Would you say the behavior discussed here is symptomatic of a moral hazard that the lack of an official GPA makes possible, or the justified liberty provided by the more progressive and true-to-educational-philosophy nature of the Brown curriculum?
For instance, I know that while the school officially announced through official documents (such as the Brown Grading Policy) that they do not endorse a GPA, the law school advising page and the biomed graduate school admissions advice page both provide guidelines for calculating GPAs where applicable -- such as the 4.0 A, 3.0 B, 2.0 C, and 0.0 for anything below. However the article above suggests that these are only guidelines which students have no obligation whatsoever to follow in applying to jobs or graduate schools.
I think for people who have low grades, this gives them a sort of wiggling room. In general if this low performance was due to experimenting and innovative exploration, then I think this wiggling room is well-deserved and will even result in more innovative and creative people in the workforce. However, one could wonder whether this distinctive feature is a sort of cheating, where the advantage of the blind GPA is poorly deserved even if you take into account the fact that students could learn more from the open curriculum by taking risks?