As with any field, there's a number of detractors and charlatans. With CRT in the political spotlight, I completely understand how it becomes a mess to make hea

As with any field, there's a number of detractors and charlatans. With CRT in the political spotlight, I completely understand how it becomes a mess to make heads-or-tails of. Broadly speaking, it's the study of how law and media impacts society's view and treatment of others through the lens of race. As for my opinion on it: I generally support it because it advocates for another mechanism to study the impact of law. I think most legislation should be regularly studied for impact, effectiveness, and fairness. For example, stimulus bills ought to be reviewed for economic impact, regulation ought to be reviewed for effectiveness/relevance, laws with social impact ought to be reviewed to ensure it doesn't harm the people. A number of scholars seem to adopt a blameless mentality to figure out how laws (even unintentionally) have negative impact, and use that to propose solutions. I admire this approach to legislative critique. While I think a few ideas some scholars advocate for are infeasible to implement, the broader field has a lot of merit.