The problem with complaining that "CRT" is not whatever is happening, or that people are imagining is happening, in schools, is twofold.

Firstly, the whatever-it-is that actually is happening doesn't have a name. It's not ethnic studies or diversity and inclusion or anti-racism or any of that, because that's all too general. You can do all of that without "deconstructing whiteness"; you don't have to "analyze the impact of systems of power, including white supremacy, institutional racism, racial hierarchy, and oppression"; you needn't "evaluate the influence of the intersections of identity". Sure, you could. It might or might not be a good idea--we as a society could have a debate about that. But what do you call it when you do? What is its name that makes clear you're talking about this approach and not the approach of, say, highlighting important accomplishments of people who aren't white? Well...it's...um...it's....

Secondly, two thirds of the name of Critical Race Theory comes from its intellectual ancestor, Critical Theory (though personally I think the link is weaker than the name makes it sound, since Bell's Race Realism covers much of the central ideas of CRT and the C and T were added later). A central figure in the Frankfurt School, and arguably the founder of Critical Theory, was Max Horkheimer, who wrote in Traditional and Critical Theory, "If, however, the theoretician and his specific object are seen as forming a dynamic unity with the oppressed class, so that his presentation of societal contradictions is not merely an expression of the concrete historical situation but also a force within it to stimulate change, then his real function emerges." That is, the Critical Theorist is to be an activist--not just theorize but use the output of the theories to effect change. In this, at least, Critical Race Theory still agrees: "Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension. It tries not only to understand our social situation but to change it" (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). And what do we call the movement to enact the changes motivated by and of the type indicated by the theory, including awareness of the phenomena and methods of the theory itself? Well, we call it, um, we, uh...call it....

Now, I readily admit that it is linguistically inconvenient to use the same term for an approach to grade school ethnic studies and such, and an approach to the analysis of legal decisions. And I even more readily admit that Rufo has gleefully misappropriated the term as a catch-all for every real and imagined position on race that the right might want to discredit or use to motivate their base.

But what do you call it?

I think we have a perfectly workable answer, in the absence of another broadly used and compelling alternative: we call it Critical Race Theory.

We can still reject the outright lies of the likes of Rufo, but if we're going to try to retain the name at all (instead of regrettably deciding that he's irreparably poisoned it and dumping it in the dustbin), we may as well just use the term for the type of instruction that conveys to students the phenomena and issues that Critical Race Theory has distinguished itself by discovering, caring about, and illuminating.

Then comes the difficult part: convincing those who are skeptical that the approach has merit, especially in a grade school classroom.

Or, you can skip the difficult part, and just go straight to teaching accurate and representative history. That's fine too...just don't pretend that CRT is never taught (my quotes above are quotes from actual curriculum guidelines!); simply set aside the discussion about CRT for another day and say--now that we have an accepted term for this stuff--"No, let's not discuss teaching CRT. Let's discuss teaching history."

For anyone who is listening--the far right is not, but the center might--this defangs the fiercest attack of those who say they're against CRT but actually are against an honest portrayal of history...because you can name and then put aside that thing that they say they don't like.

You then merely have to justify that the history you want taught is accurate, and isn't history-through-the-CRT-lens-only.