The article isn't making any such equivalence. It doesn't so much as imply a pre-60s meritocracy. The fact that two things are contemporary doesn't suggest a ca

The article isn't making any such equivalence. It doesn't so much as imply a pre-60s meritocracy. The fact that two things are contemporary doesn't suggest a causal relationship. Perhaps if the article mentioned desegregation, one could reasonably infer that the article was alluding to a causal relationship, but it doesn't even do that. The article (and indeed the specific sentences you referenced) is very explicit about the problem (decline of academic standards) and it offers an explanation (the rise in value of nonacademic standards). If your subtext depends on ignoring everything about the original claims (fixating solely on a date), you're being libelous.