In the long run, assuming we actually do this diligently for now? No, it's a medium-term measure--after it mostly works, there's nothing left to do.

The problem is that inequality can set up self-perpetuating or very very slowly-resolving inequities, which is both unfair to the affected group and bad for everyone in society.

If you use inequity as a flag for problem areas but establish policies that are blind to everything but individual need, you have a decent shot at overcoming the inequality-induced inequity, because presumably that situation, even if quasi-stable, isn't really the natural way for society to work: give people a path to something better and, presumably, they'll tend to take it. For example, the school funding model is pretty awful in the U.S.--rich neighborhoods get the best-funded schools, which (even though the U.S. is also really bad at turning dollars into educated students) means that the haves get better chances to do well than the have-nots. Because of historical inequality, there is a really large disparity in have-nots, but fixing the school funding situation can reduce that disparity perpetuating.

But once we have sensible policies in place, and society has time to resettle into a new mode, there may very well be residual inequities, and that should be fine. Because we were only ever using inequity to target our attention to how to build a universally fair society...if it's fair and people freely make different choices, and we can measure that...well...that's up to them. So if it works, it's self-extinguishing, at least in terms of whether it's "anti-racist" or not--and there could still be individual racism at that point; there just wouldn't be a relevant amount of structural racism.