I want you to know that I totally understand how I make you feel.
In my office, I have to deal with people who don't know the difference between heat and temperature. I have to deal with people who don't know the difference between force and velocity. As an engineer, I have to try to help them communicate clearly with our clients, and bite my tongue as they misuse these highly technical terms.
So I come in here talking about what I think of critical race theory, but I haven't read the same books as either, and I haven't taken classes on it. You must be throwing your hands up, saying, "Gah! That's not what it means! What you're describing is actually this whole other issue!"
But here's the difference.
If I allow buildings and structures to be designed based on my untrained colleagues' understanding of the loads and material properties, these buildings will fail. People could get hurt. Millions of dollars will be wasted having to rehabilitate the structures and mechanical systems.
If any of us goes through life with a misunderstanding of the law, we might break the law and have to pay the penalties.
But you political scientists are not applying the laws of physics or the laws of men. You're creating a whole esoteric system of vocabulary that means nothing to anyone outside of your field. And you even have schisms with each other. Conservative political scientists insist that critical race theory is an overarching system of thought. Liberal political scientists insist that it is a set of ideas that are only loosely associated with each other, you can believe some without believing all. They must be talking about different things.

---