While it's a pretty sad/cheap example of what happens when 'multidisciplinary' approaches to academics are imposed on math departments, the worksheet on Maya Angelou includes true information about her life (she was sexually assaulted by a relative). Although it may be hard for people to differentiate, a biography of Angelou is not CRT.
I would agree, a biography shouldn't constitute "CRT" to any sane person.
I think part of the problem stems from our current society's propensity for leveraging semantic overload (using one word or expression to define two different types of ideas).
It's something I've started referring to as "ideological gerrymandering", ...where both sides annex their more popular (or noble-sounding) ideas in with their unpopular ones, as a means of making them "criticism-proof", because if someone critiques the unpopular one, they can turn around and accuse them of opposing (or being apathetic to) the noble-sounding one.
Examples from the left would be things like "Black Lives Matter" and "Critical Race Theory"
Examples from the right would be things like "Religious Freedom" bills and "Parental Choice"
Semantically speaking, all of those are valid and non-controversial. However, both sides lump in a lot of controversial precepts and ideas under each of those four monikers.
An example I've used before to highlight this (that's not as politically polarizing as the aforementioned things) is PETA
"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals"
Semantically, it's not controversial to say "people should treat animals more ethically than what we do". However, there's a good reason why so many people (many who may even be sympathetic to the semantically stated cause) have a negative reaction when they hear "PETA".