It's an interesting argument - but surely the point of CRT is that the history is taught, not that the history is retaught with a contrarian bias. Surely children should be given a full range of the facts, free from emotionally loaded statements. Children are smart enough to draw their own conclusions when given access to all the facts. That's why I'd take a centre ground position. It's my normal place to sit.

'Eugene "Bull" Connor was the 'Commissioner of Public Safety. He led the police and fire departments. Connor used his job to maintain segregation' <--- to my mind, that is historical fact. 'one man stood for hate more than any other person' and 'bully blacks' - sounds like conjecture and opinion that is less easily proved. Now, said conjecture and opinion might be true and I absolutely believe it is - but if what you're trying to do is teach critical thinking, surely the children have to draw that conclusion themselves? I don't think it would take them very long... children have an innate sense of fairness and will spot these problems a mile away.

As to 'protecting children from trauma' - you can safely laugh these parents out of the room with that argument and instruct them to go and look up the definition of 'trauma'.