Could be wrong, but I’ll go out on a limb and assume he didn’t say what he meant by “Critical Race Theory”. So one place it leads is the idea that mob violence is the right response to inclusion in a curriculum of lesson plans about, say, redlining. The article linked below defines CRT as an academic practice that explores how our history of discrimination and racism continues to impact the country today. Redlining would clearly meet that definition. How about if the lesson plan includes a module about the Tulsa Black Wall Street massacre? How about a lesson simply pointing out the statistical disparities that persist today on the basis of race, gender, etc?

For that matter, violence should be the answer if you think your kid is being bucketed by his teacher as an oppressor because he’s white? That’s the right lesson for our kids?

This is the right’s version of “speech = violence”. It’s basically just a political ploy. It’s textbook demagoguery - come up with a boogie man - CRT. Give it a vague definition about race that makes white people feel under attack. Really, just let it evolve it’s own definition as it ricochets around an echo chamber. Before you know it, a nutjob brings a gun to school to prevent a lesson about slavery.

But it does win votes from its target audience. It should turn off everyone else. The challenge is for dems to present this is as an unAmerican call to violence over “forbidden” speech and even just thought, without coming out in favor of instruction plans that encourage children to see themselves (and thus others) through the prism of race first and foremost. Like was done to them, they should be hanging things like this, and all the Putin love, around the necks of every repub candidate.