Critics of CRT argue it's anti-scientific, challenging its universality and objectivity, yet the backlash often results from misunderstandings of its scholarly intentions.
The court ruled that The Resolution's language is ambiguous, lacks clear definitions, is unclear in scope, is seemingly irreconcilable with state-mandated educational requirements, and contains no enforcement guidelines.
Crenshaw emphasized, 'The attacks on ideas germinating from racial justice were not about the specific targets of each attack but are efforts to impose a specific narrative about the United States that marginalizes its difficult chapters.'