The argument that CRT is only a legal theory is, at best, a misunderstanding, at worst, a disingenuous lie.

It has been informing theory and used as a framework in the

education field (Gillborn & Ladson-Billings, 2020), teacher education (Sleeter, 2017), literacy for second graders (Rogers & Mosley, 2006), Urban mathematics (whatever that is? Terry, 2011)

Social sciences in general (Lopez, 2003)

Sociology (Yosso & Solorzano, 2005)

Sport and leisure (Hylton, 2005)

Human-Computer Interaction (Ogbonnaya-Ogburu et al., 2020)

Social Work (Abrams & Moio, 2009)

Population health (Graham et al., 2011)

Big data and statistics (Gillborn et al., 2018)

Archival theory and practice (Dunbar, 2006)

Mental health (Brown, 2003)

Archaeology (Epperson, 2004)

Public relations (Pompper, 2005)

Human relations (Rocco et al, 2014)

Marriage and family therapy (McDowell, 2004)

Entrepreneurship (Gold, 2016)

Nursing (Ackerman-Barger & Hummer, 2015)

Music (Dixson, 2014)

Health Sciences (Bridges et al., 2017)

Art (Spillane, 2015)

Environmental justice (Anguiano et al., 2012)

These are just a few I could find doing a search on Google Scholar. If anyone argues with you that CRT is a legal theory!!! this list shows them wrong, although I don’t think it’s an honest argument, and they won’t listen to you.

https://twitter.com/nickfondacaro/status/1407879502152224769?s=21