The post doesn't claim that CRT is racist. The post asks whether the people opposing bills that prevent the teaching of racist ideas and who describe those bills as "anti-CRT" know what racism is.

In fact, the broader point is that "CRT" has become so hopelessly diffuse in meaning (both because of it's original nature, and because of deliberate attempts to obfuscate it), that calling it racist is meaningless. So the debate about whether it is racist is nothing but a distraction from the toxic, racist ways that some people, most worryingly some teachers, are interpreting its ideas.

I disagree with a lot of ideas in CRT. I could have spent a couple of thousand words dunking on them, but what would have been the point? Pretty much regardless of what I or anybody else writes about it, people get hung up on whether that thing is "really" CRT or not.

So the point was to skip that debate entirely and focus on the real-world impact of things like these bills and the ideas being taught in schools. After all, that's what actually matters.