Is critical race theory pseudoscience?

This is off topic, but I'll bite anyway. Like all broad ideas, there is no one canonical definition of Critical Race Theory that everyone agrees with.

Some serious takes on Critical Race Theory have ideas that explain why science is not always correct.

Some professors who support CRT explain that Storytelling is superior in certain ways, and in certain situations to scientific gathering information.

In other spots, professors claim that since science, reason and mathematics are white Western ideas, they are part of the oppressive system.

I don't really understand those two ideas very well, so I probably misstated them in some form. But if you dive into the details you'll find those ideas or similar ideas.

If you're coming from a mindset where science is the ultimate source of truth, you will be surprised to find that Critical Race Theory says that there are other routes which are better.

I would not say CRT is pseudoscience. I would place it alongside other philosophical theories which support or deny the ideas which form the basis of science.

Wikipedia didn't help you because it describes actual CRT, which is a somewhat bland academic field that, like seemingly all humanities work, tends to be heavy on jargon and pomp and a little light on genuine insight. But none of its contentions are really that controversial. Broadly it's the recognition that "race is real" and that injustices colored by the history of racial politics persist in modern society.

What actually got banned is "boogeyman CRT", which is a caricature of the field propagated among the partisan press for use as an "enemy".

And of course it's bad. You don't ban ideas with which you disagree, even (especially) if you think they're factually wrong.