That said, such laws intend to replace free choice of association with government-mandated social engineering to produce an outcome where the "correct" proportion of people in each neighborhood/school/etc. have certain superficial facial characteristics.
Specifically: People who write, support, and sue for these laws want to place black people into settings where there apparently aren't "enough" black people.
Why? In education, the values, study habits, and intelligence of white students is supposed to somehow be transmitted to black students who are presumed to be otherwise incapable of achieving "white" levels.
Now, almost universally, white people resist the imposition of these initiatives. And for that, they are called any number of nasty things: Elitist, racist, redneck, etc. But if that is so, then why would anyone want such repellent values transmitted to black students?
Answer: Maybe they don't want those values transmitted.
But then what does integration accomplish? Well, we know that it angers a lot of white people, so perhaps that is the "accomplishment". That is, the laws punish white people who do not live (or send their kids to school with) enough black people.
Living with people similar to yourself is a crime? How so?
Everyone lives with "their own", however they define that term. Just look at any demographic map for confirmation. "Diversity" is temporary, and lasts as long as it takes for demographic shifts to be complete.
Which means that everyone is guilty. But punishment is selective, and is politically based.
That is: Integration laws are unlawful.
And immoral.
And ineffective (at least insofar as achieving their ostensible goals).
Which brings us back to the original question: What is their point? Probably some combination of moral outrage, granting political favors, and good old bullying...because they can.
