CRT is something that is widely mischarcterized, especially in politics. It is principally an academic topic in sociology and law.

In the simplest form, it looks at how historical treatment of groups based upon their race/ethnic background can have an impact on their descendents and how that can also impact society.

For example, due to enslavement of their ancestors, a larger proportion of African Americans are impoverished than those of European descent. This has further impacts on how they are perceived in society and vice-versa.

That's literally the sort of thing that it is. Not assigning value to skin color but looking at how society historically has and its impacts.

The reason I asked was because I think there's a fundamental disagreement between what it actually is that people disagree about.

Your earlier post suggests that your stance on abortion is different than that of the mainstream conservative narrative. This seems normal, based on how every vote on that issue seems to be playing out, there is a disconnect between the ideology that conservative leaders are pushing and what their supporters actually think. The exact same situation is true with affirmation action on the left - voters consistently reject it regardless of party affiliation or self identified political leaning.

I'd hear people identify CRT as being closely related to affirmative action, in that it's an actual policy that gives out some advantage (or seeks to remove some other existing advantage, if you have a different perspective) vs being some purely academic case study more like what a other response to your response described.

Where I'm going with this is that depending on what you're describing when you say CRT, it's very easily possible that your position of opposing it is consistent with a clear majority of people who identify as "left". The disagreement isn't about ideology, but about semantics that is being exploited by a political class to drive support.