John C. Barker
Attorney at Law
1563 Solano Ave., Suite 196
Albany, CA 94707
(510) 525 6030
June 25, 1996
Via Facsimile: 415-897-5145
To All Members of the Novato School Board
c/o Chairperson Connie Benz
Dear Charperson Benz and Members of the School
Board:
I am writing as Vice President of the local chapter of Americans
United for Separation of Church and State, to oppose approval of the
Waldorf charter school in Novato, on the grounds that public funding
should not go to support a sectarian institution. From my phone
conversation yesterday with Ms. Benz, I understand that approval of
this school is on the consent calendar for this evening's board
meeting. I appreciate Ms Benz's agreeing to distribute my letter to
the other board members before this evening's meeing (hopefully in
time for them to review it before the meeting). I would also
appreciate it if this letter would be included in the official record
of the board meeting proceedings. Thank you.
We feel that Waldorf schools cannot be separated from their founder's
spiritual philosophy, Anthroposophy, which includes quasi-Christian
and quasi-Pagan religious teachings and rituals in its educational
curriculum. No matter what disclaimers the school management has
offered, these spiritual elements are integral to the Waldorf system
and to the training for Waldorf teachers. While this may be legally
acceptable for a private school, no school receiving public funding
may include such elements in its curriculum, under either the
California Constitutiton or the federal Constitution.
Under Article 16, Section 5 of the California Constitution, "Neither
the Legislature, nor any county, city and county, township, school
district, or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an
appropriation, or pay from any public fund whatever, or grant
anything to or in aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or
sectarian purpose, or help to support or sustain any school, college,
university, hospital, or other institution controlled by any
religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever..." (XVI,
Para. 5). This proscription could not be more clear: No government or
public money may go to any school or other institution controlled or
supported by any religious group or creed.[1]
Under Article 9, Section 8 of the California Constitution, "No public
money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any sectarian or
denominational school, or any school not under the exclusive control
of the officers of the public schools; nor shall any sectarian or
denominational doctrine be taught, or instruction thereon be
permitted, directly or indirectly, in any of the common schools of
this State." (IX, Para. 8). Once again, this could not be more clear:
No government or public money may go to any religious school, and no
religious doctrine may be taught, even indirectly, in a publicly
funded school.
Article I, Section 4 of the California Constitution, guarantees the
"free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or
preference." (I, Para. 4). The no-preference clause in 1,4 "has been
found to prohibit any appearance that the government
has allied itself with one specific religion."[2]
Note that the state constitution affords stronger protections, a
thicker wall between church and state, than its federal counterpart
in the Establishment Clause area.[3] Thus the California
Establishment Clause is different and independent from the federal.
The California Constitution adds the "no preference clause" in 1,4,
in addition to sections 16,5 and 9,8 (see above).[4]
Under the First Amendment, no tax or public money may
go to religious schools.[5] The rationale is that religious schools
exist, in large part, to inculcate religious values and religious
beliefs in their students.[6] This is a legitimate goal for
individuals and religious groups, but taxpayers' money may not be
used to advance that goal, either directly or indirectly. The United
States Supreme Court has struck down private school funding schemes
even when they do purport to restrict the spending of tax money to secular
purposes.[7]
A fundamental precept of both the California and federal
Constitutions is that government must remain neutral to religion and
religious institutions, neither aiding them or hindering them.[8]
Thus, funding to sectarian schools, including Waldorf or parochial
schools, is unconstitutional.[9] And unlike forms of government
assistance that provide no real benefit to religious schools, the
proposed charter approval would provide funds that are
unrestricted in
their application and can be used to further the school's religious
mission.
An opinion from a federal appellate court provided an excellent
working definition of religion, to use in a constitutionality
analysis.[10]. Under this analylsis, a court should consider the
following three definitional factors for religion:
1. Does the belief system address fundamental questions, or areas of ultimate concern (e.g., humanity's place in the cosmos)?
2. Does the belief system proffer comprehensive systematic answers to these fundamental questions?
3. Are there any practices analogous to accepted religions, such as ritual, services, clergy, etc?
Anthroposophy satisfies each of these factors. For example, it
preaches a unique theory of spiritual, rather than scientific, human
evolution. It proposes four evolutionary/geological stages, as
follows: (1) Lemuria; (2) Mid-Lemuria; (3) Atlantis; and (4)
Post-Atlantis. The Post-Atlantis stage is the first in which humans
become corporeal, according to Anthroposophy. Furthermore, in
connection with its evolutionary scheme, Anthroposophy endorses Aryan
racial superiority, although Waldorf proponents claim that this is
not regularly taught in their schools. According to founder Rudolf
Steiner, a 19th Century Austrian (1861-1925), "the great Aryan Race
has been the dominant one on earth" since Atlantis, and mixing races
leads to genetic and cultural deterioration.
Anthroposophy is based on a mix of Germanic pre-Christian Pagan,
Hindu, Zoroastrian, and esoteric Christian mythology. Waldorf schools
practice Pagan solstice celebrations, but recognize Jesus Christ as a
descended sun god. Anthroposophy incorporates Old and New Testament
stories, in modified form.
The San Diego Unified School District General Counsel, Jose Gonzales,
wrote a July 6, 1995 legal opinion that Anthroposophy is a religion for First
Amendment purposes. A Waldorf pamphlet itself states: "In the sense
of subscribing to the beliefs of a particular religious denomination
or sect, [Waldorf schools are not religious]. Waldorf schools,
however, tend to be spiritually oriented and are based out of [sic] a
generally Christian perspective. The historic festivals of
Christianity, and of other major religions as well, are observed in
the class rooms..." Waldorf schools inevitably teach
Anthroposophy.
Neither I nor Americans United pretend to know what is best for
Novato children educationally. The Waldorf schools offer an
innovative New-Age-style emphasis on art and/or creativity, instead
of on intellectual development, that may appeal to some parents and
students. Nothing in the California or federal Constitutions
prohibits them from pursuing these methods privately, without public
funding.
But both constitutions clearly proscribe the award of public funding
to a sectarian institution such as a Waldorf school. It is simply not
right for taxpayers' money to subsidize such religious instruction.
Nor is it fair for a religious school to suffer the intrusive
government oversight that the board may be contemplating, in having
to monitor a charter school to make sure it purports to stay away
from a certain philosophy.
Promoters of Waldorf schools may be using "stealth" tactics by
claiming that the proposed school will not teach Anthroposophy, and
the Novato School Board should not be satisfied with a mere
provisional ban against teaching Anthroposophy in the school's
proposed charter. It is not possible to remove Anthroposophy from a
Waldorf school. These are religious schools, with spiritual practices
and belief systems. Whether or not teachers in this charter school
have standard California teaching credentials, at least some of them
will be Waldorf-trained. We urge the board to reject the proposed
charter Waldorf school.
Sincerely yours,
(signed)
John C. Barker
Vice-President, S.F. Bay Area Chapter of Americans United for
Separation of Church and State
[1] See California Teachers Ass'n v.
Riles, 29 Cal.3d 794, 812 (1981) (under
16,5, state may not lend textbooks to private school students).
[2] Hewitt v. Joyner, 940 F.2d 1561, 1566 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added),
citing Fox v. City of Los
Angeles, 22 Cal.3d 792 (1978); see also
Everson,
infra (no
preference for religion or religious group under federal
Consititution either).
[3] Hewitt v. Joyner, 940 F.2d 1561, 1566-67 (9th Cir. 1991),
cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 969 (1992); Sands
v. Morongo Unified School Dist., 53
Cal.3d 863, 883 (1991) (CA Constitution is "more protective of the
principle of separation than the federal guarantee"); see also
Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights
v. Myers, 29 Cal.3d 252, 261 (1981) (CA
courts may independently fix the scope of their state constitutional
provisions).
[4] Hewitt v. Joyner, 940 F.2d 1561, 1566 (9th Cir. 1991); Sands v. Morongo Unified School Dist., 53 Cal.3d 863, 883 (1991); Calif Teachers Ass'n v. Riles, 29 Cal.3d 794, 812 (1981) (state may not lend textbooks
to private school students, declining to
follow Board
of Educ. v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236
(1968)). Chief Justice Lucas's concurrence in Sands, 53 Cal.3d at 902,
pointed out that the state supreme court's holding was not based on
the California Constitution because only three of seven justices used
the state constitution as a basis for finding the school graduation
prayers at issue unconstitutional. The principle that California
courts may independently fix the scope of their state constitutional
provisions, however, is well established. Id. at 883;
Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights
v. Myers, 29 Cal.3d 252, 261
(1981).
[5] See, e.g.,
Board of Educ. v.
Grumet, 114 S.Ct. 2481 (1994);
School Dist. (Grand Rapids) v.
Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985);
Committee for Public Educ. &
Religious Liberty v. Nyquist 413 U.S.
756 (1973); Lemon v.
Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
[6] E.g.,
Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 366 (1975) ("The very purpose of many
[parochial] schools is to provide an integrated secular and religious
education; the teaching process is, to a large extent, devoted to the
inculcation of religious values and belief.").
[7] E.g.,
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 618-24 (1971) (monitoring such a
restriction would excessively entangle govt. with religion.).
[8] The First Amendment prohibits state and federal governments from
passing "laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another." Everson v.
Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15, 67
S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947); see Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S.
228, 253-55, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982). The California
Supreme Court has endorsed and quoted the Everson language.
Sands, 53
Cal.3d at 870-71, also citing County of
Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573, 592 (1989).
[9] School Dist. (Grand Rapids) v.
Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 391-92 (1985);
see also
Sloan v. Lemon, 413 U.S. 825 (1973).
[10] See
Malnak v. Yogi (3d Cir. 1979) 592 F.2d 197, 208-09 (Adamjs, J.,
concurring).