If you want to convince them of something, it's best to point out flaws in the argument, not try to discredit the person making the argument by calling them names.
It definitely is a variant of an ad hominem logical fallacy (they are X demographic so they must know and represent all X). But critical thinking goes out the window with identity politics.
And if you identify as white (or others identify you as white), you're just wrong. There's even insults of that type: Karen, Chad, Josh. Doubly so if you are or identify as male.
If an observation is true, then the observation is true, and is a valid data point to consider along with any others.
A logical argument can be perfectly true and still invalid if it is the result of motivated cherry picking and framing to support an agenda or incentive.
As a master logician lecturer, we can assume you already knew that, which makes this comment curious.
The approach to take here, then, would be to critique the part of the letter that is invalid and cherry picked. Perhaps universities have a broader scope than education and research, and focusing on the pursuit of truth doesn't allow it to fulfill its broader responsibilities. If that's your point, make it, instead of saying that certain personal traits of an arguer inherently makes their argument wrong.
A world where arguments are primarily about which identities are good and bad is a world where you just have insults being thrown back and forth about who's a "white man reply guy" and who's an "autistic enby about to saw his genitals off." I'd prefer a different one.
LOL. In other words, it's only "valid" if it supports your POV? Because you just admitted that "true" isn't part of the criteria.
As for being 5: maybe if you were that age and didn't know who Foucault was, you should revert to that.
I didn't call anyone names.
I in fact did point out a flaw in the argument. The flaw is thinking that the status quo is apolitical. The people I talked about on my comment (a real, literal group of people who exist and whose behavior can be empirically observed and analyzed). I commented on them. I am not talking to them.