Critical race theory does do what you say, but that is not all that it does, and it is the "not all" part which is the problematic part.

For instance, CRT has a broken epistemological model that, taken to its logical conclusion, prevents us from coming to any actual knowledge of anything; all we have is power. The two worst offenders (these are not all) are (1) the exalting of "lived experience" as an equally valid path to knowledge as careful study, and (2) the (frequent) claim that only people of group X can speak on issues relevant to group X. These are frequently used to shut down exactly the kind of serious debate that you need in order to refine your ideas for accuracy instead of dogma, rather than as gentle reminders that you can learn more than nothing from case studies and direct experience is often helpful and therefore these things cannot be completely discounted.. Therefore, CRT explicitly advocates for things that make it more likely to be unreliable and ideologically driven, rather than a reflection of reality. Only by resisting these injunctions can scholars of CRT (or others using their methods) end up doing more than throwing out ideas that others then have to check for veracity and completeness. When heavily grounded in legal studies, the framework in which CRT operates provides the resistance; as a broader societal movement, the resistance fades and the dangers magnify.

Secondly, CRT centers race, with a helping of intersectionality adjacent to it. Unfortunately, psychological experiments indicate that the easiest path to removing either explicit or implicit bias is to make other cues salient instead of the bias-provoking ones. For instance, implicit bias training in companies is widely reported as an abject failure. However, hiring policies where job requirements are more tightly specified and questions that get at those are emphasized show considerable success at reducing race-based bias. Furthermore, centering race is liable to provoke stereotype threat which can have hugely negative impacts on the performance of people to whom the stereotype applies. So CRT as a society-improving movement starts off hugely behind, since it centers the triggering stimulus--and because CRT inherits from its critical theory intellectual ancestor the idea that the scholar must also be embedded in the pursuit of social justice (not merely reporting dispassionately on states of affairs), it is especially likely that this race-centering will come through.

We should give credit where credit is due: CRT has led the way in pointing out systematic issues that must be addressed. But we should thank its for its contributions and mostly move on to actual sound approaches to understanding and mitigating the problem rather than hopping on the CRT program as a whole as the foundation of anti-racist thought.

In particular, teaching accurate history, when people are ready for these subtleties, is, I think, extremely important. It is hard to reason from lies, and lying by omission about our founding fathers or whatever else renders us unable to make sound judgments in related areas.

On the other hand, focusing on bashing society especially when delivered to people who cannot understand the subtleties (or when only the bad not the good parts are centered--the 1619 project is particularly guilty of this one, not that it claims or intends to be a comprehensive point of view) has also to be evaluated for whether it promotes a functioning society. Given the immense evils that befall failed societies (far far far FAR greater than the evils of racism, even for those people who bear the worst brunt of racism), we have to be mindful of how to approach the whole truth. People necessarily can only learn approximations to the truth, especially when they are children and first learning, but not all approximations are created equal.