PLANS (non-profit)

People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS) is lobby group, based principally in San Francisco, USA and on the Web, which campaigns against Anthroposophy, Waldorf education, and the public funding ofWaldorf methods schools. The group was founded in 1995 by former Waldorf parents and became a California non-profit corporation in 1997. Its secretary is sound engineer and sceptic activist Dan Dugan. According to Mr. Dugan, in 2000, the group had 44 members.

Its mission statement says that it intends to educate people about the reality behind Waldorf education, which is the most public activity of Anthroposophy (a movement founded by the Austrian spiritual philosopher, Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925)). It claims Waldorf education is an occult inpired activity which obscures its true nature by remaining silent about its occult educational theory with prospective parents.

Dan Dugan is the owner of a discussion list on Topica for critics of Waldorf education and built a web site, that was later developed into the web site of the group.

Charter schools law suit

In February 1998, PLANS brought a law suit against two California public schools districts, Sacramento City Unified School District and Twin Ridges Elementary School District, that had funded two Waldorf-methods schools, one a charter school and one a magnet school. PLANS argued that because of Waldorf education's basis in anthroposophy, publicly-financed Waldorf methods charter schools are in violation of the "church and state" establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The organization asserted that not only Waldorf schools, but also Waldorf methods schools teach Anthroposophy, that Anthroposophy is a religion, and that as a result public schools which have adopted Waldorf methods or practices are promoting religion in violation of the US Constitution. PLANS argued in this law suit that a primary purpose and primary effect of the operation of the two Waldorf-methods schools by the school districts was "to advance religion, including the religious doctrines of Anthroposophy" .

The trial was scheduled on September 12, 2005 and was expected to run for sixteen days. The presiding judge determined two issues which were to be decided in the trial. The first issue was to determine whether Anthroposophy was a religion - the defendants contended it was not. And the second issue, which required first an affirmative ruling to determine whether Anthroposophy was a religion, would decide whether the public schools in those two districts were promoting the religion.

The trial convened as scheduled, but ended after just thirty minutes during which PLANS was ordered to show an offer of proof they had evidence to present on the issues to be decided, and failed to do so. Their attorney admitted to the court they could not meet their burden of proof, and could offer no witnesses and only one piece of documentary evidence on the religion issue to argue before the court. Arguments were heard, but no evidence was presented at the trial. The court determined that PLANS failed to produce any legally-admissible evidence, ruled in favor of the public schools, and ordered PLANS to pay costs.

PLANS is appealing this ruling. The appeal claims that due to an earlier ruling before the court, in which two witnesses PLANS intended to testify at trial were disallowed, PLANS was left with no qualified witnesses able to give evidence that Anthroposophy was a religion. This earlier ruling resulted from pretrial motions submitted six months prior to trial. PLANS also argues the court ruled improperly when it refused to allow PLANS to enter their one piece of documentary evidence into evidence.

PLANS contends in their appeal that the two disallowed witnesses were irreplacable to their case. These witnesses PLANS argued vital to their own case were first disclosed by the defendants as expert witnesses who would testify against PLANS in the case.

As a result of the pretrial motions, the judge ruled:

• the plaintiff, PLANS, could not use the defendants' expert witnesses to testify as experts in their own case in chief,
• the plaintiff also failed in its duty to dislose to the defendants their intention to call these individuals to testify as percipient witnesses prior to the court's deadline for such witness disclosure, and PLANS was thus prohibited from calling them to give percipient testimony

PLANS argues in the appeal that the timely disclosure rule cited in the judge's dismissal was not in effect yet at the outset of the case in 1998, and argues the witnesses were fully disclosed under the applicable rules.

The appeal also argues that the court erred in disallowing attempts to introduce as evidence a particular book which one school sued purchased for inclusion in their educational reference library. PLANS had no witnesses prepared to offer foundational testimony at trial for the evidence, and as a result it too was disallowed, the judge describing it as "rank hearsay". In its appeal, PLANS argues that the school's earlier interrogatory admission to purchasing the book served as an "adoptive admission", and as such no further foundation was necessary prior to introducing it as testimony in evidence at trial.

Ultimately, the only expert witness heard on the question whether Anthroposophy is a religion was Douglas Sloan, a witness slated to testify for the defendants. Sloan is a Columbia University Professor Emeritus of Education, adjunct Professor of Religion and Education at the Union Theological Seminary and The Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City and former Director of the Masters Degree Program in Waldorf Education at Sunbridge College, New York. Since PLANS presented no testimony or other evidence, the defense won the case without calling their witnesses at trial. However, Sloan did submit his testimony rejecting the assertion that Anthroposophy was a religion in a declaration. The judge accepted this submission when PLANS filed a motion asking the court to decide the issue prior to trial and declare Anthroposophy to be a religion. Sloan would be the only fully qualified expert witness heard in this case.

See transcript of the trial and a complete summary of the course of the lawsuit. PLANS is appealing the court's decision on the grounds that the disclosure of evidence rules were not in force when the seven-year trial began. The Defendants dispute the validity of the appeal.

Case leadup and history

Early in the PLANS organization's campaign against the addition of Waldorf methods in public schools, picketed outside Waldorf methods schools in Sacramento and Marysville, CA. Allegations spread among parents, teachers and anti-Waldorf activists that Waldorf engages in witchcraft or pagan rituals and practices, and these rumors were soon reported in the media as well.

The Pacific Justice Institute secured a grant on behalf of PLANS from the ADF to initiate PLANS' lawsuit against two school districts operating public Waldorf methods elementary schools. The rumors of "Wicca" practices in the schools were also cited in this grant application. However, during depositions for the trial, PLANS secretary, Dan Dugan testified that he not believe in the allegations himself.

The case was filed in 1998. The U.S. District Court -- Eastern District of California issued the following rulings on the case in 1999, 2001, and 2004:

• In 1999, the Court found that the two school districts targeted in the litigation have a secular, non-religious purpose for the operation of the two schools using Waldorf methods. However, it let the case proceed, to find whether public Waldorf-methods programs might have the unintended consequence of directly and substantially advancing religion to such an extent that it violates the U.S. Constitution.

• In 2001, however, the Court dropped the case based on PLANS' failure to bring sufficient supporting evidence. A legal precedent set earlier in a similar case in New York, though not related to Waldorf education, led the Court to conclude that PLANS lacked a basis to claim taxpayer standing in the case. After an appeal by PLANS, the 9th Circuit Appellate Court in February 2003 reversed the decision on taxpayer standing by the lower court, allowing the case to proceed towards trial.

• In May 2004, PLANS filed a motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, requesting that the Court rule that anthroposophy is a religion, based on material presented by PLANS. But the Court did not accept these arguments, and on 15 November 2004 denied the motion, stating that "triable issues of material fact exist as to whether anthroposophy is a religion". The Court also provided a new opportunity for both sides to declare witnesses and evidence, with a deadline of January 2005 for disclosure of these.

• By the January 2005 deadline given by the Court for witness and evidentiary disclosures, PLANS had declared no expert witnesses. It also failed to declare any of the percipient witnesses it later sought to call and all but one of the exhibits it later sought to present.

• In April 2005, the Court issued an order outlining the trial issues and the evidentiary and procedural guidelines for the trial, scheduled for September 12, 2005. The court separated the issues, stating that it would be first necessary to try the question of whether Anthroposophy was a religion, and secondly, whether Anthroposophy was present in the schools. The order denied PLANS eleven witnesses, for failure by its attorney to make timely disclosure to Defendants, and 101 of PLANS' exhibits, as a result of discovery sanctions.

Misrepresentations in PLANS press release

PLANS' official press release reporting the results of the court case misrepresented the judge's decision in a variety of ways:

• The press release claimed that the organization had refused to present its case at trial.
  • At the trial, PLANS' attorney presented all the evidence and witnesses that were allowed; it was the judge that had disallowed witnesses that had not been properly disclosed according to a law that had been in place for six years.
• The press release claimed that the judge said he intended to dismiss the case.
  • The judge gave the case a full trial and decided the case for the defendants.
• The press release claimed that the school district had withdrawn two witnesses - that were also witnesses for PLANS - due to fears that their testimony would hurt the schools, implying that this made it impossible for PLANS to interrogate them during the trial.
  • The judge stated that the plaintiff could have presented these witnesses independently of whether they were to appear for the schools if they had followed the rules of disclosure. The school district had not withdrawn the witnesses; rather, the trial did not require the defence to present a case, as the judge ruled that the plaintiff had not presented minimum standards of proof.

Criticism of the PLANS organization

PLANS claim that the Anthroposophical Society and the anthroposophical movement is a sect has been disputed in legal cases in Europe. In 2000, a court case was brought in France against a government minister for making this claim publicly; the court decided that the minister's comments were defamatory. In 1999 and 2006, Belgian courts decided for the Anthroposophical Society in a case where anthroposophy had been included in a list of dangerous sects; the group that had made the list was fined.

Americans for Waldorf Education, an organization that supports Waldorf education, claims that:

"PLANS' statements on their web site and in online discussions on the "Waldorf Critics" mailing list, owned by the secretary of the group, are seriously distorted and are not supported by the published research on Waldorf education."

According to the group, PLANS cultivates and has supported a number of defamatory and demonizing myths about anthroposophy and Waldorf education, in parts similar to those cultivated by Jew Watch about Jews and Judaism, and publishes them at its site as "education of the public about Waldorf education".

An "Anthroposophical world conspiracy" myth

In 1999, the Law firm Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), that in 1997 had used false allegations of witchcraft and satanism at Waldorf schools to apply for money on PLANS' behalf from an evangelical organization to finance the initiation of its law suit, in a Press Release claimed that the (secret) agenda of Waldorf education is to train the pupils at Waldorf schools to become the future leaders of the world. In October 2000, Lisa Ercolano, a journalist in Baltimore, in cooperation with Mr. Dugan then continued to cultivate the myth on his mailing list. As a follow up the myth continued to be cultivated also by others up to April 2003 on Mr. Dugan's mailing list. After the cultivation of the myth, Ms. Ercolano was made vice President of PLANS.

Categorisation by large web portals

After reviewing the PLANS site, a number of large web portals have decided that it does not qualify as informational site on Waldorf eduation and removed it from the portals. After it had been listed in the "Waldorf theory" category at Open Directory Project (DMOZ) for some time, in 2001, a meta editor at DMOZ decided that it did not qualify as informational site on Waldorf education according to the standards of DMOZ, and removed it from that category but it remains in Society: Religion and Spirituality: Opposing Views: Esoteric and Occult. category

In 2002, the site was removed from the "Waldorf organizations" category of Google's web directory, but it remains in its Society > Religion and Spirituality > Esoteric and Occult category.

Google AdWords canceled an ad from the group. After the group started to advertise for its site at Overture, in 2003, Altavista after looking at the site deleted all links to it from its web index, and stopped publishing all ads from Overture for searches on "waldorf", "waldorf education", and "Rudolf Steiner", regardless of their origin, to get rid of the ads for PLANS, after Overture in a first instance had removed the ads for PLANS at the request of Altavista, and PLANS had set them up again.

External links

• PLANS web site
• Schooled in spirituality Article about Waldorf methods schools and PLANS litigation, Sacramento News and Review, February 03, 2005.
• Answers to allegations by PLANS by Waldorf Answers
• Description of and comments about PLANS by Americans for Waldorf Education