Well, I suppose this is fun at a certain level, because there are assumptions, and conclusions, built upon assumptions.
I'll try to clarify my position.
The back of my Microsoft badge says something about helping everyone on the planet.
Such a mission is as much about emotional intelligence and an ability to be empathetic as it is about actual application of technology.
Let's imagine the very high IQ'd high scoring person, who grew up in a certain environment has the task of creating software for someone in a rural community they know nothing about, and they will not visit. They are very clever, and they'll come up with something.
Now, let's imagine a child who grows up in that rural community. By standard testing methods, they don't have the same level of skills as the high SAT scoring individual, so they never get hired into tech, they're never consulted about what might help the needs of their community. They are in fact intelligent, just didn't go to a very good school, nor had the various opportunities that the high scoring SAT person did, so they're out of the loop.
So, in my mind, if I have a mission to help such people, it seems the best way I could do that would be to incoroporate them into my dev team in some way. That might include providing them with additional educational opportunities they might not have otherwise had. It might be a temporary contracting or consulting role rather than full employment.
It does not mean total exclusion from the creation process, which is what occurs today based on things like a test score, or a college affiliation.
This is the argument of why diversity matters in tech. All the SAT scores, college graduation rates, and the like, are just the pieces we're moving around to justify our reasoning for remaining fairly homogenous in our hiring practices.
At this point, you don't know me, my history, ethnicity, nor accomplishments in tech. The full reveal might be enlightening.