The “anti-anti-CRT,” as he somewhat awkwardly calls them, are making a mistake as big as “the folly” of Republicans who became “anti-anti-Trump in order to avoid calling out the obscenity of the man himself.”
He makes a good point. I am a strong enough believer in the Constitution to appreciate how, despite what some have called its “birth defect” of slavery, its text also contains the mechanism through the amendment process for its improvement.
And there are intelligent ways to improve the document as well as self-defeating ways. CRT scholars tend to call attention to those historical flaws to undermine other American values that I would just as soon leave alone.
For example, leading CRT scholars such as Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic in their book, “Must We Defend Nazis? Why the First Amendment Should Not Protect Hate Speech and White Supremacy,” argue for curtailment of “dangerous” speech. I don’t have to be a legal scholar to believe that’s a very dangerous idea.