You have a bit to learn about critical legal studies then, and CRT as well, before stepping into certainty. But if it's pragmatic problems rather than philosophical inquiries, the nature of how our cities operate remains a major consideration of the critics.

Two theorists you might find interesting are Randall Kennedy and James Forman Jr, esp. if read as a dialogue with Michelle Alexander's 'New Jim Crow.' Where Alexander posits that it's all racism, Forman in particular challenges that by looking at 'Black' judges who lock up other Black children. Kennedy and Forman are loosely 'critical legal studies' but outside the 'Critical Race Theory' outrgrowth thereof.

It's true that these participants have no interest in debate with, say, a Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio style critic: the figureheads financed by Koch enterprises have no interest in debate, only in space on a podium where their paid amplifying outlets will amplify them. But approach any of them with a reasonable question after you've done your research to know and criticize them (that's the one rule of the critics: you must know what you criticize, and cannot merely impose a judgment without knowledge). You may find a very different tone and tenor.

But look a little more closely at the participants and their lives: you'll tend to see people who spent decades trying to make sure people nobody thought twice about got to eat healthy food, did not get beaten or locked up, got something approaching an education. Pragmatism drives criticsm, since each of those critical traditions ultimately starts with a concern that the law is a creature that serves humanity, not a truth that humanity must be adjusted to serve. Later on, that notion grew to other concerns - not just law, but all other human institutions. If race is a social construct, is it 'durable' like money (another social construct), or malleable like class (yet another)?