&gt; I can guarantee that given N number of groups, the chances of the best bridge being build by group 1...N are 100%&#x2F;N.<p>Is that a joke? What&#x27;s important to this conversation is that drawing from the the group ∪{N(x), ∀x} will unquestionably give you the best bridge designs and limiting yourself to some N(i) will tend to give you a worse subset of designs.<p>&gt; I don&#x27;t however think that good ideas have been &#x27;ignored&#x27;.<p>Think what you like, you are simply wrong here as a historical fact and basic logic. The most obvious counterexamples are productive people who, due to discrimination, had their careers ended (e.g. Alan Turing, Jewish scientists killed in the holocaust) but it should be equally obvious that after given access, people from previously excluded groups had valuable contributions that would otherwise have taken longer to discover.  I can&#x27;t believe I have to spell this out...<p>&gt; Even if so, the way the initial argument was presented seems to imply that the bridges cannot stand on it&#x27;s own and needs others to help it... It implies that [unprivileged group] people cannot succeed on their own ideas.<p>You can keep writing that word salad as much as you like, it&#x27;s not true. The fact is good bridge builders from [unprivileged group] were being excluded.  Despite your fantasies to the contrary, you were not living in a meritocracy where [privleged group] earned all the bridge contracts.  You were living in a degenerate system  where [group 1] rigged the system so that [group 2] and [group 3] were unable to win contracts even if their bridges were better.<p>&gt; If you think that is not the case, then I would like you to name at least 2 fields without a prominent [unprivileged group] person with leading theories and ideas. The thing is you cannot.<p>Lol, a ridiculous standard you pulled out of thin air. Discrimination exists, is widespread and has substantial negative effects on our society. Those are real facts that matter.