It's really not clear to me either what exactly you're trying to say.

I'll double down on this. I was going to reply in favor of CRT but based on your post I'm not honestly sure which side of this issue you're on so I figured I'd leave it alone until your stance was more clear. 

I mean, basically anything. Like Torillian said, I don't even really know what side of the issue you are on. All I really got from your post is that you didn't like the video. If you want to leave it at that, obviously you're free to do so, but it isn't really much of a conversation starter.

Personally, I think the video is solid largely because it doesn't just go by the numbers. While I do believe those are all valid criticisms of the anti-CRT crowd's arguments, they are largely all played out. 

I think what Oliver does particularly well in this video that I think hasn't been highlighted well enough elsewhere, is highlighting the astroturfed nature of much of this outrage, and pointing out that the mistakes that it builds its case on are often times human error and not systemic. There's a quote around 9:20 that I think is quite good: "Of course [I have seen bad implementations of teachings regarding race]. That's like asking 'have I seen a bad math lesson?' Yes, teachers are humans."

Yes, sometimes these things aren't handled well. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't make an effort. We should seek to constructively build from these past failures, not give up because a teacher handled a lesson poorly. 

Personally, I think it is largely a waste of effort to get into the weeds regarding what CRT is/is not in a space like this. The anti-CRT crowd has demonstrated pretty clearly that they don't care what it is, and are just using it as a catchall of "Things I don't like regarding race", so why should Oliver spend an hour laying out what it means when it doesn't matter and it so clearly doesn't work? That's the kind of thing you do when there is a good faith discussion going on, and not an astroturfed campaign to poison the well.

Could you give me a quick lesson in CRT?

My understanding of CRT is it is a graduate level law theory about how race interacts with the legal system. The anti-CRT movement appears to be mostly trying to go against what is called culturally responsive pedagogy which tries to respond to an increasingly diverse student body by understanding their backgrounds and incorporating that into instruction. This means discussing History and Civics from angles beyond those of the majority.

I appreciate your response but I'm afraid this doesn't answer my question. Let me ask again: could you give me a quick lesson in CRT?

If you want more than that synopsis I'm afraid you'll have to wait for someone with atleast like a prelaw degree who could maybe have studied it. 

Okay, could you tell me what you know about how race interacts with the legal system?

I haven't studied it. I support CRT in graduate schools the same way I support the ability of chemistry departments to decide their own curriculum. I have reasonable trust in experts in their field to determine where the field should focus its time.