Re: Southern Cross Review publishes PLANS Schwartz article
- Hi, Dan,
Actually, I thought *you* had lifted it from somewhere, such as Sunbridge
College. I emailed them, but they didn't reply. Anyway, now you're lifting
it back. O well, the more the merrier. Thanks, btw.
Frank Thomas Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Dugan" <dan@...>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 8:16 PM
Subject: Southern Cross Review publishes PLANS Schwartz article
> I've just browsed the current copy of Frank Thomas Smith's
> Anthroposophical web-zine "Southern Cross Review."
> I was surprised to find a reprint of Eugene Schwartz's 1999 Sunbridge
> College talk "Waldorf Education: For our times or against them,"
> lifted directly from the PLANS web site!
> No permission was requested, but it's ok with me. It would have been
> nice to credit the source, though! I wonder if he asked Schwartz.
> -Dan Dugan
- Okay, Dan, you're right. I was away for a while, so am just getting to this.
The following has been added to the lecture at
We copied this lecture from the "PLANS" website
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/schwartz.html . Plans is an
organization that is very critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy -
often going to the extreme of defamation. They are currently in the midst of
a losing and costly court battle, having accused the state of California of
acting unconstitutionally (separation of church and state) by financing
charter schools which use the Waldorf education method. When Dan Dugan, the
founder of PLANS, noticed the article in SCR, he wrote that we should have
named the source. I originally thought that PLANS had gotten it from some
Waldorf site, but since that is not the case, Mr. Dugan is correct and we
are therefore adding this source now, a couple of weeks after the lecture
appeared here - with our apologies. (Ed.]
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: Southern Cross Review publishes PLANS Schwartz article
> >Actually, I thought *you* had lifted it from somewhere, such as Sunbridgelifting
> >College. I emailed them, but they didn't reply. Anyway, now you're
> >it back. O well, the more the merrier. Thanks, btw.
> The transcript was typed for PLANS by Michael Kopp and is our
> original publication. You're welcome to use it, but I will appreciate
> your adding the source URL to your article.
> -Thanks, Dan Dugan
> Secretary, PLANS, Inc.
> People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools http://www.waldorfcritics.org
- Dear Dan,
> The EditorFirst just a trivial point - where I wrote "*often* going to the extreme of
> Southern Cross Review
> Dear Frank, in the end note to your article
> you wrote,
> >Plans is an organization that is very critical of Waldorf education
> >and anthroposophy - often going to the extreme of defamation.
> I don't doubt that some of the waldorf-critics discussion list
> postings from angry Waldorf parents have been defamatory, but it is
> not PLANS' intention to defame Anthroposophy or Waldorf education.
> Please point out what it is that you characterize as defamatory.
defamation": "often" was a from a first draft and never made it to the web
page. It was changed to "sometimes". To your question: See the "Welcome" by
the PLANS president in the PLANS home page, where she describes
anthroposophy as an "occult sect". I consider that to be defamatory. I don't
have the time nor the interest to look for more, but Sune Nordwall's site
goes into it in some depth.
>Thanks for the correction about suing two school districts and not the whole
> >They are currently in the midst of a losing and costly court battle,
> "The midst" is correct; Establishment Clause cases can take as long
> as fifteen years to be settled at the Supreme Court, and ours is
> seven years old. "Costly" is true, too, for everyone involved. But
> "losing" is your spin, and I think it's a bit exaggerated. Our case
> was dismissed on a technicality, and reinstated. We've been to the
> Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice on technicalities, and won both
> times. We've lost some motions (adding witnesses, etc.), but both
> sides have lost motions.
> The really interesting part is coming soon. The trial on the issues
> (is Anthroposophy a religion for Establishment Clause purposes, and
> if so, are the public Waldorf schools impermissibly entwined with
> Anthroposophy) will begin September 12, 2005, in the federal
> courthouse in Sacramento, California.
> >having accused the state of California of acting unconstitutionally
> >(separation of church and state) by financing charter schools which
> >use the Waldorf education method.
> We are suing two public school districts, not the state. We all know
> that Waldorf education is not a "method." As an initiative of
> Anthroposophy, it's much deeper than that.
state of California. Will change.
Frank Thomas Smith