Although I sense that none of the following is likely to pacify the general grating sentiment of the arguments here, I will venture anyway:

“We could fill our class twice over with valedictorians,”
Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust told an
audience at the Aspen Ideas Festival, sponsored by the
Aspen Institute and The Atlantic, on Monday. That
means admissions officers rely on intangibles like
interesting essays or particularly unusual
recommendations to decide who comprises the 5.9 percent
of applicants who get in.

Faust's top tip for raising a Harvard man or woman:
“Make your children interesting!”

For parents and students alike, that’s both good news
and bad news. The bad news is that of course it’s much
easier to say that than to actually make it happen,
though Faust recommended encouraging children to follow
their passions as a way to develop an interesting
personality. It’s much easier to complete a checklist,
however daunting, than to actually be interesting.

But the good news is that when colleges use this set
of criteria, kids can focus on shaping their teenage
years in a way that isn’t just about trying to build
up resume line after resume line, and instead focus on
a more holistic sense of self. That seems like a far
more sensible way to move through high school than
spreading oneself too thin trying to get a slew of
positions one can’t really ever concentrate on. That
encourages a dilettantish approach to learning and
society that is just the opposite of what the liberal
arts have traditionally tried to encourage.[1]

I mention this not because it captures the whole truth of the way one gets into Harvard. But because it is almost alluring an argument that anyone - whether a Harvard, a YC, a Hackerspace / co-living community, the approval process at a highly prized co-op building in New York, a dating app ( The League [2] ) - could use ( and do use ) "to winnow out the chaff", so to speak.

Is it fair that a co-op uses some strange criteria to let a bigwig, say a political donation bundler, with connections, have the penthouse and not you ? No.

Would you dare fight the co-op and take them to court to prove you are just as "interesting" as the bundler?

Are you likely to win? Are you not likely to appease the co-op board through some other means because you know it is the socially-acceptable way to do so and suing them is just going to make you a social outcast and expunged from the social diaries of the well-heeled?

Is it fair that a group of people self-select themselves to be part of a dating club, so as to not being put through the grief of having to date a person who doesn't - from all social cues and signalling - doesn't belong? [2]

Is it wrong? Yes. Is it illegal? No.

Their lawyer is sure to say that no one is stopping you from building your own app and inviting people only you approve of. After all it is a private app.

I could give examples of even more explicit discrimination in daily life that go unchallenged.

One cannot cherry-pick an issue when it suits them and choose to shift it to the back-burner when it doesn't.

Discrimination is rampant, persistent and has become acceptable in all manner of ways - both latent and in plain sight.

It is too important an issue to be fought in piece-meal, from one aggrieved party to another.

We ought to have a much bigger, much more encompassing and thorough discussion of what it means to be discriminated - whether the person is non-Jewish white, Jewish, Asian, Black, Hispanic or the rest.

[1] How to Get Into Harvard

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/06/how-to-...

[2] The League

http://www.theleagueapp.co/

edit: formatting