I agree with what you're saying about the nonsensical objections against Critical Race Theory with which the media is currently saturated.

But the solution isn't to employ (what I refer to as) "The Overcorrection Fallacy." The way to make Critical Race Theory widely accepted is to lay out the types of discussion areas that need attention, and why these dimensions should be dissected and explored. This is largely what you seem to be advocating for, and it would probably resonate with a majority of the public when presented in this way. And many CRT philosophers make a good-faith attempt to do this -- but then, their voices get drowned out by the CRT radicals...and both extremes proceed to dig in their heels. This is a big part of why this tug-of-war has become so contentious.

The "overcorrection" is what's allowing the nonsensical objectors to gain so much mileage. There's a difference between resisting/challenging white supremacy versus demanding blanket guilt/shame/atonement from White people in general. Do you understand how reliance on the latter is preventing meaningful conversations on the former?