I have a lot to learn about this issue, but I do suspect that some but not all of the misunderstanding about CRT is not because the content or purpose of CRT but the manner of framing and contextualization of the problem. By this I mean the framing of the problem within the dialectical framework they are applying may be causal to some of that misunderstanding; the technique itself may be too dualistic and too nuanced. As a legal argument it may be appropriate as law is dialectical , however in the public sphere I see it causing more misunderstanding and there are other ways to address the same problem that are not relying on Marxist dialectic. Marxist dialectic being materialistic in nature, it does not speak to the spiritual traditions of black, Latino and indigenous peoples.

Are you perhaps open to seeing that the framework (dialectical analysis) may produce that misunderstanding in some cases?

I admire Marxist dialectic, so pls do not consider this either an anti Marxist rant nor a conservative view of face. The concern I have is that it introduces a competition socially, and it should be one of those things argued in court and not the streets or social media
Reading more of the comments many seem to reflect my concern. CRT is too demanding in its framework, and no one has the tools to engage with it unless they have training in critical theory. It’s not working to solve the problems it seeks to address, it’s just creating division and misunderstanding.