accurate the link is, but this is my basis of understanding.

"A tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals."

"CRT scholars view race and white supremacy as an intersectional social construct[7] that advances the interests of white people[11] at the expense of persons of other races.[12][13][14] In the field of legal studies, CRT emphasizes that formally colorblind laws can still have racially discriminatory outcomes.[15] A key CRT concept is intersectionality, which emphasizes that race can intersect with other identities (such as gender and class) to produce complex combinations of power and advantage"

To me, that points to systemic racism, NOT that people are racist. Seems reasonable to me, and certainly something worthy of debate.

Regarding criticism, "Critics of these efforts say the lawmakers have poorly defined or misrepresented the tenets and importance of CRT and that the goal of the laws is to more broadly silence discussions of racism, equality, social justice, and the history of race."

It seems the opposite to me. Seems like it wants to encourage those discussions. Are white people afraid of a debate? Looks like it to me. And why are they so invested in disputing what seems to me to be a pretty logical line of thought that would apply to pretty much any culture - not just the US.