Your example I think is a good one to illustrate how Americans these days are talking past each other, instead of communicating.
It seems to me that there is a problem in definitions. When people who have a problem with "CRT" are saying "CRT is in our schools and sucks let's ban it!" they are not using CRT as a technical or academic term, which I would argue is pedantic and not hearing what people are saying, but rather looking for a way to disqualify what is being said.
We know that in the science of language and words (linguistics), language changes over time.
In the modern world where technology has enabled hyper-connectivity and communication, two points:
1). Language change is extremely fast. Whereas in the past it could take generations, language change between communities and populations is extremely mutable.
2). Language change is often socially problematic. Long before divergent dialects lose mutual intelligibility completely, they begin to show difficulties and inefficiencies in communication, especially under noisy or stressful conditions.
So when people like your aunt (or most people who have a problem with CRT in public schools or whatever) are talking about CRT, they aren't talking about the academic framework, they are talking about something that is attacking their identity and worldview and social capital-- something that aims to help and enable and pull up the underrepresented minority, at the expense of the historically represented and powerful anglo.