Exactly.
As soon as I saw the analogy by @EzekielRaiden I knew someone would attack the analogy rather than the point. This is why you avoid analogies unless it is water tight.
Because it's a pillar. You are literally told that this is an important part of play.
And what stops the Wizard from doing the exact same thing?
Who cares? It's a party game. The party faces the pillars, not individuals.
Leaving players completely incapable of contributing to something--beyond the absolute rock bottom literally anyone could do in their place--is bad.
To be fair, the data has always shown that most players don’t optimize. It’s mostly the ones that come on D&D message boards and subreddits that do.
Absolutely. My last wizard had no social ability either. And Charm Person isn’t mind control, it just causes the target to see you as a friendly aquaintence. (I didn’t take it, because it still squicks me out, but still)
But the Wizard does automatically have all these social options. They just can choose not to pick them up, if they aren't interested. The Fighter does not get that choice. It is denied to them. THAT is the issue here.
That's certainly an issue, in itself. Ability checks are limited in what they can do, binary, and with little wiggle room. Under BA, only the most specialized of Experts can make a skill check somewhat reliably that most of their buddies couldn't hope to make. Who 'contributes' with a successful skill check is almost random. It's, what, the Bard & Rogue that get expertise? Really, those two classes, in skills they can afford a high stat in & take expertise in, are the only ones that can point to exceptional skill as a meaningful contribution, and, even then, only at a level where proficiency bonuses get significant. 
