I've now read more primary material by Bell, and have not found sufficient support for the idea that he is a Critical Theorist. Despite making statements whose logical resolution would mean terrible things for Wall Street, (e.g. "None can refute [that] Black people will never gain full equality in this country."), he seems remarkably recalcitrant to actually following the chain of logic to its conclusion, settling instead for an endless battle that never succeeds (but perhaps makes things marginally less bad).

This is opposed to the Critical Theory perspective of questioning all aspects of society with the aim of reshaping it arbitrarily much to achieve social justice--in the Critical Theory perspective, if Black people will never gain full equality in this country, then the country must be ended and a new one set up in its place, or some similarly drastic measures must be worked towards.

So with regards to Bell, I think you are correct: compared to, say, MLK, he is nonthreatening to Wall Street. He is threatening to the foundations of the Western ideal of law, but that is a different matter.

Krenshaw also is not a full-fledged Critical Theorist in outlook ("the challenge [...] is to create a counter-hegemony by maneuvering within and expanding the dominant ideology") and also is relatively unthreatening.

And I haven't read enough Kendi to know.

So I think you're right on this one at least when it comes to these individuals; my mistake was in placing too much faith in the idea that Critical Race Theory necessarily retained the quasi-revolutionary roots of Critical Theory. It apparently it does not necessarily, though I would need to read more to be convinced that it never does.