I think your story has to do with not enrolling cheaters, which has nothing to do with AA or DEI (well, arguably it's empirically anti-DEI (see, e.g., Claudia Gay)).
It's not at all weird to think someone who is wrong about one particular thing cannot be taken seriously with respect to that one particular thing.
"But are not limited to" is the missing clause there.
The claim I was addressing was the existence of "an example of AA that has nothing to do with DEI," so it's hard to see how adding that clause in should matter one way or another. If DEI is indeed the umbrella term (per the wiki) then any particular example of AA is also an example of DEI.
Personally I try to take my interlocutors seriously even when I suspect they are incorrect, but hey, you do you.
From my understanding of the story, the changes made to the MS admissions process were not designed to detect cheating but rather to avoid unduly favoring a particular ethnic group so as to create more ethnic diversity in the program.
Not every reply written here is a reply to you.
If we agree to treat DEI as the umbrella term (to include AA among other tools) then it follows that such examples cannot exist.
Viewed that way, it is classic AA and DEI, since both discriminate against Asians.
DEI is definitely anti-Asian. DEI is founded on the oppressor-oppressed Social Justice dichotomy. For some reason, Asians are in the oppressor category (along with whites, Jews, and Israelis), and therefore are discriminated against. Traditional AA is also anti-Asian because it gives an advantage to blacks and Hispanics in what is typically a zero-sum game.
Says the guy who doesn't live in Asia.
No it doesn't. All it requires is to minimise some of the biases of people hiring people that we know exist in human behaviour e.g. in-group/out-group behaviour.
Minimizing bias only increases diversity in the event that a biased hiring process is the reason why certain groups are overrepresented compared to their share in the population at large. Overrepresentation of Asian Americans at elite schools such as Harvard and MIT is almost certainly not a result of pro-Asian bias in the admissions process, but rather due to the demographics of the applicant pool.
I wonder whether this is a reaction against DEI or just old-fashioned bigotry, i.e. "[d]enying the promotions of individual officers based on their race or gender," as Jack Reed says.
It's because reaction against DEI is motivated by old-fashioned bigotry.