I do not think I said Baylor does not provide any consideration towards the children of alumni. I said that they focus on merit rather than hitting a targeted diversity mix. As such they have been accused of using their scholarship founds to attract talented students instead of achieving diverity targets.

My daughter (half Asian) attends Baylor because of her scholarship of over $20K, it was competitive with out-of-state state schools and blew away other private college costs after the scholarship. She went as an engineering student (now a management information systems major with an engineering minor) and her three roommates (a nursing major, mechanical engineering major, and computer science major) all overachievers went to Baylor because of the merit scholarships they received.

Earmarking scholarships for alumni children seems a small price to pay to help fund scholarships for talented students.

Getting back to CRT vs applied CRT. CRT would argue alumni preference is "racist" even if not intentionally racist. If by that it means that it tilts enrollment towards the skin color composition of alumni then that is true. Though the intent often has no racist aspect to it. In many cases, it is to encourage alumni donations which are critical to the schools survival and growth.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/03/the-other-college-debt-crisis-schools-are-going-broke.html

Meanwhile, applied CRT is what University of California admissions departments do. Eventhough it is illegal under state law. There is plenty of evidence here, so you can research this yourself, but bottomline it is illegal to discriminate based on skin color in California with regard to state school admissions.

CRT merely identifies how existing laws and practices can promote unequal racial outcomes when "equity" is the goal not merit. Applied CRT uses "racism" as a tool to achieve racial equity. My issue with "Applied CRT" is it promotes racism and thus creates future generations of people that feel discimrinated against because of skin color. That does not really solve the problem. The solution lies in addressing the failure of our system to provide good educations in failing school systems.