Link?
The descriptions I have seen could apply to anything, including the history classes I took in the 1980s.
Here is one:
”The core idea is that racism is a social construct, and that it is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.”
My class in the 1980s talked about slavery and segregation. Therefore it satisfies the above definition.
Now, if CRT proponents are asking for something which didn’t exist 40 years ago in all white suburban public schools, they need to put forward a clearer definition.
Otherwise, Tucker Carlson gets to define it for them. And he is.
The problem espola and husker have is a derivative of the following.
-Pretty much every article I have read in defense of CRT does so in generalities. They never discuss the core underlying belief system that is the foundation of CRT. I suspect most of the writers are just passing along what they heard and have not bothered to actually look. The few that do, know that if they wrote what the core belief system is, people would immediately turn away from it. So instead they talk about generalities.
Lets take a look at some of the foundational thought of CRT.
"Firstly, racism is ordinary: the overall ethos of majority culture promotes and promulgates a notion of “color-blindness” and “meritocracy.” These two notions are mutually intertwined and serve to marginalize certain enclaves of people—predominately people of color. Color-blindness and meritocratic rhetoric serve two primary functions: Critical Race Theory 7 first, they allow whites to feel consciously irresponsible for the hardships people of color face and encounter daily and, secondly, they also maintain whites’ power and strongholds within society."
So here the first tenant holds that the concept of being color blind (not judging people by their color) and you can get ahead by hard work (meritocracy) are in fact not good things, but in fact racist in nature.
So they are telling you essentially yes you cannot be color blind and meritocracy is a bad thing.
That is a rather divisive concept and one that tells people hard work isn't the way to get a head.
Go ahead and defend that espola and husker....feel free
"Secondly, Bell’s (1980) theory of interest convergence is a critical component within the cogs of CRT. Common sense beliefs are formulated by the majority “status quo.” The beliefs created by the majority—the haves—oppress minority groups—the have-nots and have-too-littles. Stated more precisely, interest convergence is the notion that whites will allow and support racial justice/progress to the extent that there is something positive in it for them, or a “convergence” between the interests of whites and non-whites. CRT focuses on informing the public how certain stories act and serve to silence and distort certain enclaves of people and cultures (typically people of color)"
So here the theory states that it is whitey even today that is holding down people of color.
Kids are being taught that whites are racist today and our norms are not simply cultural norms, but things imposed by the white culture to hold down people of color.
Again this is terribly divisive. And if one looks at the arc of US history you see that this flies in the fact that today minorities are increasingly are sports/media icons, run biz, have been in top political positions, etc.
This type of thinking creates an us vs the whites type of attitude. CRT is not in fact trying to help the races get along, in fact to the contrary they are singling out a race (white) as the root of much of the evil they think is in the country. And they want to teach this to the kids? And the argument is it is a way to bring about harmony and understanding?
Espola and Husker...what part of point 2 are you the biggest fan of?
"Fourthly, the idea of storytelling comes from its powerful, persuasive, and explanatory ability to unlearn beliefs that are commonly believed to be true. CRT calls this concept “storytelling” and “counter-storytelling.” This dichotomy—storytelling and counter-storytelling—is predicated upon the belief that schools are neutral spaces that treat everyone justly; however, close examination refutes this: simply evaluating graduation rates accomplishes this. School curricula continue to be structured around mainstream white, middle-class values. There continues to be a widening of the racial achievement gap (the separation of students of color’s achievement and the achievement of Anglo-Americans). Whose needs do these values and curricula serve? It is not students of color? Hackman and Rauscher (2004) draw attention to the fact that under the guise of mainstream curriculum certain enclaves of students become marginalized through curriculum and praxis that are insensitive and inequitable."
Here they tenant is that learning as we know it is somehow white in nature. And that somehow what we teach is unattainable or beyond what people of color can possibly learn. As if learning a language (English) or learning math, or learning history is somehow easier for whites because of the color of their skin and hard for people of color.
So the solution is to what? Dumb down the curriculum? Get rid of AP classes etc. This is what they advocate.
Defend that espola and husker?
"Fifthly, whites have actually been recipients of civil rights legislation."
That in an interesting concept no?
"
The irony is that, although whites have undeniably been the recipients of civil rights legislation, it has also been verified that affirmative action, too, best serves whites (e.g., Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Delgado, 2009). Delgado (2009) exhorts and explicitly requests that “[…] we should demystify, interrogate, and destabilize affirmative action. The program was designed by others to promote their purposes, not ours”
Go read other defenders of CRT who talk about the actual tenants.
If you can get through those and come out thinking yeah...this is what we should teach kids...Mao and the Cultural Revolution applaud you.
Help each other is my motto 
www.edweek.org
