The presentation of these statistics is misleading and reads like a common case of "find some numbers to support this great narrative I want to write." Comparing total college-age population with final enrollment assumes that all groups apply to these universities in equal proportion, and that all races/cultures hold the same assumptions about the value of a university education for prosperity/success/happiness. The narrative seems to suggest that university is the primary means to wealth and advancement, thus if blacks and Hispanics are under-represented, they are necessarily disproportionately under-privileged.

If the goal is to evaluate possible university-driven under-representation, an honest statistic would be comparing application rates to acceptance rates per race. Or if the objective is measuring social mobility, examining the percentage of college-age persons attending technical schools, working as skilled labor, earning a certain percentage above the poverty line (or a reasonable percentage of median household income), or attending university, would reveal differing career choices while also showing which percentage of each race falls outside of a normal path to upward mobility.

Maybe I am cynical, but I think white over-representation has more to do with economic disparity, which results in cultural disparity between rungs of the economic ladder, such that upper-middle class society (within which whites are over-represented) overvalues university as the de facto path to prosperity and success. But even among whites, there are still a lot of first-generation university students. This is not driven by race, but by socioeconomics - parents who worked blue collar jobs without an education, earned their way into middle/upper-middle class circles, which then inculcated either their children, them, or both with the expectation of university attendance. Measuring those realities, their causes and effects, is where real solutions to these disparities will be sought.