OK, so when did I say or imply it's OK for teachers to openly lie to students? You think everything about CRT is a lie? Is that your thesis?
Why do you think new rules will be enforced if the problem isn't the rules, it's enforcement? Doesn't make much sense.
Kids are being taught lies in all areas of school. I'm not going to advocate banning the whole topic of the Civil War just because they aren't getting it right.
I think the most important question to address first is why the outrage? The outrage comes from parents who have seen their kids taught absurd and blatantly false things in regards to race. And the gaslighting of the outrage by the media has been disgusting. They've done that in a few ways. One is to just lie and pretend none of this is occurring. The second is the not a real Scottsman argument where they stick to the strictest definition of CRT and ignore any of its contributions or changes since its inception (it would be equal to only arguing the term "intersectionality" means what it did in 1989 when Crenshaw coined it).
So the first question is are the parents right? And the answer is an emphatic yes. Is CRT 100% responsible for the issues they're seeing and will banning it actually make much difference? No to both. But are they correct that something is wrong in terms of public education and what children are being taught in race, 100%.
What lies do you believe currently exist in education? I can say I taught 0 lies in 9 years as a math teacher, but I can also say that advocates of CRT were pushing me to do so (I received pamplets on how to CRT in math with statements like "the 3/5ths compromise is math").
I don't think banning CRT is the answer, but its also not suppression of free speech (no one has a right to forcefully indoctrinate your children against your will) nor is it cancel culture to remove inappropriate material from a classroom.
To fully answer your question about is CRT a lie, I'll address the 5 tenants:
(1) the notion that racism is ordinary and not aberrational-I agree
(2) the idea of an interest convergence-openly states that white people will only support racial progress if it is in their personal interest, not only incorrect, but a disgusting view in general. It is openly cynical of any/all racial progress and argues it only occurs to promote whiteness
(3) the social construction of race-This seems to be contradicting the first. They're claiming racism is normal (I would say natural) but race is a social construct? If so than racism would not be normal, only normal within certain societies. But this still isn't where it starts to get bad. I don't think anyone objects to this specifically being taught.
(4) the idea of storytelling and counter-storytelling-this is where the idea that you cannot understand others comes from, it bleeds into ideas from other critical theorist such as the mailability of truth and the idea that it's impossible to have an understanding of others. It also promotes narrative over objective fact (something they believe in).
(5) the notion that whites have actually been recipients of civil rights legislation.-This is another obviously absurd claim. They take any civil rights legislation to have ever occurred and then cynically argue that it only occurred to aid white America. Delgado specifically attacks affirmative action as being a program that benefits whites, not blacks.
I know this lengthy but I think this topic deserves it. From these 5 statements (3 are the real issues) you find a lot of the insanity in current left wing dialogue.