Agreed. Good perspectives. A couple of thoughts:

Andrew Sullivan wrote an article the other day chastizing those who say "CRT isn't taught in public schools." He made the analogy of a Catholic school, where the books of Thomas Aquinas aren't read (way too dense for high schoolers) but his theology advises everything that happens in the school.

Is CRT taught? No. Are its ideas penetrating down into curriculum? Absolutely.

Another perspective was another pro-CRT commenter who stated that up to now, history had been taught from the perspective of the historical winners; and that that needed to change.

He didn't finish the thought, but it occurred to me that CRT-based history, then, is history being written from the perspective of the losers. Obviously, there is dislike, distrust, and even hatred of the winners, and some of that emotion pokes itself out in CRT-advised history and social studies. This, of course, is what gets parent's attention, even if they don't realize it--they don't want their children to become a target for the emotion of the victims.

Replacing the history of the victors with the history of the victims is obviously not a step in the right direction; to the extent that history needs to be revised in order to be fair and equitable to all racial actors, the solution is a more dispassionate history which eluciates the views of all sides in conflict.