Two things I have learned from reading Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, the two U of Alabama professors who have written seminal books on CRT: One, they deny the genetic basis of race. The old paradigm that the world is populated by 5 large race classes is too simplistic, according to them. I tend to agree, but I wouldn’t reject genetics wholeheartedly. Two, they deny the hope of a hero of mine, MLK, who yearned for a color-blind society, a term which is anathema to most CRT advocates. So, of the two things I’ve learned thus far in this briar patch of theories and high emotions, which is the more important?
I’d say the latter. Why? One, because MLK thought it a worthy goal. Two, it fits snugly within my faith. Three, attaining a color-blind society seems near impossible, which in my book is the perfect reason we should pursue it.
At The Peacock's Perch 
Lance – interesting take. I think it’s important to note that CRT arises, in large part, out of French post-modernism movement in the 50’. Was adapted by Derek Bell and Kimberle’ Crenshaw in the 60’s, and expanded from there. I’ve never seen anything grounded in post-modernism that made a lick of sense to any rational person. I suggest two popular books that give a reasonable assessment of CRT: “Cynical Theory” by Helen Pluckrose, et al, and “How to be an anti-racist” by Ibram X Kendi. The latter was a NYT bestseller for over a year, and is a real eye opener. The former should be required reading for anyone who ever makes a comment about CRT
Rick, good to hear from you. My knowledge of CRT has been gleaned haphazardly ,at best, from essays, articles and commentary on line. But I don’t think CRT or even the post modern framework behind it are that diffucult to grasp, even though proponents would have you believe their ideas are deep as the Marianna Straight. In sum: There’s no truth; white people are racists, no exceptions; logic and reason are tools of the oppressor. The Pluckrose book looks inviting. And I agree with you: most of what I’ve read is incomprehensible, if only on a stylistic level. Here are some doozies: “unessentializable,” “presencing,” “decoloniality,” “dialectic enigmatic theory,” and “neodeconstructive rationalism.” But I still go back to MLK. He battled rock-throwing, shotgun-blasting racism.
Lance, all theories aside, MLK’s integrity speaks as much as I need to know about color and race. He was a rainbow and offered sunshine and clear sailing ahead for those who keep the faith