The Buddha Practiced Diversity and Inclusion
I do, too, and let's clarify them [text of this post edited on 3/21/25]
[First published March 19, 2025]
When I awoke this morning to a report that yet another institution—a major hospital in New York City—was considering removing words like “diversity” and “inclusion” from its website, I decided to write this post. The hospital’s wording changes, if carried out, would, of course, be to avoid displeasing the Trump Administration and risk losing funding and being investigated.
Diversity and inclusion are spiritual issues for me, so it’s time to speak out about them. Equity is more nuanced, and it, too, needs to be addressed spiritually. Wrapping diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) into one bundle has had disastrous results because it’s not one thing, and each of the three words means different things to different people.
Before I return to the example set by the Buddha and how I think his teachings apply today, here are some actions that have been taken in the 58 days since the Trump inauguration:
Companies:
Amazon: Removed references to "inclusion” from its 2024 annual report filed with the SEC and scaled back DEI language on its website.
Alphabet (Google): Removed DEI references from its annual report.
Meta (Facebook parent company): Eliminated its internal DEI team, ended diverse-slate hiring practices, and removed commitments to diverse hiring and training.
Disney: Shifted away from "diversity and inclusion," focusing instead on "talent strategy," removed advisory messages related to negative cultural depictions in films, and scrapped its "Reimagine Tomorrow" program aimed at uplifting underrepresented communities.
Walmart: Phased out LGBTQ+ merchandise.
Educational Institutions:
Ohio State University: Closed its Office of Diversity and Inclusion and renamed the Office of Institutional Equity as the Office of Civil Rights Compliance.
Northwestern University: Renamed medical school's Office of Diversity and Inclusion to Office of Health Equity.
University of Kansas: Closed offices explicitly named for multicultural affairs, sexuality/gender diversity, and women/gender equity.
Government Agencies:
NASA: Ended DEI programs and removed certain words related to DEI from its website.
U.S. Department of Education: Eliminated references to DEI in public-facing communication channels; dissolved Diversity & Inclusion Council.
Now, let’s dive into diversity, inclusion, and equity or equality.
Diversity
During the Buddha’s 45 years of teaching, he wandered by foot over an area estimated to be as large as today’s country of Cambodia. The concept of race as a way to categorize humans didn’t begin to appear for more than another 2,000 years, but the Buddha’s travels led him to various ethnic groups in societies that were rigidly stratified by inherited class and gender distinctions.
He believed that all sentient beings possess what we now call Buddha Nature and have an equal opportunity to awaken to it, achieve enlightenment, and end their suffering. He taught everyone in the language and with examples appropriate to each. He believed that nobility is determined not by birth but by one’s commitment to transcending the attachment to transitory pleasures to find lasting fulfillment. He refused to speak the language of the Brahmin class.
The Buddha ordained people from the very lowest class who became equal members of his monastic communities, which were run in largely democratic ways. He ordained women and established communities for them. The Buddha clearly practiced diversity. [Edited 3/21/25 to distinguish practice from belief.]
The concept of race as a biological classification system didn’t appear until the 16th to 18th centuries. It was emphasized to justify slavery and to separate African slaves from their white counterparts and white sharecroppers. Today, anthropologists and geneticists widely recognize race as a social construct rather than a biologically valid category. Genetic research has demonstrated that human genetic variation is predominantly within rather than between populations traditionally labeled as races.
Nevertheless, both sides of the DEI polarity keep the social fiction of race alive by clinging to it and making it the centerpiece in diversity discussions. I can’t speak for the Buddha, of course, but my preference is to take diversity of class, education, income level, and ethnicity at least as seriously as we do that of race. I do my best to treat everyone in the same way, as the Buddha did.
Inclusion
In the Buddha’s monastic communities, during a strongly paternalistic era of history, he separated men from women, but in their respective communities, each had an equal say in those matters that were up for debate and an equal opportunity to speak.
In the modern world, institutions of all sorts benefit when members are exposed to a range of backgrounds, worldviews, and opinions.
Equity or Equality
We might quibble over some aspects of diversity and inclusion, but I think most of us—despite arguments over the monolith of DEI—agree that those are values worth paying attention to. I see them as spiritual, moral, and ethical imperatives, as well as societal goods.
Then, we get to the two E’s and draw a newly invented distinction between them. To keep things simple and clear, I prefer “equality of opportunity” and “equality of outcome.”
The Buddha believed that all humans have an equal opportunity for enlightenment. He treated and taught all equally, but he called “noble” those who were committed to transcending transitory phenomena—like the monks and laypersons who “got” his teachings—and the people he called “ordinary beings.”
The Buddha’s most capable students—including some women—got leadership roles in the community. He didn’t rotate leadership positions so that everyone got equal time as a leader.
In the modern world, income and wealth are widely imbalanced. It’s absurd when a corporate CEO makes $4.8 million a year, and the long-serving janitor who cleans the CEO’s office makes $48,000. I wish our economy made that differential less steep. But that doesn’t mean we should wave a magic wand and pay each $2.42 million a year. It also doesn’t mean they should take turns running the company.
True equality of opportunity is the only solution I can see. How to make opportunity equal for all is what we should be discussing.
Forgive me if you feel I’ve strayed too far into the political and social realm, but I needed to say these things, which are spiritual values to me. I oppose Trump’s use of a figurative bulldozer to overreach and suppress speech, but I needed to make the case that DEI should be replaced by diversity, inclusion, and equality of opportunity (DIEO).
Mel’s book, The New Middle Way: A Buddhist Path Between Secular and Ossified - Enlightenment for Regular Folks, is available from Amazon and Audible. The Kindle edition is now just $2.99.
Subscribe to Mel’s Awakening for Regular Folks newsletter and receive six guided meditations.
From the Pure Land has thousands of readers and subscribers in 38 U.S. states and 30 countries, and the podcast has thousands of listeners in 81 countries.
Share this post with a friend.
I'm not as versed in the Buddha's life and teachings as you seem to be, Mel, but I wonder if what you say here reflects the Buddha's belief in diversity (as a virtue in itself), or whether these are more examples of his belief in equality (of opportunity):
"He believed that nobility is determined not by birth but by one’s commitment to transcending the attachment to transitory pleasures to find lasting fulfillment .... The Buddha ordained people from the very lowest class who became equal members of his monastic communities, which were run in largely democratic ways. He ordained women and established communities for them. The Buddha clearly believed in diversity."
I think I am hung up on whether "believed in" means that he effected diversity as a byproduct of his belief in equality, or that he promoted diversity as a virtue unto itself (which would seem to place it in a similar camp as equity). It makes me think of the distinction (if there is one) between being "not racist" and being "anti-racist", the former implying (at least to some) a more passive attitude or approach than the latter.