In recent months, the concept of diversity has been demonized by the Trump regime to the point where businesses and institutions that had made a practice of offering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) trainings are jettisoning them. Individuals are feeling empowered to trash DEI as a “woke” concept. Yet from a Buddhist perspective, the path and the practice is all about waking up. In fact, the root of the Pali word budh can be translated “to wake up,” “to be aware,” “to awaken.” How can it be a bad thing to be aware?
Because diversity has become such a hot potato is exactly why I feel compelled to share with you a framework introduced to me many years ago—and one I’ve found extremely useful. Although it doesn’t come from a Buddhist context, I recognized values and assumptions in it that I consider Dharma-based. I’ll be interested to hear if you do as well.
The “Unlearning Racism” framework was developed in the 1980s by a white Jewish woman, Erica Sherover-Marcuse, also known as Ricky, who died from cancer in 1988, aged 49. I was introduced to the framework as a graduate student at the California Institute of Integral Studies in the 1990s. For me, the model was transformative in how I understand diversity and what it means to be an ally.
I want to share some of the teachings from Unlearning Racism here for a few reasons. One is that we’re living in a time when we can greatly benefit from tools that help us articulate a wholesome model of diversity and ally-ship. Another is that it is becoming harder to find Ricky’s work online, and I fear that at some point it may disappear completely, given the current socio-political climate. A third is that, as mentioned before, there are ways in which her model lines up with some fundamental Buddhist teachings, although I doubt that she had Buddhism as a reference when she put it together.
One of the greatest misunderstandings about diversity work is that it relies on (or provokes) the guilt and shame of white folks. When people denigrate “woke-ness,” I think it’s coming from that assumption. That seems to be the impetus for the Trump regime’s all-out war on cultural institutions such as the Smithsonian museums—which includes the Museum of African American History and the Museum of the American Indian—and its attempt to wipe out all mention of anything perceived as negative to the settler colonialism project and white supremacy.
The beauty of Ricky’s Unlearning Racism, as I understand it, is that it doesn’t originate from a place of guilt or shame, and yet it unapologetically posits diversity as an asset to humanity. Ricky described the model using the format of numbered lists, some of which are “Working Definition of Racism,” “Working Assumptions and Guidelines for Alliance-Building,” and “Liberation Theory: A Working Framework.” The frequent use of the words “working” and “assumptions” tells you that this was a work in progress. Ricky was always looking to learn from the practical experience of presenting this material to students and watching for impact and points of confusion.
The first three assumptions of her “Liberation Theory: A Working Framework” is a good starting point:
1. Liberation is both the undoing of the effects and the elimination of the causes of social oppression. The achievement of human liberation on a global scale will require far-reaching changes at the institutional level and at the level of group and individual interactions. These changes will involve transforming oppressive behavioral patterns and “unlearning” oppressive attitudes and assumptions.
2. No one is naturally or genetically oppressive; no human being is born as an oppressor. No one is naturally or genetically destined to be oppressed; no one is born to be oppressed.
3. Oppression is the systematic and pervasive mistreatment of individuals on the basis of their membership in various groups, which are disadvantaged by the institutionalized imbalances in social power in a particular society. Oppression includes both institutionalized or “normalized” mistreatment as well as instances of violence. It includes the invalidation, denial, or the non-recognition of the complete humanness (the goodness, uniqueness, smartness, powerfulness, etc.) of those who are members of the mistreated group. (Films for Action)
What I love about this list is how it echoes what I have come to understand as some of the core tenets of Buddhism: liberation from suffering is possible and there is a path that will lead us toward that liberation; everyone has buddha-nature, no one is inherently “evil;” we are always existing in a complex web of causes and conditions, a web of interdependence.
Ricky goes into more detail in other lists. In one, titled “Towards A Perspective on Eliminating Racism: 12 Working Assumptions,” she begins here:
1. The systematic mistreatment of any group of people isolates and divides human beings from each other. This practice is a hurt to all people. The division and isolation produced by racism is a hurt to people from all ethnic groups.
2. Racism is not a genetic disease. No human being is born with racist attitudes and beliefs. Physical and cultural differences between people are not the cause of racism; these differences are used as the excuse to justify racism. (Analogy with sexism: anatomical differences between human males and females are not the cause of sexism; these differences are used to justify the mistreatment of females of all ages.)
3. No young person acquires misinformation by their own free choice. Racist attitudes and beliefs are a mixture of misinformation and ignorance which is imposed upon young people through a painful process of social conditioning. “You have to be taught to hate and fear.” (Internet Archive)
There is much more to Ricky’s model, and I’ve included links at the end of this article if you would like to learn more. The original website that gathered her writings is no longer available, but thanks to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine it’s possible to read the archived version.
What made this such a powerful experience was learning these concepts through experiential exercises over a semester-long course. These exercises were always offered in the context of respect and deep listening, essential ingredients for transformative learning. I learned how privilege did not make me or anyone else a “bad” person, yet could be used as a kind of mindfulness bell to indicate where power imbalances are built into social structures and look more deeply into them. Yes, I felt uncomfortable as these truths, so often hidden, became unveiled. But I was never made to feel that I should be ashamed of this. I was encouraged to appreciate the cultural richness of my Slovenian and German ethnic background at the same time that I learned how the construction of whiteness served colonial powers and those with the most financial resources.
The Unlearning Racism framework is multilayered; what has come to be called intersectionality. Although Ricky focused on the dynamic of racism, she repeatedly described how racism co-exists with other dimensions of institutionalized oppression, including sexism, classism, and ableism. The language that she and her colleagues developed includes “targeted” and “non-targeted” groups, and recognizes that we are positioned in multiple places along that spectrum. For example, I benefit from the privileges that go along with being a white, middle-class person at the same time that I experience the oppression that goes with being a member of other mistreated and targeted groups: being a woman and being queer. Understanding these multiple positions can help us develop empathy for those in another targeted group. Although I can never fully comprehend what it might be like to be a person of color in this society, I can draw on what I am learning about my experience as a queer woman to sense some of the ways that oppression and marginalization impacts all of us.
If you take anything away from this very brief exploration of Unlearning Racism, I hope it is this: that diversity, equity, and inclusion work is bodhisattva work. It’s about supporting all beings, including ourselves, to cross over the river of samsaric suffering—in this case the suffering that comes from institutionalized forms of oppression—into liberation. A key point is that the bodhisattva is not a savior. This work is based on the fundamental assumption that we are interdependent. It is not done out of guilt, but rather from knowing that we free ourselves along with other beings.
I’ll end with one of the working assumptions from Unlearning Racism that I find the most moving and hope-giving. This one comes at the very end of the “Liberation Theory” list:
16. Liberation is possible. It is possible to recover the buried memories of our socialization, to share our stories and heal the hurts imposed by the conditioning, to act in the present in a humane and caring manner, to rebuild our human connections and to change our world. (Internet Archive)
See more
Liberation for All: How We Can Talk Differently about Power and Privilege (The Fearless Heart)
Unlearning Racism (Internet Archive)
Erica Sherover-Marcuse (1938-1988) (Herbert Marcuse)
New Bridges 1989 (YouTube)
Related features from BDG
Many Communities, One Sangha
Buddhistdoor View: Envisioning the Future of Localized Buddhism in Africa
For Our Children’s Sake: Dismantling Racism and Bias in Schools
Toward Liberation: Dismantling Racism and Bias in the Sangha
The Tangles
Buddhistdoor View: Learning from Race Issues in the United States
I’m not American, but it’s extremely sad to see how Budhism is being politicised and misused in North America. As an external observer it seems to me that certain political groups in US, particularly the left wing ones feel that Buddhism is their property and they can do anything with it.
You pay too much attention to differences and emphasize the negative aspects of it too much, I also have noticed how certain supposed “Buddhist” groups spread wrong notions about compassion, something which ends up resembling permissiveness and moral decadence.
The way you articulate your ideas and intentions will keep people away, it will provoke a negative reaction on them and the worse of all, it will end up keeping people away from Buddhism as well. When Dharma is well taught and well lived, compassion will arise naturally and people wil be inspired by example, consequently, attitudes such as racism will diminish, you focus too much on duality and you also have a distorted idea of how people should live their lives.
Do you really think that the Western-European way of life is the best way and everyone should adopt your ideals and standard of living (It seems to me that certains organizations such as the UN think so)? It’s expansive and destructive, we have 8 billion people living in this world, we do not have enough resources for each one of them to live up to your idealistic standard of life.
Compassion is also present in rules, laws, regulations and even in hierarchies, things that many people in the West seems to have little or no consideration for.
It really shocks me to see that just because some people have a degree or diploma from certain ” educational institutions” they think of themselves as superior and that their ideas should be accepted and implemented.
The point of view presented by the author and many others sounds like Christianism, it’s not Buddhism.
Hello Karma,
Thank you for reading and for your interesting comment.
I wrote this article in the spirit of sharing a perspective and experience with others — nothing in it was intended to be positioned as “superior” to others. I find this framework very helpful, and I don’t assume that it should be universally accepted and implemented. As an American, I would guess there are ways that systemic oppression manifests here that are quite different than other places. I offer it here as an invitation to consider these issues and make the links that I saw between this framework and Buddhadharma. Your mileage may vary.
You write, “When Dharma is well taught and well lived, compassion will arise naturally and people wil [sic] be inspired by example, consequently, attitudes such as racism will diminish, you focus too much on duality and you also have a distorted idea of how people should live their lives,” which seems to be an argument against socially engaged Buddhism. Yet the Buddha himself ventured into political waters by rejecting the caste system and welcoming Dalits into his monastic order. Buddhist teachers, nuns, and monks from non-Western countries have long practiced socially engaged Buddhism, like Dr. Ambedkar, Maha Ghosananda, A. T. Ariyaratne, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sister Chan Khong, HH the Dalai Lama, Sulak Sivaraksa, and more.
Again referring back to the framework I shared here, racism is more than an “attitude,” though that’s part of it. It’s built into the systems we all live in — government, medical, education, financial, and more. While it would be wonderful if Buddhist and other spiritual practices “well taught and well lived” could diminish those dynamics, it’s not the case. Even Buddhist teachings posit that two wings of practice are necessary: compassion and insight. Socially engaged Buddhists extend that compassion and insight into action, which should be grounded in Right View. If I have somehow presented this without Right View, I am open to hearing exactly where I’ve missed the mark. I don’t believe that pointing out injustices that exist and that are a source of suffering for so many people is, in and of itself, outside of Right View.