The argument seems self-defeating: let's accept at face value Kendi's claim (following the teacher of the course) that students taking the course can expect a 200 point advantage, on average, over those not taking the course, then an average black student taking the course would gain a 200 point advantage compared to an average white student. That doesn't mean the testing is racist (in fact, if true, it would mean the testing is not racist), it means it favours the relatively wealthy. That's an injustice, and a flaw in the testing process, but it's not about racism, but about family wealth.
Of course, there are historical reasons for why the average black family is not as wealthy as an average white one, but the testing is not it - i.e. a poor white family is just as disadvantaged as a poor black family, according to the test - and Kendi was not so disadvantaged, by his own account.
>Of course, there are historical reasons for why the average black family is not as wealthy as an average white one
From what I have been able to understand of writers like Kendi (see also e.g. Robin diAngelo), this statistical fact is itself, inherently, considered to be an example of "racism" (hence terms like "systemic" or "institutional" racism); and the ensuing (supposed) bias of the test towards the wealthy, another one (simply because it is ensuing).
Of course, there are historical reasons for why the average black family is not as wealthy as an average white one, but the testing is not it - i.e. a poor white family is just as disadvantaged as a poor black family, according to the test - and Kendi was not so disadvantaged, by his own account.