I've been fascinated by this "theory" since first encountering it in college (surprise!). Right Wing News has a blurb about it today:
Whites tend not to recognize that race has little meaning without reference to the power structures that have historically supported and are currently supporting white domination. Whites see whiteness as the norm, an absence of race. Along with whiteness come privileges that are invisible to whites. Instead of seeing privilege resulting from the historical domination of whites in this country as the source of our success, whites interpret any benefits we receive as reward for individual merit and hard work. In fact, the myth of the "American Dream" has imbued in white Americans a sense of entitlement. The myth tells us that so long as we work hard, we deserve to and will succeed unless obstacles are placed in our way. By the same token, whites consider racism and discrimination as evils committed by other individuals, not something that whites are responsible for as a group. Race discrimination is defined in Title VII disparate treatment theory as individual action resulting from a conscious intent to harm. This definition furthers the perpetrator's perspective by assigning guilt to one individual employer and alleviating most whites of responsibility for systemic means that reinforce racism and white privilege.
Not only does this ... theory automatically toss all white people into the "racist" pot (and hence, how is this not racism itself?), another thing it does (not mentioned here) is that it seeks to limit the First Amendment (my emphasis):
The inherent power imbalance in the legal system and in racial hegemony means that such racist speech by the racial majority member cannot be countered by "more speech" by the racial minority member, as is the usual recommendation in the case. The whole "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, and counter it with my own free speech in vengeful disagreement" thing.
In other words, since whites are the majority in the country, their speech should be restricted when it comes to "hateful" (always a subjective nightmare, that) speech because minorities -- merely because of their status as minorities -- cannot legitimately overcome the majorities' "hurtful" speech. Got it?
And why do you think so many American campuses have instituted (or attempted to institute) their [in]famous speech codes? Well, because, CRT (Critical Race Theory) and the modern multicultural/diversity-philic university go hand in hand, natch! But thankfully, many of these moronic speech codes haven't fared well when challenged, but that sure hasn't stopped deans and radical professors from continued trying. For instance, a group dubbed the "Transnational Racial Justice Initiative" contends
"...there is a clear difference between free speech, which many nations value, and speech with the purpose of inciting violence against individuals or groups based on their race. Such 'hate speech' should not receive any legal protection as it does in the United States. The right to live free of violence and intimidation should certainly outweigh any 'right' to speech that threatens the safety of others and incites violence"
The problem with this view, as I'm sure you can figure out, is just what is "hate speech"? If someone says "Affirmative action sucks," do they get cuffed and fined? After all, a white person saying this "has more power" than any minority and hence is demonstrating his majoritarian institutional racism, right? And check out what Mari Matsuda, author of the book Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment says:
"Too often victims of hate speech find themselves without the words to articulate what they see, feel, and know. In the absence of theory and analysis that give them a diagnosis and a name for the injury they have suffered, they internalize the injury done to them and are rendered silent in the face of continuing injury"
Isn't that cool? Without the Matsuda's of the academic world to give us this grand theory (CRT), the "victims" of "hate speech" just can't "grasp" what it is that has been "done" to them when someone may utter an idiotic epithet -- or even a challenge to a political hot-button issue. But they now have the CRT, and now they don't have to take it anymore! All that's required is a complete overhaul of First Amendment law and history, so that those "internalized injuries" no longer have to continue unabated!