Yes it is a "racist" statement. That is NOT because it is intended to harm or insult, or because it argues for a certain social hierarchy. A statement or sentiment can be "racist" without doing any of those things.
It IS "racist" because it does two things, either of which would be sufficient to qualify as "racist": 1) It presumes that the idea of "race" provides a USEFUL way of dividing humans into subgroups that is based on their exterior appearance. 2) It subordinates one such group to any other such group.
The idea of "race" originated simply as a MORAL distinction between ANY "us" and "them". It appears in the earliest samples of writing from several widely-scattered parts of the world - where it is always used to describe a "them" WHOSE EXTERIOR APPEARANCE was the SAME as the "us" who did the writing. So originally it didn't refer to skin colour, hair texture, facial features, etc. "Race" is actually an artificial distinction between "those of US who it is taboo to kill or rob" and "those of THEM who it is allowed to kill or rob"...a MORAL distinction, not a physical one.
Many of us believe that "race" is NOT JUST a moral distinction or one purely about appearance, but rather that "race" is a biological/psychological distinction, or even a divine one. THAT BELIEF, structurally-speaking, is "race-ism". (This isn't an epithet - it is a philosophy.) The computer printout reflects that belief. It ALSO introduces the distinction of superior/inferior - a distinction that would be pointlessly subjective, in the absence of the biological/divine concept of race. (It would be like saying "blond hair is better" - a subjective opinion or taste.) THAT dependence upon the biological/divine concept of race makes that subordination inherently "racist", as well.
Thank you for that very well-thought-out question.