There is obviously no single sorting criterion for people. I do agree there is a huge moral hazard where people in privileged positions (eg college administrators) want to fall back on a less-relevant "identity" to deflect legitimate criticism.
Ultimately, it's not about the person, but rather what you're attacking. Are you attacking their position and policies, or are you attacking their ethnicity? The former is punching up, the latter is punching down.
If you're attacking their ethnicity because you don't like their policies, that's essentially still punching down, and makes for a terribly ineffective criticism of their policies.
If you're attacking their policies because you don't like their ethnicity, you could be trying to punch down while cloaking it in an aura of punching up. But your criticism would still need to be evaluated on its own merits regardless. It's likely that your criticism of the policies won't be that great, and people will see right through them.
Ultimately, it's not about the person, but rather what you're attacking. Are you attacking their position and policies, or are you attacking their ethnicity? The former is punching up, the latter is punching down.
If you're attacking their ethnicity because you don't like their policies, that's essentially still punching down, and makes for a terribly ineffective criticism of their policies.
If you're attacking their policies because you don't like their ethnicity, you could be trying to punch down while cloaking it in an aura of punching up. But your criticism would still need to be evaluated on its own merits regardless. It's likely that your criticism of the policies won't be that great, and people will see right through them.