Breitbart.com has released the first Obama College video.   In the video, available here, then student Obama is advocating for Derrick Bell, a noted racial activist.  The video at the Breitbart site was intentionally hidden during the 2008 campaign by another Obama advocate Professor Charles Ogletree, fearful of its radical and social underpinnings.  There is another 11+ minute version available via PBS https://www-tc.pbs.org/s3/pbs.videoportal-prod.cdn/media/swf/PBSPlayer.swf

Watch Obama Speaks at Harvard Law in ’90 on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Derrick Bell was a former professor at Harvard University and is seen in this video (below) delivering remarks on race at a Harvard book fair in 2002.    Bell describes what he believes as “permanent embedded racism” in the United States that can never be removed.

“Despite undeniable progress for many, no African Americans are insulated from incidents of racial discrimination. Our careers, even our lives, are threatened because of our color.”
“[T]he racism that made slavery feasible is far from dead . . . and the civil rights gains, so hard won, are being steadily eroded.”
“… few whites are ready to actively promote civil rights for blacks.”
“[D]iscrimination in the workplace is as vicious (if less obvious) than it was when employers posted signs ‘no negras need apply.’”
“We rise and fall less as a result of our efforts than in response to the needs of a white society that condemns all blacks to quasi citizenship as surely as it segregated our parents.”
“Slavery is, as an example of what white America has done, a constant reminder of what white America might do.”
“Black people will never gain full equality in this country. … African Americans must confront and conquer the otherwise deadening reality of our permanent subordinate status.”
“Tolerated in good times, despised when things go wrong, as a people we [blacks] are scapegoated and sacrificed as distraction or catalyst for compromise to facilitate resolution of political differences or relieve economic adversity.”

The works of Derrick Bell and Alan Freeman have been attributed to the start of Critical Race Theory.  Bell and Freeman were frustrated with the slow pace of racial reform in the United Sates. They argued that the traditional approaches of combating racism were producing smaller gains than in previous years. Thus, Critical Race Theory is an outgrowth of Critical Legal Studies (CLS), which was a leftist movement that challenged traditional legal scholarship. These CRT scholars continued forward and were joined by Richard Delgado. In 1989, they held their first conference in Madison, Wisconsin.  This was the beginning of the CRT as movement.

CRT  establishes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.  Legal discourse says that the law is neutral and colorblind, however, CRT challenges this legal “truth” by examining liberalism and meritocracy as a vehicle for self-interest, power, and privilege.

Another component to CRT is the commitment to Social justice and active role scholars take in working toward “eliminating racial oppression as a broad goal of ending all forms of oppression”.  This is the eventual goal of CRT and the work that most CRT scholars pursue as academics and activists.

Personally I have engaged in this argument at considerable length with those of like-minded beliefs, and I will admit, unfortunately, there are many people who hold a similar, albeit less entrenched, view. 
However, one specific aspect of his belief system crumbles under the weight of its own hardening.  When you expose CRT to an honest intellectual discussion about divergent ideological beliefs, and you separate ideological differences from skin color, the theoretical position of Professor Bell begins to fall apart.
Bell, like the Jesse Jackson’s and Al Sharptons’ of the world, sees everything first and foremost through the prism of skin color.   All conclusions are based on the premise that skin color is the starting point for any aspect being considered.    No other sociological aspect frames the cornerstone of their building other than race.   Sure, they add other considerations to the building of their ideological house, but the foundation for that house is race.
From that foundation all other sociological forces are then constructed.   Gender, age, socio-economic status, education, dependence, independence and opportunity are building blocks they will add to the narrative.   But race underpins them all.
Therefore when you undermine the racial argument, or advocate against their racial theology, by discussing more systemic causes, traits and contributions, they will angrily fight against you.   Their entire narrative is built first and foremost on race constructing the foundation.   That foundation, in their mind, cannot be confronted lest the entire construct of their argument collapses.    It is important to understand how central that tenant is to them.  It simply cannot be open for discussion.
That is why it’s virtually impossible to engage in intellectual discourse with a person of like-minded racial constitution.
However, that said, when you reference everything in Professor Bell’s narrative from a divergence in ideology, as opposed to skin color, things begin to make sense.
You see, there are, absolute and truthful ideological differences between people, and consequently between people of divergent skin color.   But it is the ideological difference that compromises the cornerstone, and not race.    Some ideological differences are less visible than others, but ideology is the foundation, not skin color.  
Dependence vs. independence.   The collective vs. the individual.   Opportunity vs. Outcome.   These are but a few of the differing ideological viewpoints that a person might hold.
Granted there may be groups within society that, as a matter of consequence, by choice, or by association, may find themselves in alignment with person(s) of a similar racial characteristic as a consequence of their geography or ethnicity.    As an example you might find that most Hispanics are Catholics, yet not all Catholics are hispanic.
Similarly, you might find that most California Hispanics are comfortable with the collective view of society, as they are historically from larger communal type families and congregations.   However not all collectively minded Californians are Hispanic.  You see the difference?
Same essential concept applies to blacks, not based on race, but based on the ideological framing of their personal family upbringing.   Hence, you see Justice Clarence Thomas, and Representative Allen West as formative in the individual, personal responsibility, and freedom based ideological mindset.   
Most blacks might find themselves aligning with big government models, and be completely comfortable with division of a defined set of what they perceive as scare resources.   Hence most blacks might just be democrats by ideology, but not by skin color.   Not all blacks are big government democrats.
Many ethnicities believe in self-empowerment, equal opportunity -not outcomes-, and individual responsibility.   None of which has anything to do with “permanent racism”.
But you see, when you engage the racial believer with discussions based on ideology, it is so dangerous to their belief systems, the foundation of all things racial, to even consider a divergent truth is toxic to their core.
Perhaps this is why President Obama has such trouble disconnecting himself from the division mentality of class warfare and race.   Haves vs. Have-Nots.   Developing his formative ideology around the types of persons like Derrick Bell, Bill Ayers, Professor Ogletree and Reverend Jeremiah Wright (Black Liberation Theologist) explains quite a bit why he cannot see another ideology.   It is central to his beliefs.
Perhaps, when you consider his father, his fathers’ noted disposition toward colonial rulers, and his radical socialistic mother and grandparents, it helps explain why he would find attachment to noted and convicted communist Frank Marshall Davis.
Perhaps, when you consider all of the above it helps to explain why he selected Attorney General Eric Holder for the highest law enforcement job in the land.   After all, Eric Holder’s sister in-law is  Vivian Malone Jones, famous for her part in the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door which led to integration at the University of Alabama.   And Perhaps also why the case against the Black Panther Party was summarily dismissed.   
Be warned. Critical Race Theory is MARXIST-FREUDIAN ideological propaganda. They passionately despise any person of any race who disagrees with the goals of their theory – their revolutionary utopian society.  “Fundamental Change” 
They USE people and ethnicity for their political gain.

Bell was credited with developing “critical race theory,” which suggested that the U.S. legal system was inherently biased against African Americans and other minorities because it was built on an ingrained white point of view. He argued in his many books and lectures that the life experiences of black people and other minorities should be considered in hiring decisions and in applying the law.

Bell maintained that the standards for promotion and tenure at law schools – and Harvard, in particular – were inherently discriminatory and excluded a broad group of minorities. By hiring only graduates of top-tier law schools who had clerked at the Supreme Court, he argued, academia was populated by a uniform group of standard-issue professors, most of them white men.