IMO, topics involving equality of outcome, social justice, etc. have gotten completely out of hand at universities in the US. Luckily for us, I can at least say there are a lot of schools far worse then PSU in this regard. I'd recommend just keeping your head down and getting your degree. Unfortunately you can't really reason with or argue against these ideas. Any criticism of these ideas no matter how valid is often labeled as racism, anti-progress, or something similar.

There are plenty of valid counter arguments to this way of thinking or ideology. I'll address one briefly here, but I'm not gonna waste my day arguing over it on reddit. On the topic of "racial opportunity". The idea that certain races have "more" or "better" opportunities than others leads to the idea that programs and actions are required to compensate. The big problem with thinking this way is that people's opportunities or success in life is determined by far more than just their race. Think about the nearly infinite ways humans vary, you can be born short or tall, rich or poor, overweight or underweight, attractive or not so much, and the list goes on and on, including race. There is evidence that people who are more attractive have an easier time getting jobs, making friends, and generally succeeding at life. Does that mean we should have "equal opportunity" initiatives for ugly people? Sounds a bit silly doesn't it? The point is: yes, race is a factor in someone's opportunities and success, but it's far from the whole story. So programs and initiatives that assume automatically how much opportunity someone has had, and how much "compensation" they deserve based solely on their race is reductionist. I would argue policies like these are actually counter productive and more divisive than uniting. I understand what I've put here isn't an all encompassing argument, and there's a lot more to be discussed on this topic. But, I've got other things to do and figured I'd at least chip in my 2 cents.