Let's discuss this
Does it unfairly benefit some over others?
Or is it a great way towards more diversity?

I understand why some people believe it is necessary, and I also understand why some people believe it is not necessary. As a white male, I'm obviously not benefiting from it. That said, I support it as a marginal factor in admissions and employment.

On the one hand, things like hiring people should solely be based on their skills and how capable they are of doing their job, and with affirmative action you may reject one person that's a better fit just because you have to hire a woman or a black person instead.

HOWEVER!! We cannot trust that they hire the best person because white men will always be more attractive in the job market, so we have to use affirmative action to get a better diversity, because it's not going to happen organically.

It is needed to help even the playing field and increase diversity in the job market.

For me it depends, not all inequality is down to discrimination so I am not sure if it is always the right thing to do but I can understand why it is done in certain fields (like politics for example).

It will only not be necessary when racism doesn't exist.

I get what you're saying. Look at college admissions, specifically, though. Is it okay for schools to use geographic location as a factor, to pull in students from underrepresented areas? Many would say yes, because some areas (like rural schools or inner-city schools) don't give students as much access to opportunity as other, more affluent suburbs and towns. Going with that thought, if geographic location is fair game as a factor (something one can't really choose that easily), then race is equally fair to bring in different groups and perspectives.

Educate me this sounds more fair tbh, didn't know that.

Imagine it for Asians
I've read that Asians need 400 points higher on the SAT to be equivalent to a black person
So I guess that means if an Asian gets 2200, it is equivalent to an 1800 for blacks

But I don't know if it's true

I think it's different though. Lets say you're taking two people of different races from the same location with very similar qualifications, race shouldn't be one of the determining factors of who gets in/who doesn't, imo.

I believe in the goal of a colorblind society, so I would like to see it go away eventually.

I think that admissions should provide benefits based on financial need. Not race or gender.

You're right in mind, but specific racial quotas were ruled unconstitutional in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.

And that's just it. I see race similarly to geographic location in that they're both categorically unalterable. That is, the applicant can't change that factor. Gender, age, and family income (although most reputable admissions are need-blind) are all similar. Therefore, I believe they can all be put on the same table. If you're gonna use any of them, you can use all of them.

I'm sure there are implicit quotas, whether they say they exist or not.
If, based just on merit, whites and Asians made up 90% of the student body, many groups would probably attack universities for racism.