I actually think they’re a few years late in objecting to such nonsense as the 1619 Project being used in the schools. While “CRT” is often unfairly used as a catch-all term for a wide spectrum of ideological piffle, I think there is a high level of falsity in claiming that these laws make it illegal to teach the history of slavery, Jim Crow, or civil rights. Most of them that explicitly clear.
I can hardly imagine the laws making it entirely clear what could and could not be taught. Though clarity and at least you know where you stand.

And what on earth would end up in the could not be taught group? I wonder if anyone can even answer that without the vaguest terms. If the law says "teach slavery and Jim Crow etc.", but does not make it clear what can not be taught, that is NOT clear guidance, it's utter confusion. Again why it is near impossible to imagine the laws being other than vague and a form of intimidation.

--
I read in different sources that political views are indoctrinated in children almost from birth like any other religion in the US. It seems that the problem is who is doing the indoctrination and what is being said. History shows that society keeps changing and defining new religious-like views except that now silos in social media echo one dominant refrain.
like the kind of person and when one will marry is indoctrinated in childhood (the gender of the person is another matter, that may be innate). Because it kind of is. Like how much education one will pursue is indoctrinated in childhood? Because it kind of is. Even how many kids one will have and definitely at what age one will have them kind of is really. Actually all this is much more than politics even. Some may rebel but their rebellion is a product of their indoctrination too.