This is the main problem with SOME theorists' applications of Critical Race Theory.

There's a difference between saying...

"Here are the ways in which systemic racism has tainted American history, and still continues to have negative impacts on BIPOC Americans in the present. So let's let's look at an array of systemic solutions that we can all be a part of, to solve these problems."

...versus...

"Every White person must personally take responsibility for their ancestors' actions, directly conform to identifying as a 'white supremacist' or 'racist' (solely by virtue of being White), and may never intellectually/civilly disagree with peer-reviewed academic premises espoused by People of Color."

There is obviously a huge gap between the former premise and the latter premise. But people who embody both the former premise (a reasonable one) and the latter premise (an irrational one) will self-identify as CRT proponents...and will claim that their respective positions are a bedrock for CRT.

That's where the mixed messages and inconsistent logic comes into play. CRT would be more universally embraced if its theorists (and its lay advocates) would predominantly focus on the former rather than the latter.