Personally I think they are confused. Their entire raison d'être is to seek out racism. This is obviously a good thing. But somewhere along the line some of them simply started jumping at shadows.

Robin DiAngelo's nonsense is an absolutely logical progression of "whiteness" studies, which is an offshoot of CRT. Stereotyping is an inevitable result of concepts like intersectionality, which is also an offshoot of CRT. Framing interracial interactions in terms of power dynamice is foundational to CRT. Which leads us inevitable to our talk of oppressor and oppressed.

I'm not saying that none of the ideas in CRT or even these offshoots are useful. They can be. But they're frameworks, not truth. Somewhere the line between the two got blurred.

Your rephrasing of the bullet points is undoubtedly true for some of the people who want them signed into law. Rufo is certainly not a trustworthy person. But the key point is that in their original form, these bullet points are true. While I totally think they were written to protect white children in schools, I'm in favour of protecting children in schools, white and otherwise. All adults should be.

The bottom line is that too many people seem to have lost sight of the fact that children shouldn't be made to bear the burden for the ridiculous society that we're leaving them. We should be fighting tooth and nail to keep our stupid ideas out of their heads, instead of indoctrinating them into the worst of our race-obsessed ideologies and building anger, guilt and resentment as we do.

So as far as I'm concerned, the idea that teachers can't tell students that one race is superior to another is a good thing. Regardless of the motivations of some of the people who wrote the laws. Heck, I would've hoped there was never any need to tell teachers not to teach children ideas like this. The fact that there is, and worse, the fact that some people are objecting, really illustrates how confused we've gotten.