This article is too heavy on snark, but is in the right direction and provides excellent quotes. I can verify that CRT is taught beyond legal theory because I am one who teaches it in my philosophy courses.

Beyond that I am a little confused as to what you are trying to say here. Yes, what the reactionary right spews about CRT is made-up nonsense, and that does need to be repeatedly said. In one sense, yes, CRT is complicated, but on the other hand it is very simple. The realities of structural racism are complicated and so ingrained in society that their many expressions are difficult to identify and discuss. But, the basic premise of CRT is straight-forward: any honest analysis of social institutions show that racism permeates and structures these institutions. Couldn't be simpler, and that simple reality is why the reactionary right are having a conniption that professors like me and others are willing to speak that simple truth.

I agree with you that CRT also has an activist component, however, I have to disagree with the implication that CRT is based on Marxism. The reactionary right thinks everything that talks about social injustice is based on Marxism. CRT is not. It is also not based on "critical theory" as in the Frankfurt School which was based on Marxism, but as someone who works in critical theory within philosophy, 90% of my colleagues are not Marxists or neo-Marxists. "Critical theory" within legal studies has a different genealogy than "critical theory" in philosophy. If Crenshaw says it is not Marxist, she is correct.

But, I am being too critical, and I am very happy to see someone talk some sense about CRT. Thank you for this article.