do with idea number one. First Politesse needs to clarify how CRT alleges they relate to idea number one; then we can check whether those premises are falsifiable and/or objectionable. It may well turn out they're simply more equivocation fallacies.

and though its a bit off topic for the social science forum, I do think the moribund nature of falsely biologized academic racism is important to understand if we're going to have a reasonable conversation about Critical Race Theory.

Quite possibly -- CRT does seem to talk a fair amount about the continuing after-effects of mistakes made by people long dead. But of course that's not what Politesse is talking about; he's deliberately insinuating that I'm advocating biologized academic racism. He probably does this because making false damaging accusations against other posters out of malice and with reckless disregard for the truth is a lot less effort than backing up his claim that "Race is a biological fiction" is falsifiable.

Then again, a lot of the opposition to CRT derives from its widely perceived tendency to teach its adherents to lie about their outgroups.

I apologize if you feel I have mischaracterized your position, this was not my intention. However, I must confess to feeling very confused about why you be advocating for studying biological race ideas "academically", but not for "biologized academic racism". Perhaps you could explain this seeming contradiction? Is it just that the words are in a different order that bothers you?

It is not true that I am advocating against the academic study of race as a social issue, this is very much so a valid academic topic and a frequent issue of study among social scientists. Not really my area, but I don't mind dipping my hat in to correct public misunderstandings when it's an issue. The problem is the pseudoscientific nonsense that characterized historical academic studies and which forms part of the bulwark of white supremacist ideology today,

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Quite possibly -- CRT does seem to talk a fair amount about the continuing after-effects of mistakes made by people long dead. But of course that's not what Politesse is talking about; he's deliberately insinuating that I'm advocating biologized academic racism. He probably does this because making false damaging accusations against other posters out of malice and with reckless disregard for the truth is a lot less effort than backing up his claim that "Race is a biological fiction" is falsifiable.

Then again, a lot of the opposition to CRT derives from its widely perceived tendency to teach its adherents to lie about their outgroups.

And that's where CRT gets it wrong. Yes, there are after-effects of past injustice. We don't have time machines, though, we can't undo the past injustice. All we can do is try to fix the current situation--but CRT takes the approach that rules that would address the past injustice will remedy the effects of it. If they fail to work it's because there is still injustice and you need to try harder.

Like you need to dig deeper when you find yourself stuck in a hole.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would like to point out that the issue is more that CRT is not falsifiable for the same reasons the theory of evolution is not: all the evidence is in.

You could disprove it, but the dusproofs are unattainable, in the same way disproof of evolution is: DNA has been directly observed, it's chemistry has been observed mutating, mutations are directly observed to produce results.

To disprove evolution you would have to disprove chemistry.

To disprove CRT you would have to disprove all the events that happened with regards to the drug war, racist redlining, and Jim Crow. Those things happened. It's a matter of historical record, or that family connections to wealth breed future wealth. And now, we have a world where the momentum of poverty and it's near-universality among entire hereditary structures causes it's inescapability.

Good luck disproving CRT, for the same reasons I would wish you such sarcastic good luck disproving the theory of evolution.

The problem here is that you are making an unjustified assumption.

You even admit it's a momentum problem, yet you try to solve it without touching that momentum. CRT pretends that momentum is injustice when it's not. The problem is internal, no external solution will work.

 

[Politesse]

Quite possibly -- CRT does seem to talk a fair amount about the continuing after-effects of mistakes made by people long dead. But of course that's not what Politesse is talking about; he's deliberately insinuating that I'm advocating biologized academic racism. He probably does this because making false damaging accusations against other posters out of malice and with reckless disregard for the truth is a lot less effort than backing up his claim that "Race is a biological fiction" is falsifiable.

Then again, a lot of the opposition to CRT derives from its widely perceived tendency to teach its adherents to lie about their outgroups.

And that's where CRT gets it wrong. Yes, there are after-effects of past injustice. We don't have time machines, though, we can't undo the past injustice. All we can do is try to fix the current situation--but CRT takes the approach that rules that would address the past injustice will remedy the effects of it. If they fail to work it's because there is still injustice and you need to try harder.

Like you need to dig deeper when you find yourself stuck in a hole.

Err, it's a lot more like trying to remedy a problem of people getting stuck in holes by going around and rescuing people who are stuck, all while a bunch of assholes stand around unhelpfully, yelling at you that "you shouldn't do that, it's already technically illegal (even if seldom enforced) to put people in holes. And that's all that needs to be done or should ever be done, because if you actually rescue those people it's prejudiced against people who aren't in holes. Unless everyone gets a paramedic, no one gets a paramedic! Plus, you're victimizing the hole-dwellers and teaching them that being stuck in a hole is bad, that is super patronizing not to make them climb out themselves. Who are you to say that being stuck in a hole is bad? Anyways, they are there voluntarily. Most of them were thrown in holes because they had red hair, and statistics show that way more redheads are in holes than brunettes, which proves that redheads naturally prefer to be stuck in holes and their situation is almost certainly their own fault and totally volitional."

 

[Angra Mainyu]

However, I must confess to feeling very confused about why you be advocating for studying biological race ideas "academically", but not for "biologized academic racism". Perhaps you could explain this seeming contradiction? Is it just that the words are in a different order that bothers you?

1. What words are in different order? You seem to quote "academically". But that would be a misquote. B20 did not use that word. So, I am asking you which sentence or sentences of B20 you have in mind, specifically (i.e., I ask for a correct quotation)

2. There is no seeming contradiction. Suppose I say: 'I support the study of biological race ideas academically'. Then at no point I have advocated any kind of racism, using of course the word 'racism' in English - and the rest of the words.
If I say that human races are real, that there are biological races in the human species, etc., again I have not in any way advocated for racism.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would like to point out that the issue is more that CRT is not falsifiable for the same reasons the theory of evolution is not: all the evidence is in.

You could disprove it, but the dusproofs are unattainable, in the same way disproof of evolution is: DNA has been directly observed, it's chemistry has been observed mutating, mutations are directly observed to produce results.

To disprove evolution you would have to disprove chemistry.

To disprove CRT you would have to disprove all the events that happened with regards to the drug war, racist redlining, and Jim Crow. Those things happened. It's a matter of historical record, or that family connections to wealth breed future wealth. And now, we have a world where the momentum of poverty and it's near-universality among entire hereditary structures causes it's inescapability.

Good luck disproving CRT, for the same reasons I would wish you such sarcastic good luck disproving the theory of evolution.

The problem here is that you are making an unjustified assumption.

You even admit it's a momentum problem, yet you try to solve it without touching that momentum. CRT pretends that momentum is injustice when it's not. The problem is internal, no external solution will work.

Are you fucking kidding. You are being insulting at this point, to me and to yourself, of you think the whole fucking point of everything I argue for isn't to disrupt the economic momentum.

You are the one that screams consistently about any attempt to modify that momentum through any manner of restructuring of systemic social factors which serve to maintain rather than dissipate the force of these echoing travesties.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Err, it's a lot more like trying to remedy a problem of people getting stuck in holes by going around and rescuing people who are stuck, all while a bunch of assholes stand around unhelpfully, yelling at you that "you shouldn't do that, it's already technically illegal (even if seldom enforced) to put people in holes. And that's all that needs to be done or should ever be done, because if you actually rescue those people it's prejudiced against people who aren't in holes. Unless everyone gets a paramedic, no one gets a paramedic! Plus, you're victimizing the hole-dwellers and teaching them that being stuck in a hole is bad, that is super patronizing not to make them climb out themselves. Who are you to say that being stuck in a hole is bad? Anyways, they are there voluntarily. Most of them were thrown in holes because they had red hair, and statistics show that way more redheads are in holes than brunettes, which proves that redheads naturally prefer to be stuck in holes and their situation is almost certainly their own fault and totally volitional."

The people are already stuck in the holes. You fix it by helping people out, not by stopping them from going in.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would like to point out that the issue is more that CRT is not falsifiable for the same reasons the theory of evolution is not: all the evidence is in.

You could disprove it, but the dusproofs are unattainable, in the same way disproof of evolution is: DNA has been directly observed, it's chemistry has been observed mutating, mutations are directly observed to produce results.

To disprove evolution you would have to disprove chemistry.

To disprove CRT you would have to disprove all the events that happened with regards to the drug war, racist redlining, and Jim Crow. Those things happened. It's a matter of historical record, or that family connections to wealth breed future wealth. And now, we have a world where the momentum of poverty and it's near-universality among entire hereditary structures causes it's inescapability.

Good luck disproving CRT, for the same reasons I would wish you such sarcastic good luck disproving the theory of evolution.

The problem here is that you are making an unjustified assumption.

You even admit it's a momentum problem, yet you try to solve it without touching that momentum. CRT pretends that momentum is injustice when it's not. The problem is internal, no external solution will work.

Are you fucking kidding. You are being insulting at this point, to me and to yourself, of you think the whole fucking point of everything I argue for isn't to disrupt the economic momentum.

You are the one that screams consistently about any attempt to modify that momentum through any manner of restructuring of systemic social factors which serve to maintain rather than dissipate the force of these echoing travesties.

The problem is the left's "answers" to the problem basically consist of close your eyes to the real issue and pretend everything is due to discrimination, direct or hidden.

I don't know how to fix the problem, but I can see the left's answer is just to pile on more and more discrimination.

 

[Politesse]

Err, it's a lot more like trying to remedy a problem of people getting stuck in holes by going around and rescuing people who are stuck, all while a bunch of assholes stand around unhelpfully, yelling at you that "you shouldn't do that, it's already technically illegal (even if seldom enforced) to put people in holes. And that's all that needs to be done or should ever be done, because if you actually rescue those people it's prejudiced against people who aren't in holes. Unless everyone gets a paramedic, no one gets a paramedic! Plus, you're victimizing the hole-dwellers and teaching them that being stuck in a hole is bad, that is super patronizing not to make them climb out themselves. Who are you to say that being stuck in a hole is bad? Anyways, they are there voluntarily. Most of them were thrown in holes because they had red hair, and statistics show that way more redheads are in holes than brunettes, which proves that redheads naturally prefer to be stuck in holes and their situation is almost certainly their own fault and totally volitional."

The people are already stuck in the holes. You fix it by helping people out, not by stopping them from going in.

So you do embrace CRT.

 

[KeepTalking]

Are you fucking kidding. You are being insulting at this point, to me and to yourself, of you think the whole fucking point of everything I argue for isn't to disrupt the economic momentum.

You are the one that screams consistently about any attempt to modify that momentum through any manner of restructuring of systemic social factors which serve to maintain rather than dissipate the force of these echoing travesties.

The problem is the left's "answers" to the problem

No, the problem is the problem, and at least your boogeyman "the left" is attempting to solve the problem rather than reducing it to shitty analogies about holes, and declaring that there is no way to solve the problem, so we should ignore it instead.

basically consist of close your eyes to the real issue and pretend everything is due to discrimination, direct or hidden.

He says while arguing against a theoretical framework that is being used to try to determine whether or not laws codify discrimination, which is the exact opposite of what he claims those using the framework are doing.

I don't know how to fix the problem, but I can see the left's answer is just to pile on more and more discrimination.

Please provide evidence that CRT advocates for piling on "more and more discrimination".

 

[ZiprHead]

The Radical Capitalist Behind the Critical Race Theory Furor
How a dark-money mogul bankrolled an astroturf backlash.

Unkoch My Campus reviewed the published materials of 28 conservative think tanks and political organizations with known ties to the Koch network from June 2020 to June 2021 and found that they had collectively published 79 articles, podcasts, reports or videos about Critical Race Theory.

These articles came out in a trickle last year, but then suddenly became a flood starting in February 2021, as President Biden took office and the threat to corporate profits became real. An average of five pieces per week dropped from late March to June 30, 2021. The pace of propaganda surged in both late May and late June—coinciding with the surge in action by state politicians.

Both the highly influential Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which has known ties to the Kochs and a long history of driving conservative state legislation, held webinars devoted to attacking CRT. The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research alone devoted 43 separate articles or videos to the topic.

 

[Emily Lake]

Interesting Article from The Journal of Free Black Thought.

Why Did Critical Race Theory Emerge from Legal Studies?
Everyone knows that CRT emerged from legal studies. This article asks why.

The whole thing is worth the 10 minutes or so to read, but I'll skip to the author's conclusion.

And that’s the goal of CRT: to train enough judges to see in the sins of American history a summons to deprecate individual rights and replace strict scrutiny with sweeping mandates, narrowly tailored decisions with ones that are far-reaching, and justice that is blind with justice that sees color first and foremost. In brief, and in answer to the question of our title, CRT arose in legal studies because the law is where you go to overturn the old, liberal order that works, however imperfectly, and establish a new order, aspirational but untried, in its place.