No, that's not what they said.

The ruling rejects the use of racial categories as stand-ins for individual access to opportunity. p. 32: "“[O]utright racial balancing” is “patently unconstitutional.” Fisher I, 570 U.S., at 311 (internal quotation marks omitted). That is so, we have repeatedly explained, because “[a]t the heart of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the Government must treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual or national class.” Miller, 515 U.S."

On p. 39, the decision clarifies that awareness of variations in individual opportunity on the basis of race is explicitly still in bounds: "At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise."

Furthermore, the case wasn't about the government providing access to opportunity, but rather whether Harvard and UNC were violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The ruling details, in considerable detail, the ways in which the Grutter decision said, basically, "Yes, you are violating these fundamental principles and laws, but we grant you a narrow exception to try to temporarily redress past harms since this is consistent with the intent of the law", and that Harvard and UNC were well outside those narrow bounds.

But you personally don't want to stay anywhere near those bounds anyway ("it needs to spend many centuries making up for the opportunities it stole").

Your quarrel is primarily not with the Supreme Court, but with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, and with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

It is informative to read the ruling: https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rlp5tBXPakN0/v0

It's informative to read the dissents (at the end of the linked document) by Sotomayor and Jackson. Sotomayor especially points out the potentially substantial benefits to society of admission based on race rather than academic merit (e.g. graduates of UNC are highly likely to go on to be involved in law or politics in North Carolina, and in both of these areas, the expectation that diversity that better reflects the population's diversity will yield superior outcomes is more supportable than the idea that you need population-matching diversity in, say, structural engineering). Unfortunately, the court does not really have broad latitude to decide how to yield superior outcomes: that is the role of the legislature, not the judiciary. As an ancillary factor arguing that one should leave affirmative action well enough alone, it is meritorious; as general marching orders, it's an overreach.

What they miss, however, in their extensive (and correct) explanation of the continued racial disparities present in the United States, is that every bit of that is available for Harvard or UNC to use as part of their admissions criteria. Do you observe that the net wealth of black families is shockingly lower than that of white families? Fine! Nothing is stopping the adoption of a structurally antiracist policy by UNC and Harvard that favors or otherwise has programs for increasing the number of low-net-wealth applicants. Poor schools? Nothing stopping them from correcting for that! By their very nature, the metrics one uses to assess lack of opportunity are metrics that the universities can also use. Thus, where the Justices argue, as you do, that it is a necessary remedy for lost opportunity, they fail to make the case because they don't argue compellingly that lost opportunity is something inaccessible to university admissions officers save through race. Instead, they offer metrics of lack of opportunity and say: look, these show that black students are lacking opportunity.

I don't know the situation with UNC, but Harvard at least explicitly argued that they can't use lack-of-opportunity-based metrics and meet their racial targets without sacrificing academic excellence. Harvard was effectively arguing that they value racial diversity but that they do not value in general giving opportunities to people who might have faced some disadvantages. But the legal justification for affirmative action is entirely based in actual disadvantages!

So your opportunity take is misguided: the court ruling still allows it but the universities (Harvard at least) don't want to be burdened with supplying it.

And your spend-many-centuries-making-up-for-it point is radically at odds with both the 14th Amendment and Title VI and affirmative-action-favoring court precedent.

There is an argument to make that rather than taking Harvard and UNC's complete inattention to an end-game for affirmative action as a signal to decide that the end-game was now, that the court could have instead ruled that the principle of equal treatment required a longer period of remediation than the court had foreseen in the Grutter decision. You could make that argument. Sotomayor comes close to making it.

If you want to effectively argue against the court ruling, you need to get into the details more than you do here, and understand that your personal ideals do not reflect the laws that the court is bound to rule from. It's perfectly reasonable to advocate for new legislation, but it's a good idea to know when you should want legislation and when you should want courts to rule wisely, because without knowing this it's hard to apportion one's effort appropriately.

In particular, if you actually believe that, in Justice Sotomayor's words, "Equal educational opportunity is a prerequisite to achieving racial equality in our Nation," then the reality that Harvard's entering black students are at least a full standard deviation lower than the rest of the class (because of their racially-aware entrance requirements), the take-home message shouldn't be what a good job Harvard is doing but rather how badly we're doing to prepare black students for elite universities.

That we still arguably need university-level affirmative action is a horrible condemnation of our inattention to giving equal educational opportunity to students in primary and secondary school. This neglect leaves students with what you could consider a life-long educational injury. Far better than the band-aid of admission to a higher-ranking institution--which does nothing for the students who fail to meet even the lowest bar of quality due to their poor opportunities--would be to invest far more in fixing this problem.

Far better than a more liberal Supreme Court, far better than legislation clearly and explicitly legalizing discrimination for the purposes of antiracism, would be to actually tackle this problem in a serious way. People would be helped more, and the other stuff would be needed less or not at all.