I just want to jump in here and say that one of my university finals papers (UK terminology, probably the same in the US) was Political Theory, for which I had diligently been studying the standout thinkers in modern political theory. Rawls, Oakeshott, Nozick, Dworkin etc. but also feminists like Nussbaum, Okin, etc. This includes, by the way, modern marxist thinkers and critical theorists too.
The exam comes along and the feminism question which I had prepared heavily had shifted tack and decided to be about critical race theory. (The link between the two ideologies, and presumably why the convenors thought that the question could be swapped in, is not that they're both considered "progressive" or anything like that, but because they both take issue with liberal conceptions of where the realm of political justice ends; ie. feminists argue justice is required within the family to have a just society). The trouble with a question about critical race theory is a problem with language. The question was "Does the pursuit of racial justice require political action beyond the reform of the basic structure of society". It might seem at first that the question is just about a Rawlsian basic structure and whether it is sufficient to secure justice in light of potential sources of injustice (racism) which may exist outside the formal basic structure.
But in reality it's a totally different toolset. Either it requires that individuals are the subjects of justice, rather than the state, which is bizarre because we describe good or bad individual behaviour as good or bad (morality) rather than just or unjust. Or it requires a conflict-based understanding of the state (and hence of justice) and then we're talking about Marxism (or fascism, like Carl Schmitt - politics of "friend vs. enemy") and, in this example, critial race theory. The liberal language we use to talk about politics, eg. "equality", "basic structure" is sometimes reused by Marxists, fascists, critical race theorists, republican (small-r) theorists, but doesn't mean the same thing. Cynically, one might think that anti-liberal theorists at large love to repurpose liberal ideals "independence, liberty, freedom, equality" to mean siginificantly different things, but command support from (some) liberals nonetheless because of their purportedly aiming for the same goals.
I didn't answer this question. I was vindicated by the examiner's report which, quite rightly, pointed out that a liberal approach to the question was not sufficient, and that you needed to respond to critical race theory. But in "normal" language this seems like a question that liberal society should be able to respond to. By the way, I use liberal in its true sense (sorry, America) as meaning part of the liberal tradition from Hobbes and Locke as in "western liberal society", not the sense in which people in the USA seem to call left-wingers (and sometimes by extension, critical race theorists!) "gosh darn liberals".
The point is that Marxist ideologies, fascist ideologies, and even more palatable ideologies like republicanism (again, French kind, not big-R Republicanism) all use words which we, in the anglophone west, understand in their liberal sense, in a profoundly different way. It's like when people read Plato and say "that's not justice", scarcely realising they're talking about completely different ideas which through two millennia of Roman, medieval and enlightenment reinterpretation came to use the same word.
Enter critical race theory, parasitizing in this way off two centuries of liberal tradition to promote an idea of justice which completely abandons distinctions between individuals and groups. Then you get high-minded liberals paying $5,000 for something they not only don't want to hear, but which clashes fundamentally with their all their political conceptions. They thought, "hey, I'm not conservative, how come I think she's totally mad?". The answer is because she's masquerading as a liberal.