I'm afraid this makes zero sense to me.

"Accepting someone as a legitimate authority does not mean I'm uncritically accepting them."

First, you kind of bungled Anya's statement. She said that you accept someone as a legitimate authority, but their narrative is a legitimate authority. If you're accepting someone's narrative as a legitimate authority, then it does mean that you have accepted their narrative. That their retelling of events are 100% reliable, accurate and that their take on the event is similarly 100% spot on. You are assuming their beliefs regarding the motives of all the actors are accurate.

What else could it mean? If you haven't accepted their narrative, then you don't regard it as a "legitimate authority and evidence."

Do you accept the personal story of Jussie Smollett? You better, according to Uju Anya. He is a non-white, and therefore his personal story is a legitimate authority and evidence. And his status as a non-white is all the evidence he needs to corroborate his story.

I do not believe Jussie Smollett. I do not believe Bonita Tindle was honest about her motives in her encounter with Cory Goldstein. Nor do I believe she received all the horrible harassment she claims to have gotten. I do not believe Wesley Michel that Chris Cukor was just out to get a black man killed by the police. I believe he was called out for attempting to bypass the building's security system and resented it.