I feel sorry for Yale (et al) in this case because they're being presented with a very hard problem (defining and measuring merit in a reliable non-game-able way), one that likely has no widely accepted solution, and one that we as a society have actively decided to completely ignore in favor of everyone looking out for themselves.
I sympathize as well, but I think the problem is much more fundamental; I think there is no universally acceptable solution.
- If you think merit is a function of de facto performance, you will not deem it justified when the bar for admission is lowered for under-performing groups.
- If you think merit is a function of effort[0], then you will not deem it justified when everybody is held to the same standard of performance.
The reason this is such a touchy issue, I think, is that both approaches result in a de facto racial (and/or other immutable-trait-based) hierarchy. In my estimation, the determining ideological factor in picking a side is whether one prefers implicit vs explicit hierarchies.
[0] There's probably a better word than effort, but it's not coming to mind.
