This is a nice introduction to the issue, and clearly lays out some of the faulty arguments used against CRT (mostly faulty because they're attacks on straw men).

There are two places where your arguments seem to contradict each other. On the one hand, you say, "Additionally, CRT isn’t actually being taught in schools nationwide. It’s not a part of school curriculums, and never really has been." Okay, so the anti-CRT-in-schools stuff is not even relevant. But then you say, "why is CRT so important to the history of America, and why does it deserve to be taught in schools?" So...then... weren't the conservatives right to be worried about CRT in schools?

Additionally, you imply that conservatives are wrong when "they think it [CRT] teaches that “all white people are bad”". But surely always valuing self-interest over the interest of a mistreated party is bad, and as part of your characterization of essence four of CRT is that "whites will allow and support racial justice/progress to the extent that there is something positive in it for them". Although there is a little wiggle-room both in the definition of what is bad, and of whether "whites will allow" encompasses all whites or merely enough of them, the quote as such seems to pretty much confirm conservative fears. The "racism is ordinary" essence also seems to confirm the fears. Without an explicit argument that these things do not entail a general moral failing on the part of white people, it seems quite plausible that conservatives are quite right in what they think about how CRT views white people.

So, overall, I think it's a good essay. But it would be stronger if you committed more fully to either accepting that the conservatives have correctly identified some aspects of CRT but are wrong to dislike it; or that they have misidentified some aspects of CRT and their reaction against the misidentification is a problem because the not-CRT things they are stopping are valuable things even though they're not CRT.