Supremacists of all stripes will be delighted to think that "a theory remains true until proven false". Shoot down the idea of race as biological? No problem. Some group is "just lazy" not because of biology per se but, whatever, something else. Or some group is "just racist". Or some group is "just greedy". Or some group is just "money-grubbing half-humans".

Of course, thankfully, that's not how it works at all. All theories are presumed false until they have survived many challenges, and even then are only tentatively accepted as "true" while always being held up to further evidence that might show that they are wrong or limited. (Even theories that are flawed can be useful, but then it's complicated--you need to understand where they work well and when they fail.)

But that means that, "Attempts to prove CRT false and debating its tenets as the primary response to the demands for racial equity intentionally gets us off track in our quest for racial justice," is completely misguided. Either be willing to stand up and point to robust evidence behind CRT, or stop using it for anything important. Anything less is right out of the a playbook for anti-intellectualism and a gift to supremacists.

Consider evolution--a scientific theory supported by unbelievable oodles of evidence, most of which is, unfortunately, not readily accessible to people without significant training. People didn't win over minds (and courts) by saying, "Hey, theories are true until proven false--and it's just thwarting justice to try to prove it false." No, they won because they explained the evidence again and again, despite vehement opposition by a very entrenched religious perspective that had come to view evolution as blasphemy, and despite there being no clear moral imperative to believe differently save a fondness for truth over wishful thinking. There are places where the battle is partly lost, and fights continue, but evidence and willingness to stand up to challenges to theory has been the entire strategy.

Now perhaps CRT doesn't have that level of support. Very few theories do. But if evidence doesn't come first, how do you expect to persuade the open-minded or slightly skeptical? Suppose I were skeptical about CRT. If I were to tell you that you have an emotional dependency on CRT because it offers false hope for an intellectual foundation for a worldview that appeals to you, and that we need to understand your denial and flight-or-fight response that prevents you from even considering evidence against CRT, would you think, "Oh boy! Thank you for pointing out my psychological flaws! Clearly I have some work to do!"

I would hope not. A more reasonable response would be: "Who the *(@&% are you telling me what I think and feel? Give me reasons, give me evidence, and let me handle my own mental state, thank you very much."

And if I were to write articles about people with the attitude towards CRT that you've suggested here, saying those same kind of things, and you caught wind of it, what would you think of it? That maybe I'm so dogmatic that I won't even conceive that my position could be wrong? That too would be a pretty reasonable response on your part, I think.

So you have some pretty good material about the phenomenon of white flight but unless this is the secret believer's-only channel, I think you could make a much stronger and more appealing case by acknowledging that the truth of CRT may not be self-evident to all, give some links to sources that give as good of support for CRT as you can find, acknowledge that theories are incomplete and can be overturned but can still be useful, and *then* talk about the psychology of rejection.

It's way more friendly to neutral parties, gives better resources for friendly parties to use, harder for hostile parties to attack, and overall better displays a desire for "we" and an appreciation for correctness.