Walter, I view Sawchuk's definition of CRT as completely reasonable and logical, here.

The problem, however, is Critical Race Theorists who insist that racism is ONLY systemic...versus what Sawchuk appears to be saying with nuance, that racism can be cultural AND social AND systemic.

The "but also" is the part that many of the most radical (and intellectually-dishonest) Critical Race Theorists are missing. Because, let's be honest: not every CRT researcher/proponent necessarily agrees with one another on every point 100% of the time, either (much in the same way there is intellectual dissent amongst various feminist scholars).

The real debate should be not WHETHER it's taught -- but, instead, HOW it's taught. Individual educators are ultimately the ones who can make-or-break whether CRT is enlightening/informative or toxic/inflammatory within the classrooms. Historical curriculums can acknowledge the reality of white privilege and systemic barriers faced by BIPOC **without** reducing it down to the notion that every person of European descent must absorb direct or personal responsibility/atonement for the systemic facets of racism.

Also, many (not all, of course) CRT diatribes are very heavy on guilt and culpability but can be very light on actual solutions. This is what I suspect Frank was alluding to, elsewhere in your Comments Section.