You’ve lost me on this one. In this case, “integrated” is used because it is the antonym of “segregated”. It doesn’t erase the history of segregation, it repudiates segregation in a way that simpler (and perhaps newer & more popular) terms like “mixed” or “diverse” do not.

the term “integration” can also imply a form of assimilation, where black individuals are pressured to conform to white norms

I do agree with that. If one were to use “integrated” in the wrong context, it could imply the old colonial idea of cultural assimilation. In this specific context, though – as a refutation of “segregated” – there’s no risk of invoking the wrong connotation.