Steiner Waldorf Schools Part 3.

The problem of racism

dcscience.net/2010/12/16/steiner-waldorf-schools-part-3-the-problem-of-racism/

This is the third part of a series of guest posts on the curious Steiner Waldorf cult

The first part was The true nature of Steiner (Waldorf) education. Mystical barmpottery at
taxpayers’ expense. Part 1

Part 2 was The Steiner Waldorf cult uses bait and switch to get state funding. Part 2

This post deals with the most contentious and serious aspect of Steiner schools, racism. It
makes, in my view, a convincing argument that Steiner’s undoubtedly racist views remain a
problem today. They can’t be dismissed simply by saying that Steiner was a child of his
times.

This post was written by an ex-Steiner school parent, known on the web as
@ThetisMercurio.

The essay supplies yet more reasons to think that Steiner schools are all based on pseudo
science: Steiner’s Spiritual Science. It is important that we understand these schools because
funding of these schools is imminent, through Michael Gove’s Free Schools policy.

Extracts from works by Olav Hammer and Peter Staudenmaier are included with the
permission of the authors.

A Spiritual Elite

Our first two posts introduced Anthroposophy and our concerns about the state funding of
Steiner Waldorf schools through the Free Schools policy. Anthroposophy, the belief system
developed by Rudolf Steiner, undeniably underpins the pedagogy which informs teaching
practice in Steiner schools. This is reflected in the course materials and recommended texts
for Steiner trainee teachers, wherever these have been obtained.

What must be stressed is that an adherence to Anthroposophy and aspects of this pedagogy
can lead teachers to make decisions about individual children based on race and disability,
which many people would consider to be outright discrimination.

This discrimination may be undeclared and subtle but we believe it is, when rightly
understood, within the comprehension and scope of the Equality Act 2010 as interpreted by
the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Does the ideological drive towards Free
Schools justify a breach in the rights of children not to be exposed to such potentially
damaging practice?
1/16
In this post I write about the history of Anthroposophy, and how Steiner’s privileged status
amongst adherents has obscured understanding of Steiner Waldorf education. Although I’ll
focus on Steiner’s race doctrines, it’s important to understand that an anthroposophical
belief in karma and reincarnation must have an impact on children with learning disabilities.
Some of the most distressing personal accounts on parent forums have described an
encounter with this particular aspect of Steiner’s dogma. Liz Ditz, a writer on education and
learning disabilities, has the same concern with regard to Waldorf Charters in the US:

“Waldorf/Steiner [is] particularly pernicious for children with educational special needs such as
dyslexia, ADHD, and autism. Because of the underlying beliefs in karma and reincarnation,
teachers at Waldorf/Steiner tend to believe that such educational challenges are part of a child’s
destiny to “work out”. The Waldorf/Steiner attitude does not satisfy US laws relative to educating
students.”

Roger Rawlings indicates Steiner’s thinking on disability on Waldorf Watch and the UK site
EASE online has an account of ‘karma in the classroom’ by a parent with a Steiner training.
Swedish blogger Alicia Hamberg describes the University of Aberdeen’s programme on
Rudolf Steiner’s curative pedagogy, which draws directly on Steiner’s clairvoyantly acquired
ideas. This area demands greater investigation before English Steiner schools can be
assumed to satisfy discrimination legislation regarding children with disabilities.

There is a determined lack of interest and comprehension about the nature of

Anthroposophy amongst those responsible for overseeing the inspection of Steiner schools
(Ofsted, which delegates to the SIS) and also amongst those who will make the decision to
fund particular schools. It may appear too difficult. The structure of an esoteric belief
system, with gradually imparted ‘knowledge’: impenetrable texts, study groups, a tradition
of communicating certain information orally (a great deal isn’t written down) and a distrust
of critical thinking, means that Steiner teachers themselves can be confused about the
nature or real life implications of Steiner’s dogma, as well as largely ignorant of the Waldorf
movement’s history. But there is an undeclared hierarchy of anthroposophical knowledge
and influence within a Steiner school’s college of teachers; decisions about individual
children are often steered by collegiate anthroposophical impulse. Obfuscation is
deliberate: when explaining Anthroposophy, as far as the movement is concerned the
answer depends on who is asking.

We can’t afford to be ignorant or to accept Steiner schools on their own terms. The history
of Anthroposophy and thereby Steiner Waldorf education is essential reading. That history
contains a warning, and we ignore this at our own risk.

Lessons on Spin from the New Schools Network

2/16
In November 2009, a meeting was held in London between representatives of the Steiner
Waldorf Schools Fellowship and English Steiner Schools, including Emma Craigie, Rachel
Wolf of the New Schools Network and Sam Freedman, Tory special advisor for education. It
was called: ‘Moving forward, a special pre-election seminar about possible developments in
the state funding opportunity for Steiner schools’.

A transcript of this seminar appeared online in March 2010 on both UK Anthroposophy and
Liberal Conspiracy. I can reiterate that the transcript is a genuine account of a public
meeting. No one present has to the best of our knowledge complained that this is not the
case. Since there appears to be no attempt to dissuade from pursuing Free Schools funding
the Steiner schools and initiatives mentioned in our second post (in fact many more than
three of these schools are well advanced) I believe it is important to revisit this seminar.

The NSN is already under scrutiny. After an intervention by Lisa Nandy, Labour MP for
Wigan, it has been the recipient of regulatory advice from the Charity Commission regarding
its responsibilities as an independent charity. The clarity of NSN funding arrangements has
also been questioned. I suggest that if Rachel Wolf is expected to advise parents on the best
way to educate their children, she cannot afford, in the case of 18 or more potential Steiner
Free Schools, to ignore these two salient problems in the path of state funded Steiner
education:

1) Accounts from parents who are or who have been unhappy with the Steiner schooling
system and those who have had negative experiences associated with the schools.

and

2) The writings of Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy

I agree with those at the seminar that the latter will be the greater problem. In fact, I assert
that it’s an insurmountable one, or at least that it should be. This can’t be cured by good PR
or by changing a name. Should the success of the Free Schools policy need to be bolstered
by protecting Steiner Waldorf’s reputation from disenchanted parents, students and
teachers, it will mean a concerted effort to ensure their voices are not heard or their stories
are discredited. Such a tactic would be unsustainable, to put it mildly.

In the seminar, it was mentioned that there are racist aspects to Steiner’s writings. This
accusation is far from new and it seems it was no surprise to those present. If Sam
Freedman is aware of a potential threat to the reputation of the state from the funding of
Steiner schools with an adherence to ‘Steiner says’, (an adherence which troubled the
writers of the 2005 Woods report) he should be concerned that since the closure of the
University of Plymouth Steiner BA there are no publicly accountable Steiner Waldorf teacher
training courses in the UK. It’s unclear where the teachers are going to come from,

3/16
especially since it appears there will be no requirement for Free Schools teachers to be
formally trained. British Steiner Waldorf training will be essentially ‘in-house’ (perhaps at the
Steiner Academy Hereford).

The issue of whether racism exists as an active agent within Anthroposophy was not
addressed seriously at the pre-election meeting, although anthroposophical distinctions
regarding both race and disability have human consequences and political implications.

Steiner’s drawing of the “evolution of humankind” through the various stages – Hyperborea,
Lemuria, Atlantis — from lower to higher forms (fish to reptiles to mammals etc), with the
top three categories marked “apes,” then (American) “Indians,” then at the very top “Aryans.”
Steiner’s 1907 lecture refers to both apes and Indians as “decadent side branches” of
evolution.
Rudolf Steiner, 1907. Menschheitsentwickelung und Christus-Erkenntnis (Dornach: Rudolf
Steiner Verlag, 1981)

4/16
Pervasive racial assumptions run throughout Rudolf Steiner’s work. Anthroposophy itself is :
“built around a racial view of human nature arranged in a hierarchical framework,” and
Steiner’s doctrine awards a higher or lower place in the spiritual evolution of mankind for
certain races, with their attendant characteristics. If Freedman believes the schools can
simply not teach what Steiner said, he shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature
of Anthroposophy, and of its role within Steiner schools. Anthroposophy is not taught to the
children: it informs the pedagogy. It is taught to the teachers. But since it is an esoteric
religion, with hidden knowledge, that teaching is often opaque. In addition, Anthroposophy
is not a tradition in which critical thinking is prized, indeed the intellectual is suspect;
Steiner’s spiritual science has its own, privileged internal logic and route to acuity. As Olav
Hammer, a Professor of the history of religions, comments in his accessible book ‘Claiming
Knowledge’:

“..anthroposophy has an overtly formulated epistemology, which claims rational status for its
visionary means of attaining knowledge.”

Hammer explains:

“For the anthroposophist, spiritual science is as inexorably logical as the natural sciences. The path
towards attaining knowledge of the higher worlds, including insights into the exact mechanisms of
reincarnation, lie open to those who practice the methods of Geisteswissenschaft [spiritual science]
to the full. It is not only part of Steiner’s experience, but also potentially part of the experience of
every individual. A carefully outlined series of meditative exercises describes how one can attain
knowledge of the spiritual truths.”

and the system is itself insulated from critique:

“Steiner frees himself from the need for empirical investigation by claiming the ability to
clairvoyantly access the Akashic record. In the Akashic record, Steiner found innumerable specific
details on the workings of the cosmos and the human being, all presented as empirical facts.”

Hammer notes that Steiner’s method of spiritual science may appear democratic but is in
reality autocratic. The only truly authentic insights are Steiner’s.

For those who believe they are developing clairvoyant faculties in pursuit of
Anthroposophy’s Higher Worlds; Steiner’s racist doctrines, existing within an
anthroposophical structure of reincarnation and karma, can be seen as essentially
benevolent and redemptive. Though adherence (and awareness) certainly differs amongst
teachers, it is impossible to remove Anthroposophy from the Steiner school pedagogy, from
the required reading on the teacher training courses, from the mission of the schools. It
would be entirely naive to imagine anthroposophical allegiances and beliefs in Steiner Free

5/16
Schools could be policed by the DfE, especially as British courses disappear from public view
or teachers are trained in other countries. Nor can the public be shielded from evidence of
Anthroposophy’s precise nature and history.

Anthroposophy, and consequently the Steiner Waldorf movement, resist external critical
analysis. The occult has until fairly recently been largely ignored by serious academics, and
those who have explored Theosophy and other esoteric movements have been generally
sympathetic to the possibility of supernatural agency. But, as we’ve seen with Olav Hammer
as example, this has changed. There is now extensive academic research into the
foundations of Anthroposophy and the development of Steiner Waldorf schools, enabling a
non-arcane understanding of anthroposophical texts. Much of this is of course in German,
including Helmut Zander’s 2007 two volume study, ‘Anthroposophie in Deutschland’.

Zander describes the ad hoc nature of the first Waldorf school, as Steiner borrowed much
from already existing educational reform movements as well as from traditional models,
and added his own spiritual insights. The results could only in some areas be thought of as
progressive: the schools were co-educational and did not focus on exams. But from the
beginning, the Waldorf system was teacher-led, not child-led and had strong authoritarian
tendencies.

Rudolf Steiner 1861-1925 – Spiritual Insights

Most importantly, Zander contextualizes Steiner as a historical figure, without needing to

pass judgements on the accuracy of his supernatural claims. He focuses on the political
landscape in which Steiner existed in real, not occult terms. And he demonstrates the
significant role of Steiner’s race theories within his work, noting how anthroposophical race
doctrine frequently involves implicit or explicit value judgements. Even though Zander
encourages dialogue with anthroposophists who can tolerate some kind of external
analysis, an extreme voice still demanded Zander’s university revoke his degree, on the
grounds that he couldn’t determine the validity of any of Steiner’s claims without himself
attaining ‘knowledge of the higher worlds’. Crazy as this sounds, it’s the singular
manifestation of a familiar anthroposophical motif, a demand that Anthroposophy be
understood – and respected, exclusively on its own terms.

Rudolf Steiner and race: the path toward the universal human

One of the most authoritative writers about Anthroposophy in English is American historian
Peter Staudenmaier. His recent PhD in modern history, written at Cornell, concerns
Anthroposophy in Germany and Italy from 1900 to 1945. A fluent German speaker,
Staudenmaier had access to Steiner’s untranslated work as well as to original archive
material. He stresses that Steiner’s prolific output can be internally contradictory, enabling
supporters to claim that anthroposophical race doctrine is incidental or misunderstood. But
6/16
nevertheless, there’s a dominant and explicable theme, owing much to Steiner’s occult
interpretation of German nationalism. Steiner’s attitude to Jewishness is an example of
insular preoccupations:

“The nature of Steiner’s hostility to Jewishness was thus both ordinary and anomalous; it
incorporated the common misconceptions of the era and simultaneously transcended these within
the peculiar framework of “occult science”. It was not so much hatred or fear of Jews that animated
Steiner’s mature antisemitism, but ignorance of contemporary Jewish life, of modern Jewish culture
and history, as well as a myopic commitment to German spiritual superiority. What Steiner did
know about Judaism, moreover, was generally refracted through a Christian and Germanocentric
lens.” Peter Staudenmaier ‘Rudolf Steiner and the Jewish Question’ Leo Baeck Inst. Yearbook 2005

Steiner’s claims to ‘spiritual science’ to an extent reflect an earlier association with zoologist
and social Darwinist Ernst Haeckel. (Richard Dawkins comments in ‘The Greatest Show on
Earth’ that Haeckel was “perhaps Darwin’s most devoted disciple in Germany” and while
praising Haeckel’s draughtsmanship adds: “the devotion was not reciprocated”.).

Staudenmaier suggests a mutable concept of evolution may have mediated Steiner’s shift
from ‘secular to sacred’, but that it was a conversion to Mme Blavatsky’s occult movement,
Theosophy, that most inspired Steiner’s racial theories:

“Steiner’s doctrine of racial evolution is more than a biological appendage to his spiritual
cosmology. For Anthroposophy as for Theosophy, evolution is the link between the human and the
divine, it is a process supervised by higher powers and a vehicle for the soul’s elevation and
purification. [ ] The guiding thread throughout Steiner’s race mythology is the motif of a small,
racially advanced group progressing into the next era while the great mass of backward populations
declines. In the current era, the dominant race is the Aryan race, which evolved out of a small
number of specially advanced colonists from Atlantis. In Steiner’s words: “Ever since the Atlantean
Race began slowly to disappear, the great Aryan Race has been the dominant one on earth.”

There is a crucial difference for Steiner between ‘race development’ and ‘soul development’:

“The two must not be confused. A human soul can develop itself in such a way that it incarnates in
a particular race within a given incarnation. If it acquires certain capacities in this incarnation, then
in a later incarnation it can incarnate in a different race.”
Rudolf Steiner, Christus und die menschliche Seele [Christ and the human soul] (Dornach: Rudolf
Steiner Verlag, 1997), 92

Staudenmaier elucidates:

7/16
 “As the incarnating souls ‘became steadily better and better’, Steiner explained, ‘the souls
eventually passed over into higher races, such that souls which had earlier been incarnated in
completely subordinate races developed themselves upwards onto a higher level and were able to
incarnate later into the physical descendants of the leading population of Europe’. Steiner further
contended that the very existence of different racial groups on the Earth at the same time was a
cosmic mistake, a detour from the proper route of humankind’s development. This claim was tied to
Steiner’s vision of the eventual emergence of a ‘Universal Human’, the goal of his teleological
conception of evolution. While pointing toward the ultimate disappearance of race as a meaningful
factor in human existence, Steiner’s theory of the Universal Human is built around a contrast with
‘lower types of people,’ which constitute the necessary counterpart to the ‘uniform, perfect,
beautiful type of human being,’ the cosmic goal that underlies ‘the meaning of our whole earthly
evolution’.”

Though potentially spiritually ‘enlightened’ to the initiate, Steiner’s views on race remain
reprehensible:

“The white population, then, represent normal human beings who continue to progress, while
Asians and Africans are abnormal peoples who were not as capable of evolving. Statements like
these can be found throughout Steiner’s works, and may reflect the prejudices prevalent among
educated Europeans of his era. Perhaps the most instructive instances are Steiner’s various
statements about black people. [ ] Addressing the first generation of Waldorf teachers in 1923,
Steiner responded to a question about teaching French with the following remarks:

“The French are committing the terrible brutality of moving black people to Europe, but it
works, in an even worse way, back on France. It has an enormous effect on the blood and the
race and contributes considerably toward French decadence. The French as a race are
reverting."

Peter Staudenmaier, Race and redemption: Racial and Ethnic Evolution in Rudolf Steiner’s
Anthroposophy : Nova Religio 2008

8/16
Rudolf Steiner, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde (Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag,
1993)

The three central racial types from Steiner’s 1923 lecture on “Color and the Races of
Humankind” -black, yellow, and white, showing the primary traits of each racial type: for
blacks an “instinctual life,” for yellow people an “emotional life,” and for whites a “thinking
life”, Each has correspondingly also developed a particular part of the brain: for blacks the
“rear brain,” for yellow people the “middle brain” and for whites the”fore-brain”.
All must have disclaimers

Returning to the seminar in London discussing Free Schools funding for Steiner Waldorf:
Should Steiner schools engineer a more multi-cultural image? This strategy would cause
embarrassment to a government facing the understandable fury of non-white Steiner
parents who come across Steiner’s race doctrines – unless Rachel Wolf persuades Cornell to
revoke Dr Staudenmaier’s PhD (with assistance from dedicated anthroposophical
defenders). Waldorf’s biggest problem, acknowledged after the departure of Freedman and
Wolf, is undoubtedly the teachers:

“It was felt that there may be some difficulty in making a blanket rebuttal of all Anthroposophy
because many people throughout the Steiner schools system, especially teachers, strongly support
many aspects of that belief system. If teachers were asked to make a blanket rebuttal of
Anthroposophy, many of them may not do this.”

9/16
They cannot do this. For many, Anthroposophy is the point. Rudolf Steiner is considered by
his followers to be irreproachable, a spiritual master blessed with clairvoyant powers. Pull
the thread of the race doctrines out of the design, there is a corresponding pressure on
Steiner’s doctrine of reincarnation and karma. The Steiner Waldorf pedagogy itself rests on
anthroposophical dogma. Although a reappraisal of doctrine is not without precedent within
religious movements, it would be especially problematic for Anthroposophy, as an esoteric
belief system. Knowing this, the easiest way to protect the movement is to be pragmatic and
to issue disclaimers. But these disclaimers bear analysis, since many anthroposophists still
defend Steiner’s racial and ethnic teachings; believing them, as Staudenmaier explains, to be
“humanitarian, tolerant, and enlightened.”

Here is the (current) disclaimer on racism from the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship
(SWSF).

Is it true that some of Rudolf Steiners writings and lectures contained statements that
could be interpreted as racist?

Yes. Even though Steiner’s ideas are based on a profound respect for the equality, individuality
and shared humanity of all people, regardless of race or ethnic origin, his works do contain a
small number of quotations that are discriminatory. The SWSF rejects these statements and all
racism. However, it should be noted that other great thinkers of his time including Darwin,
Schweitzer, Gandhi and Carl Jung also spoke of race in a way that offends modern sensibilities.
This does not render them or their work ‘racist’.

It is ironic that Steiner schools sometimes have to defend themselves against these accusations.
Our schools thrive on every continent, in every culture and within a wide range of ethnic
contexts. For example, during the period of the apartheid regime in South Africa, the only school
catering for mixed races was a Steiner Waldorf school & today there are schools following
Steiner philosophy of education in diverse cultures & communities, including: Israel, Egypt,
Kenya, Sierra Leone, Taiwan, Japan, Brazil or Hawaii, over 60 countries in all. It should be noted
that all the Steiner schools in the UK actively are opposed to all forms of discrimination against
any person or group of people on the grounds of race, gender, faith, disability, age and sexual
orientation and are committed to promoting equality of opportunity and reflecting the diversity
of the children, staff and parents served by their school.

Further clarification about this can be found on the Statements page of the European Council
for Steiner Waldorf Education website (by clicking the ‘Waldorf schools against discrimination’
link).

The first word is unusual, though the disclaimer’s tone betrays the movement’s haughty
antipathy to external analysis – and frankly it’s simply untrue. There are a very large number
of Steiner’s pronouncements which could not only be interpreted as racist, they are racist.

10/16
Saying they are not racist costs the SWSF nothing and will not make them disappear. (To be
candid, many of Steiner’s statements clearly discriminate between races in both an
unpleasant and prosaic manner, the ‘spiritual’ is no excuse.)

But the statement reveals a significant misunderstanding of racism. It is historically naive to

imagine that being represented in diverse cultures and communities can define a
worldview. Catholic schools are similarly represented, this doesn’t alter the nature of
Catholic teachings; Anthroposophy’s racial doctrines do not magically change because there
are Steiner Waldorf schools in Kenya. The disclaimer also ignores the fact that South African
Waldorf schools were founded by Max Stibbe (the Waldorf school in Pretoria is still named
after him), a vocal supporter of apartheid. Peter Staudenmaier comments:

“[Stibbe] was also the editor of the Dutch Waldorf journal Ostara, as well as the founding editor of
an even more influential Waldorf journal, Vrije Opvoedkunst, in 1933. Vrije Opvoedkunst is where
Stibbe published his racist articles in the 1960s, which formed the basis for the "racial ethnography"
courses in Dutch Waldorf schools well into the 1990s.”

Nor can the recent promotion of a non-white titular Vice Principal (at the state funded 315
pupil (£5.2 million) Hereford Steiner Academy cancel out Steiner’s racial doctrines.

In addition, under “What is Anthroposophy?’ the SWSF states:

“Like many inspiring thinkers from the past, Ghandi and Darwin being other examples, Rudolf
Steiner provides us with important insights which continue to be relevant today, as well as
statements which conflict with our contemporary understanding of inclusivity and equality.”

It’s extraordinary that in a description of Anthroposophy by the Steiner Waldorf movement’s

umbrella organisation in the UK, there’s no mention of karma, reincarnation, higher worlds,
spiritual science etc, or the fact that anthroposophists believe Steiner was clairvoyant.
Zoologists do not believe Darwin was clairvoyant – nor did Darwin teach an occult racial
doctrine. Steiner’s unique status amongst his followers means that he cannot be excused as
simply ‘a man of his time’. Even so, such racial ideas were rejected by many of Steiner’s
contemporaries.

From a historical perspective, racial remarks should not be assessed according to whether
they offend modern sensibilities. What makes a particular text racist is its content, what it
actually says about race.

The 2nd Goetheanum, designed by Steiner – world centre for Anthroposophy – Dornach,
Switzerland

The European Council for Steiner Waldorf Education) disclaimer document ‘Waldorf schools
against discrimination’, linked to by the SWSF, states:
11/16
 “Anthroposophy, upon which Waldorf education is founded, stands firmly against all forms of
racism and nationalism. Throughout Steiner’s work there is a consistent anti-racist sentiment and he
frequently described racist views as being anachronistic and antithetical to basic human values and
dignity. The Waldorf schools are aware, however, that occasional phrases in Rudolf Steiner’s
complete works are not in concordance with this fundamental direction and have a discriminatory
effect.”

This is extraordinarily mendacious, and only sustainable if no one else – specifically no

politician – reads any Steiner. The ‘discriminatory effect’ is reflected in the actions and
decisions of teachers in the classroom, behaving in accordance with anthroposophical
dogma which they may not even believe is racist. It should not be confused with an
accusation that Steiner Waldorf schools openly discriminate on grounds of race, for
example at point of entry, which they do not. Whether Steiner’s teachings themselves are
‘discriminatory’ makes little sense in an early twentieth century context – what matters is
that they are racist. A confusion between discrimination and racism further highlights the
worrying anthroposophist misunderstanding of racism.

This ECSWE disclaimer is cited by the Rudolf Steiner school South Devon. This is one of three
English Steiner schools nearing funding, with the support of the Tory MP for Totnes, Dr
Sarah Wollaston. The school also seeks to distance itself from “any racism stated or implied
in any of Rudolf Steiner’s speeches and writings (dating from the mid -1880s to his death in
1925)” It’s alarming to find this on a school website bearing the name of the seer in
question. But the disclaimer doesn’t acknowledge any statements by Steiner, much less
examine their racial content. There’s no explanation of why this statement needs to be
there.

On the same ECSWE site there’s a link to a document called: ‘ Overcoming Racism through
Anthroposophy: Rudolf Steiner and Questions of Race’. This is an audacious title. Peter
Staudenmaier responds (hyperlinks mine):

12/16
 “Far from a denunciation of any and all racist statements made by Steiner, it is a defense of
Steiner’s racial teachings. It also claims that Steiner opposed antisemitism throughout his life, that
he was deeply opposed to any philosophy of racial or ethnic superiority, and so forth. The document
is co-authored by Detlef Hardorp and Lorenzo Ravagli, among others, who have very vocally and
quite explicitly defended a range of Steiner’s racist arguments. This remains the mainstream
position for both the Waldorf movement and the broader anthroposophist movement today.

In my view, a perfunctory ‘denunciation’ of ‘any and all racist statements made by Steiner’ — even
if we could find such a denunciation from some anthroposophist body or other — would miss the
point. If anthroposophists want to face up the racist components in their ideological legacy, they
need to analyze and understand what Steiner taught about race, not pre-emptorily denounce it, and
they need to figure out how to revise the overall conceptual structure of anthroposophy, which in its
current form is built to a significant extent around racial premises. Simply waving away the problem
with a vague gesture of disassociation accomplishes nothing toward that end, indeed it actively
hinders the steps that could lead toward that end.”

A 1998 report by Dutch anthroposophists concluded there were no ‘racist teachings’ in

Rudolf Steiner’s work. Peter Staudenmaier believes that an attempt by anthroposophists to
come to terms with Steiner’s race doctrines, the “Frankfurt Memorandum” 2008, is flawed
partly by using that Dutch report as its inspiration.

Significantly, former Waldorf teacher Tom Mellett notes parallels between the Steiner
movement’s denunciation of Steiner’s racism and statements made by the Catholic church
regarding priestly sex abuse.

Race in the classroom

Anthroposophy impacts on real children. Ray Pereira noticed the racist overtones in his
child’s ‘Steiner stream’ in an Australian school:

“Mr Pereira, who is from Sri Lanka, said his concerns about Steiner’s racist beliefs were realised
when his children were not allowed to use black or brown crayons because they were “not pure”.
He said Steiner teachers at the state-run school recommended they not immunise their children
because it would lead to the `‘bestialisation of humans”.”

Two years ago, at an established English Steiner school now applying for Free Schools
funding; a British couple were alarmed when their 12 year old daughter (who’d been at the
school for a year) told them a German teacher had read out the word ‘nigger’ from a book of
poems, a standard text in Steiner schools. The mother reports that the teacher did not
agree with the children that this is a racist word, indeed it was her daughter who was
punished for refusing to back down. As a foster parent for many years and a mentor for
Kids’ Company, the mother concerned is used to dealing with challenging situations but the
school’s response to this incident (amongst others) shocked her. The staff seemed not to

13/16
take the family’s concerns seriously and delayed taking action. Looking online for
information on Steiner schools’ policies regarding racism, the mother discovered that in the
book ‘How to Know Higher Worlds’, by Rudolf Steiner, (an edition last published 2008,
Anthroposophic Press) a book on which one of the school trustees was basing workshops,
there is an account of ‘reincarnation through the races’:

“Peoples and races are after all, merely different developmental stages in our evolution toward a
pure humanity. The more perfectly that individual members of that race or people express the pure,
ideal human type – the more they have worked their way through from the physical and mortal to
the super sensible and immortal realm – the “higher” this race or nation is.”

In a formal meeting with the school, the father, who is black, calmly read aloud a quote from
Steiner which stated that: ‘the black man is the child of the races’. There was no response
from those present, presumably the trustees convinced themselves it was outside the remit
of the discussion. The couple were shown the school’s discrimination document. But they
report that when they asked the school’s Education Coordinator if he believed in Steiner’s
doctrine of the reincarnation of the soul through racial hierarchies, he reddened with anger
and refused to answer.

This critical Steiner mother notes an obvious inconsistency. In reply to a trustee’s defence
that individuals chose which bits of Steiner to believe:

“I asked her, how they could do that when Steiner received his knowledge clairvoyantly – if it all
came from the spirit world surely it was all true? I also said I didn’t believe that’s where he got his
knowledge, unless the spirit world itself is racist.”

The child involved is now at school elsewhere. Her family arranged for a racism awareness
day to be conducted at the Steiner school; this is required of every educational setting.

In response to Waldorf supporters’ claims that their teachers are simply not capable of
racism and that Steiner schools are both enlightened and benign, Peter Staudenmaier
writes:

14/16
 “Many forms of racist belief are not intentionally sinister, but are instead embedded in high-
minded, benevolent, and compassionate orientations toward the world. It is this type of racist
thought, whose historical heritage extends through the White Man’s Burden and many forms of
paternalistic racial ideology, that may find a welcome home in some Waldorf schools and other
anthroposophical contexts, where it can perpetuate its ideas about race under the banner of spiritual
growth and wisdom. This kind of racist thinking spreads more readily precisely because it is not tied
to consciously sinister intentions. Seeing through this kind of racism – which, furthermore, often
has more widespread and more insidious effects on the real lives of real people than the
intentionally sinister variety does – means paying attention to the background beliefs that animate a
project like Waldorf, whether among its founding generation or today.”

Staudenmaier is a historian, not primarily a critic of Steiner Waldorf education. But a

knowledge of the history of the anthroposophical movement is essential if we are to make
any sense of the difficulties the schools face today:

“I would be pleased if my research provided an opportunity for Waldorf admirers to ponder this
contentious history and take its lessons seriously. What is worrisome about the Waldorf
movement’s continued failure to address anthroposophy’s racial legacy is not that Waldorf schools
in the twenty-first century will start churning out little Hitler youths; what is worrisome is that
Waldorf advocates and sympathizers may unknowingly help prepare the ideological groundwork
for another unforeseen shift in the broader cultural terrain, in which notions of racial and ethnic
superiority and inferiority could once again take on a spiritual significance that lends itself all too
easily to practical implementation in a changed social and political context. For this reason among
others, I strongly encourage those involved in Waldorf endeavors to take another look at the history
of their movement and the doctrines at its core.”

There is a reprise of these themes in an insightful article by novelist Hari Kunzru.

If those concerned with Steiner Waldorf education read nothing else, they should read Peter
Staudenmaier’s article “Anthroposophy and Ecofascism”. It is a compelling account of
Anthroposophy’s history; essential reading, too important to ignore.

Like Peter Staudenmaier, I have an interest in progressive forms of education. Steiner

Waldorf education, far from being progressive or democratic, is dogmatic, autocratic and
anti-intellectual. The persuasive lobby for state funded Steiner schools in my opinion
misrepresents Anthroposophy, there are no exceptional applications. It is this lack of
honesty that causes most concern. Steiner schools have failed a particular responsibility to
their clients, not shared by Church of England or Catholic schools, to explain at the
beginning what is for most parents an unfamiliar world-view.

Most seriously, mindful of Steiner’s dogma of karma and the reincarnation of the human
soul through the races: If genuine equalities impact assessments were conducted on these
schools, in my view it is inconceivable that the implications for children from black and
15/16
ethnic minorities, and those with learning difficulties, would permit the funding of Steiner
education.

Download a pdf file of Anthroposophy’s racial doctrines: explanation and examples by Dr

Peter Staudenmaier.

16/16