This is just my opinion, there is a group of "professional diversity hires" - usually very well off but with some trendy ethnicity in their background that play it up and use their heritage to further their career. This diversity stuff basically pushes these people to the front of the line.
There are also of course (as a majority) legit people from whatever trendy background that just want to do their job, and see all the fawning over "diversity" either as something to ignore (like most of us do). And then there are a few that choose to engage with it and see it as actively offensive, which it is when you think about it.
So bottom line, my feeling is that the way "diverse" - trendily ethnic or genedered etc people feel about it is about the same as everyone feels about it
I don’t see this as any different to traditional office politics and the self serving “dark triad” personalities you come across. The key component of Machiavellianism is using whatever means you have. That could be in-group status OR out-group status, the result is the same.
The label of “professional diversity hire” is harmful to those in the majority group you identified who aren’t playing that game. So just call it for what it is rather than enabling discrimination with a dog whistle.
There are also of course (as a majority) legit people from whatever trendy background that just want to do their job, and see all the fawning over "diversity" either as something to ignore (like most of us do). And then there are a few that choose to engage with it and see it as actively offensive, which it is when you think about it.
So bottom line, my feeling is that the way "diverse" - trendily ethnic or genedered etc people feel about it is about the same as everyone feels about it