I remember the professors during my college orientation extolling the virtues of how Liberal Arts would mold us into superior citizens, able to think critically and holistically in a way we normally couldn't.
Now I know some of this is just hype, but there was a sincere sense that the 'uneducated' were lesser people that weren't as capable of rational and enlightened thought. My actual college experience was informative, but I don't particularly feel like my two semesters of Rhetoric made me a sharp critical thinker.... because it was just slightly more difficult high-school English.
College is sold as essential, when in reality it is not for everyone. And, not having a college degree shouldn't be a de-facto deficiency.
Not sure of the OP’s sensation but when an institution creates highly visible programs supporting every single group except one, then it is a form of exclusion (albeit a negative form vs a positive form of exclusion). You could say that such policies are necessary or justified to redress historical inequalities. This is the traditional justification for such policies. Such an argument starts to break down over when those inequalities are less noticeable.
Inclusion efforts for women have nothing to do with exclusion of men.
This isn't exactly true. In a laudable attempt to help lift girls up from a young age, we've (likely inadvertently in most cases) neglected, or worse vilified, boys' learning needs.
I don't know if this has changed, but when I was an undergrad in math, all the summer REUs were for women and minorities. I applied to many all the same but never got to do any summer research, which definitely worked against me when applying for grad school. This wouldn't have pushed me out of college I suppose, but it made continuing beyond more difficult.
Hard to imagine that language being used with other demographics.