Hello all,
Thanks for raising this and sharing your experience openly and publicly, Bhante. I want to join Ann in thanking you for being such a strong advocate inside and outside of academic spaces. Being inclusive of monastic scholars in academia is something I care about, and I’m glad you also mentioned that exclusionary dynamic in this odd situation.
As Ann mentioned, DEI is an explicit value of the American Academy of Religion (flagship professional org for Religious Studies in North America) and the Buddhist Studies Unit of the AAR in particular. Just to provide context, the Buddhism Unit is one of the major venues for Buddhist Studies scholars to gather and share research within North America. It also draws a lot of international scholars. It is a very important place for discussions within the field about new methodologies and research ethics. (It is also, I suspect, sometimes the object of casual contempt from some more conservative and philologically inclined scholars in the field).
As a current co-chair of the AAR Buddhism Unit, I can vouch for Ann’s observation that the AAR Buddhism Unit is extremely mindful of being inclusive across many vectors of diversity–gender, race, ethnicity, institutional affiliation, stage in career. We keep tabs and record statistics. It is an intentional value of, again, what is widely held to be a central and important venue for the field, not something unusual or questionable. Our evaluation process is such that an initial evaluation is totally blind, but when it comes to shaping the Buddhism Unit program for the conference, we can and do take steps to promote diversity and inclusivity. Expertise or innovation or importance on the one hand and diversity/inclusivity on the other are totally compatible aspirations, in my experience.
A quick tangent: one of the things that really upsets me about the quality of DEI efforts (in my company and others) is they’re often a box checked and a case closed, leaving the individual to fend for themselves (while the company pats themselves on the back for a job well done). So, not only did the company fail to develop the workforce fairly in the years before DEI, they continue to come up short now in the ways that truly matter. In my industry, you have women and people of color in the field, union members with 30+ years of experience in the trade/craft who should have been developed into managerial positions long ago, but for a number of reasons, were not. Now, you have younger, college educated diversity hires, who - in some cases - the company just tosses into roles they’re unqualified for, and fails miserably to develop and support them. It’s awful. Yeah, the company does not retaliate for less than adequate job performance in these cases, but these individuals do suffer when it comes to reputation, which is everything. This is not the case across the board, but simply checking that box does not imply success for the individual or their team. Without support, it can be a very unfortunate outcome. And the band played on…
So, when it comes to a panel, I’m sure a comparable outcome is likely when the organizers are doing it just to check a box, which could amount to an unsupportive environment for some participants. Who knows…there might be some cases where it is even more hostile when the effort was made reluctantly. I don’t know.
I’ve always been a kind antagonist during trainings and workshops, so I take any opportunity to make sure the company is focused on safety, fairness and accountability, even in cases where I know they may not want to hear it. No platform is a loss when the message is useful to the listener. I guess I’m just trying to find the silver lining here, which is that a panel of four white men is not necessarily a loss if one of those men is willing to raise meaningful issues during the panel. Perhaps settling for advocacy over tangible results is the best possible outcome, which is not a loss by any means. So, there may be something to be said of infiltration when the situation is less than ideal, which I’m sure you would have settled for had you not gotten disinvited.
There was a bit of slippage between what I said and the interpretation, which I think is worth correcting.
I said:
The interpretation:
I think it is important to note the difference between my statement and the interpretation because DEI opponents often try and position the discussion as between merit and diversity. Please note: I do not at all think that is what you are doing!!!
I never suggested that diversity should be prioritized OVER merit (in this case, subject matter expertise). In my work we never hire people without the expertise and skills needed, we don’t invite speakers without subject matter expertise, etc. But we do recognize that diversity brings with it forms of expertise, decreases the likelihood of group think, has the positive value of letting all members of our community see themselves as recognized. By including diversity as one of our priorities we deliver better services to our community. Also, the more we can achieve diversity among organizers and program leaders, not just speakers, the better. (I’m in the non-profit social services world.)
I thought your point about diversity influencing the topic was excellent. We often go through a period of expansive re-thought on event and program content as we hear other voices contribute what they want to talk about.
