One would have thought from reading your posts on this thread, and the posts of many others, that the OK law said it was banning the teaching of "Critical Race Theory" without defining what it was, leading to a chilling of speech in gray areas. I took a look at the language of the OK law, and here's what it actually says, in full, about prohibitions on teaching in the classroom:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22 ENR/hB/HB1775 ENR.PDF
The OK law doesn't say the words "critical race theory," nor do I think any of these prohibitions are particularly vague. Moreover, the law delegates to the OK State Board of Education the power to promulgate regulations that implement the law, so any vagueness that becomes apparent can be clarified by the Board.
I haven't studied all of the various states' laws, so I don't know if they all read the same way, but my suspicion is that a conservative think tank drafted a model law that the states are using as a baseline, with various tweaks here and there. That's just a guess, though. Maybe your objection is valid with respect to other states' laws, but it isn't with respect to the OK law.
As to the merits of the actual law, I will admit to being conflicted. On the one hand, I don't think that children should be taught, for example, that one race is superior to another, that some people are necessarily racist because of the color of their skin, or that meritocracies (like grading systems in schools) are the product of racism. (I don't know whether these things are actually being taught in schools, but if they are, I think that's a problem.) On the other hand, I'm uneasy with legislatures injecting politics into statewide academic curriculum, much beyond saying things like "students should study US History, Math, etc." Legislatures have control over curriculum, but statewide legislation of viewpoints that can't be taught in schools--beyond things like "Death to America"--strikes me as a very dangerous slippery slope, even if I agree that what the OK bill prohibits shouldn't be taught.
I suppose part of the response to this unease would be the observation (if true) that legislatures aren't injecting politics in to academic curriculum; they are just responding to the injection of politics that has already happened at the board, district, school, or class level. Still, banning a viewpoint on a hot-button social issue--as opposed to say, requiring the opposing viewpoint also be taught--just seems like a heavy-handed and bad precedent-setting way to address the problem, assuming one exists.
Better yet, if conservatives have a problem with what their children are learning in school, they should run for school board and rectify the situation at the local level. I would think that most reasonable people would be opposed to their children learning the bullshit prohibited by the OK law anyway.