It's completely reasonable to discuss (and acknowledge) white privilege...but, here are some points along which its extrapolation becomes problematic:

1.) Let's say a White person admits they possess white privilege. The next question, as Tarana Burke would ask, is "What are you going to *DO* about it?" Unfortunately, a lot of the rhetoric gets stuck in a rut of self-loathing and individual repentance -- often with cult-like fervor. What benefit does any of that serve without tangible SOLUTIONS to achieve racial justice?

2.) There's a difference between acknowledging the existence of white privilege (and studying its manifestations) versus using the Association Fallacy to preemptively and holistically shut out White people from participating in the discourse (at least, in any manner that isn't preapproved by Robin DiAngelo). I support the concept of Critical Race Theory having a place in K-12 curriculums...but not to the extent of indoctrinating young children with the worldviews of specific academic leaders.

3.) It's important to teach children/students how SYSTEMIC racism exclusively targets BIPOC communities, and how Black, Indigenious, & People of Color face extra layers of racism for that reason. But when racism (social or cultural variations of it, NOT the systemic iterations) happen to White people, y'all gotta stop dismissing / shrugging it off as merely "prejudice." Linguistically, "prejudice" implies a passive belief or attitude. Once that prejudice becomes actionable or behavioral, it actively becomes an "-ism" (just not necessarily the systemic manifestation of that "-ism"). This applies to any attribute upon which people can discriminate, including but not limited to race. Until you expunge this cognitively-dissonant "Prejudice" Fallacy from your dogma, you're going to have a nearly-impossible time persuading AT LEAST half the population.