This is consistent with some of my experiences in a university setting. We had an applicant one year who complained (in a semi-formal grievance sense) that, when asked, the department didn't have sufficient numbers of formal administrative committees and roles assigned, programs, and so forth, to address diversity issues. What happened was they asked faculty questions along the lines of "what are you doing to address diversity issues in the department" and when the faculty couldn't point to formal administrative diversity positions and programs, concluded that we must not be doing anything. This led to a sort of penitential panic. The irony is that the most scathing complaints were leveled at the one faculty member in the department who probably did more to address diversity issues professionally in their career than anyone else, as it was a sort of research focus of theirs. The complaints weren't about inappropriate comments, it was about this faculty trying to address the question by way of reference to all the informal (but real) activities and practices going on.

It was one in a long string of "jumping the shark" moments for me, as it became clear that, even in a department full of people who were deeply and genuinely concerned about diversity issues, it didn't really matter what was actually done. What mattered were the formal legalistic trappings of it.

These types of formal programs can really backfire as well. I can recall another instance where the college had a sort of endowed faculty line aimed solely at minority hires. The irony was that this had the effect of attracting the most psychopathic elements in the programs, who publicly advocated hiring faculty under this mechanism in a sort of "pump and dump" scheme. That is, the line was in a certain area of research, which certain faculty had made it clear for years they believed was unworthy of hiring in. However, they were happy to advocate hiring using these diversity funds as a way of bringing money into the department, solely as a financial input, with the implication that it didn't really matter what happened to the faculty being hired. So in this sadly ironic way, this line, which was meant to bring in minority hires, ended up hurting minorities, by luring them into positions where they were almost certainly never going to get tenure, just by virtue of the politics of the research area in that program.

To be clear, I'm not actually advocating against diversity programs or officers per se, as I've seen these offices intervene in situations where it was desperately needed. It's almost like the current approaches I've seen have had the effect of creating as many problems as they solved, canceling everything out. It probably mirrors some of what goes on, where the same people aggressively advocating for addressing prejudice with regard to one characteristic can be some of the most bigoted prejudiced people with regard to another characteristic. Or people will change their tunes on diversity issues to suit their financial benefit.