Regardless, it's just another symptom of this all or nothing line of critical theory. (Note: CRT and it's related scholarly theories are perfectly valid avenues of study and inquiry, this video really shouldn't be taken out of context, there is value is the thought experiment of scientific theory sans western society, but that value is completely scholarly and shouldn't be [and frankly can't be] used for any practical application).
Critical theory may have value and I'm inclined in that direction, but I have yet to see any value in critical race theory. It's race science without the pretensions of science (which it disdains) by racially prejudiced reactionaries who use it almost entirely as a platform to attack liberal and democratic institutions as illegitimate. It certainly shouldn't be illegal but that doesn't mean it produces anything of value. Lots of the academy is probably worse than useless, plenty of it is makework for abject idiots, as I well illustrate.
And if you point to intersectionality I'm going to point back to CRT which fundamentally rejects the idea that there's any other variables than race. Even Crenshaw, who was right about a seeming hole in the legal structure even if her methodology was awful, distances herself from CRT (for "intersectional feminism") while inventing conspiracy theories about white women. (I also question its usefulness beyond the original critique, especially when it leads to things like Latinx.)
CRT is especially reliant on the motte-and-bailey more so than most critical theory which itself is seemingly fundamentally based on the idea most of the time. The standard CRT text argues something like how because of racism liberal democracy or at least the rule of law should be ended. Then when attacked for opposing liberal institutions they respond by accusing their critics of either not caring about racism or actively promoting white supremacy. The perniciousness of Kendi is that he's too dumb to realize you're supposed to do this so he actually explicitly outlined how he wants a reactionary totalitarian state with zero freedoms for anyone and this only has somehow increased his popularity and funding rather than ending his charlatan career. Arguably worse is that while many forms of critical theory actually engage with their critics, CRT has rather successfully constructed an institution in which critique is fundamentally illegitimate and can simply be dismissed as bad faith by malicious actors. (See: its attacks on quantification and falsifiability.)
When you get past the initial claims that are pretty objectively bad, immoral and unsupported then you're left with the fallback claims that racism is bad which, well, wow thx.
I'll note before I respond that all my readings of CRT were and still are done as a student of philosophy focusing on language rather than sociology or law.
I'm not going to argue about the value of CRT itself, if you think that CRT is fundamentally incapable of providing actual critical theory then I'd argue we'd have to make a new framework for examining society through the lens of race and racism because I do think it's necessary... but, I also agree that most theoretical academia exists for unscrupulous people to extract money from donors and/or the government and that includes theoretical sciences. I don't knock the hustle, people gotta make money, but lay folks will look at a paper published in a reputable journal by "scholars" and make the assumption that they don't have to apply critical thought and need only read the abstract and conclusions before "citing" it in informal discussion on Twitter or intentionally using objectively bad theoretical treatises to create an entire career (Kendi...).
In short, I think these kind of scholarly pursuits are hard to control once they leave the halls of university and any theoretical framework that establishes race and racism as a major controlling factor is going to be used by people to advance their own political interests. CRT is objectively bad for nothing else than the weapon it gave the American Right to scare lay people into thinking minorities in America want to establish a minority lead coup that would eventually lead to white genocide in all but name. The reason the Left is so bad at countering this false narrative from the right is because no one actually has any control over how and where CRT is used and interpreted. Some who write under the auspices of CRT stop just short of actually calling for a separate and controlled white ethnostate. The motte-and-baily you mentioned has been successfully jujitsu'd by the right, claiming the left wants to teach white kids that the are inherently bad because of their skin color, which is the Baily to the Motte that all people have inherent bias that needs critically examined.
How then do we move forward with the goal of creating a society that is equitable if we can't put minds to the task of examining philosophical and societal structures not only to see where improvement can be made, but also to understand how the flaws in these structures originally came about? I don't have the answers but I think the towers of academia at the very least have a linguistical problem, describing your theoretical examination of law through the lens of race as "critical race theory" was such a moronic decision, as well as allowing activists to wrest control over it's progress... but keeping activists out of critical theory is always going to be a struggle.
In the end, you have people who are parroting this radicalistic bastardized rhetoric because they don't have the will or knowledge necessary to apply critical theory appropriately, and those who are influenced by these people will be even further afield and so on and so forth until you end up with Nep who lives in a world of unresolved dialectics and cannot (more likely will not) work toward any resolution to living in all of these completely disparate realities simultaneously.
Edit:
For more microcosmic example of how this gets out of hand, the 1619 project is objectively good on paper but in practice it ended up being worth less than the political backlash it caused.
