If blacks are for some reason (and I am not saying they are I do not know) less likely to pay back loans, then that is the problem that needs addressing. It might be a little painful to admit the huge racial divide but it is real and that is a problem we need to solve, taking the easy way out lying to ourselves only harms society in the long run and destroys the lives of people who cannot pay back the loans and end up in a huge debt cycle very difficult to get out of.
Maybe someone is objectively less likely to pay back their loans, less likely to succeed in school and more likely to be arrested for a crime, but when those predictions end up forcing them to live in a worse neighborhood because they can't qualify for a loan in the better one, go to a worse school because they aren't expected to succeed in the better one and live with a higher police presence because they're more likely to be arrested, maybe those predictions aren't just predicting worse outcomes but are actually reinforcing them.
If there's a systematic financial disadvantage experienced by black people, possibly as a result of racism, then continuing to financially disenfranchise them will hardly help, will it? Access to liquid capital is pretty critical if you want to make money, isn't it?
Judgement is notoriously self-fulfilling. The best way to keep someone poor is to treat them like a poor person. The best way to drive someone to crime is to treat them like a criminal. The best way to keep someone ignorant is to treat them like an idiot.
Sometimes I do wonder if people who present the argument you just presented realize that that is exactly how we've been doing things, and it just keep making the problem bigger.
Maybe I'm too much of a romantic, but I still harbor hope at some point they will realize it and begin to contemplate trying something different.
Nobody is arguing against fairly assessing an individual person's ability to pay off a loan - the issue at question is whether it's okay to use race as a statistical proxy for that.
They could start by not making the problem worse giving loans to people who can't pay them back.
Let's take a similar case: kill switches on cars. As you may know, not too long ago industry innovated a feature that allows remote disabling of a parked vehicle. This feature was used as an assurance of reposession and payment by automotive financing. They just stop the car from working on late payment. The result: lots of people who were previously unable to access automotive financing now could. This was a very good thing for everyone!
Do we want a society where it is okay to charge red heads more for car insurance because they are red heads? Why should people have to bear the sins of others who happen to look like them?
[0]And isn't intrinsic, e.g. people with big feet might pay more for shoes, but not for mortgages.
If some groups wants to charge redheads more, it's their choice. If someone else sees that as a market inefficiency, they can start their own shop where they don't do that. Who cares if you or I think it's "fair"?
Edit: My original point was, the more nuanced we can be about whom we decide to give credit to, which these sorts of techniques provide, the less someone will find themselves lumped into a group in which they don't belong, and the more deserving people will have access to credit.