I like thinking in-terms of systems, in the sense of working or competing within the system, versus manipulation of the system itself.
There are definitely times when the system itself needs modification, because the system natively discriminates. A good example would be the Jim Crow Laws in the American South, where black people and arguably any non-white people were at a statute disadvantage right from the start because the very system was intentionally stacked against them. Minorities could not compete on a level playing-field with the majority population because they were legally hamstrung. That system needed to be changed to put everyone on the same plain, and given how slowly attitudes change, there's a compelling argument for the artificial structures enacted to help those changes become permanent. It took a hundred years post-civil-war to become what it became, I would not be surprised if it took a hundred years post-Civil Rights Act to normalize-out.
What I see with this current crop of arguments about safe spaces, "identification," and other concepts are that people are trying to take a system that starts out mostly on-the-level and they're trying to manipulate it to where it is imbalanced, citing their particular cause as a reason to do so. There are some initial merits to investigating how people are being treated, but the conclusions drawn, ie, safe spaces, are incorrect. Contrasting then to now, the Civil Rights Movement sought to be in clusive, while this current crop of movements seeks to be ex clusive. This approach would seek to further divide people into smaller and smaller groups instead of confronting the behaviors that cause the problems in the first place, and without teaching people how their choices will impact them.
And that leads to another difference, the nature of choice. I am very much against judging others on traits beyond their control or that they were literally born into. Race, gender, a degree of financial means, a degree of physical health, sexual orientation. Those things are either entirely beyond the control of the individual or are initial conditions that can be very, very difficult to change. On the other hand, I do not see a problem judging someone based on the choices that they've made, the company they keep, or their behavior, as all of those are, to a large extent, within the control of the individual. They are not natural characteristics. Even areas of dispute, like intelligence and health, have degrees of choice in how people behave or how people take care of themselves.
Some of the College Campus Movements are based on characteristics beyond the control of the individual, but many of the movements, probably most of the movements, are based things that people have chosen for themselves. The world beyond College is not going to respect the individual and it has no obligation to, and it's not the College's mission to cater to people in this fashion.