"attack" might be a strong word, but it was definitely a racist comment. Whenever you generalize or predict behavior or outcomes based upon race, you've made a racist comment. Maybe you liked the sound of it. Doesn't really matter, though, does it?

Substitute "black" for "white" and how does your original statement sound?

You're decrying the solutions that those three guys could come up with in part because they're white. Maybe you wanted to say, "ethnically homogenous"?

They were also described as men. Does that make it sexist?

They were also described as privileged. Does that make it class warfare?

The point is obviously that they come from the same, very particular place at the very top of the same hierarchy that's created the world we now live in. Simply because the media has chosen to glamorize those people more than others doesn't mean we should do the same.

Why not throw some equally intelligent and qualified people as Elinor Ostrom or Amartya Sen in there? Aside from the fact that they're probably a bit more left-leaning/sympathetic to the little guy than the three mentioned.

It notes the sex of the decision-makers and implies the quality of results as part of a generalization, so I guess it is sexist.

> They were also described as privileged. Does that make it class warfare?

Warfare? That has a lot of extra meaning. "Classist" would be more clinical.

Words like "racist", "sexist", and "classist" have real definitions and you don't get to apply them only when they support portions of an argument that you happen to agree with.

You explicitly mentioned race. It's racist.

Pointing out the unbalanced composition of a group meant to solve society's problems is not in any way racist. It's a specific application of the general rule that humans have hard time understanding the experiences of people different than themselves, especially when there's privilege involved.