It is impossible to provide easier admission to college for one race without making it harder for other races. Treating people differently because they are of a certain race is the definition of racism. That part is simple.
Now there are all kinds of arguments about whether letting in lower scoring students of one race are actually beneficial to their race and there are lots of people arguing that if someone was descended from slaves they should be given preferences that exceed what they would get based on their own skill, but it doesn't change the fact that affirmative action is a way to create a type of racism. People can argue that this type of racism is a good thing, but it is still treating people differently based on their race.
Then have a third party verify the student's ranking at how the student performed via local peer group (could be a derivative of their neighborhood, school, county, state, etc).
The local peer group rank calculation could influence the decision without revealing any advantage/disadvantage (perhaps a statistician could discuss the mechanics of how to make this most appropriate)
Example admission summary: Candidate XYZ graduated top 12% from their school, top 10% from their county, and top 24% from their state. Candidate played no sports, but participated in two academic societies, and accumulated 200 hours of volunteer service. The candidate was employed for 3 years before applying for university.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the educational benefits that flow from having a diverse student body can justify using race as one factor among many in a “holistic” evaluation, while rejecting blunt racial quotas or race-based point systems. But what that permits in actual practice by universities — public ones as well as private ones that receive federal funding — is often murky.
It would have also behooved a general audience to be given some history: https://www.britannica.com/event/Bakke-decision
It's not an easy issue.