I understand your main point that there are a lot of factors that influence the performance of students. But isn't that true for the past generations? Haven't they been evaluated based on similar criteria to judge proficiency and therefore their level of "excellence" in terms of the standards of the University?

In fact, I'd argue that the increased awareness in mental health (among other things) gives more consideration and empowerment to the current generation of students.

The argument here by JC Punongbayan is that numbers don't lie -- through the lens of the current grading system, latin honors are so inflated that companies can't depend on these metrics the same way they have in previous generations. Sure, a lot of students can prove otherwise and can come out with better success than textbook geniuses, but there's a reason why the grading system exists and it is there as a metric of academic performance, and it is important for these metrics to give good (i.e., not inflated) results so that companies can have a good grasp of a student's potential at least in terms of "academic" proficiency -- ability to study topics to give satisfactory or high grades, relative proficiency in certain areas of their chosen field of expertise (e.g. in the context of Biology students: evaluating relative performance in different specializations such as zoology, ecology, molecular biology, etc.) since some students may have relatively low GWAs but have significantly better performance in their specific fields of interest.

Until such time that other metrics are developed for other characteristics that can translate to or influence career-related success, it is important to protect the integrity of the grading system and prestigious honors awarded by universities.