The title of the thread is "Critical race theory" and the OP asks a series of questions about critical race theory. Critical race theory is the academic work, so if you are taking the validity of the academic work for granted there is nothing to discuss: the answer is yes, the research is correct and valuable, and anything you've heard a Democrat say about it is probably just stupid.
You seem to be interested in a deeper inquiry than that - correct me if I'm wrong. But if I'm not wrong, it isn't a matter of "only historians can understand the theory," but it is to some degree going to be a matter of "only a person with a background in the relevant field is qualified to judge the methods used in a piece of research," similarly to how you would not trust me, who can barely write a line of code, to tell you how to improve a program you wrote.
Any research project has a phase where conclusions are drawn from the research data. It is entirely valid to question those conclusions as a separate thing from the data.
The other discussion is just a sidetrack...I really am trying to figure out if I can accept critical race theory's conclusions about society and history, and so far, the answer is that there are too many holes. Such an iconoclastic theory needs a solid paradigm that actually works...this one fails in two ways I have already identified, and without a lot of mental gymnastics.
I'm concerned that such a theory (with all its flaws) will actually take us a backwards. The right-wingers can point at its absurdities as evidence that the 'left' has come unhinged, and they will use it to continue to resist badly needed changes for leveling the field.