Thank you for your response. Scholars such as Delgado and Stefancic are obviously important in any discussion of critical race theory, but they do not constitute a magisterium. CRT has been embraced by many different academics--who do not agree on all facets of the theory--which is why there is no simple dictionary definition of it. Your own 'quick definition,' that CRT is an attempt to create a narrative based on anecdotes that can be used to attack western, liberal democracy misses the larger point entirely.

I fervently believe in liberal democracy and consider it to be both a moral and pragmatic necessity. That does not blind me to the fact that sixty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, our society continues to exhibit striking racial disparities in health care, housing, education, wealth, etc. I documented a number of those in an article on Medium, "This Is What Racism Looks Like in America Today" (4/04/21). At that time, Native Americans were dying of COVID-19 at 2.4 times the rate of white Americans, Hispanics were only marginally better at 2.3 times the rate while Blacks were at 1.9 times.

Numbers like those are why CRT was developed. When some of its proponents say that liberalism and western democracy have failed them, they are not wrong. It would behoove us to listen to them--not with the goal of jettisoning our values, but with the recognition that our democracy is still imperfect and that there is room--and a need--for improvement. And if that makes some conservatives uncomfortable ... well, it has ever been thus.