Denying and Defining Religion Under the First Amendment: Waldorf Education as a Lens for Advocating a Broad Definitional Approach

• Author: Michael Rhea
• Pages: 1095-1127

Denying and Defining Religion Under the First

Amendment: Waldorf Education as a Lens for

Advocating a Broad Definitional Approach

INTRODUCTION

Group eurhythmic dance, biodynamic gardening, handicrafts,

and the search for spiritual enlightenment are not the typical

subjects that elementary and high school students learn in the

classroom. Nevertheless, these topics and others make up a

particular nontraditional curriculum that many parents choose for

their children.1 This pedagogical method, which focuses on

fostering students’ mental, physical, and spiritual health, is

practiced as part of the phenomenon known as Waldorf education.2

Waldorf schools originated from a belief system known as

anthroposophy, which author and spiritual philosopher Rudolf

Steiner created in the early twentieth century.3 Anthroposophy

postulates, among other ideas, the existence of a directly

comprehensible spiritual world and embraces teachings from all

religious faiths.4 Notably, Waldorf education, although most

commonly implemented in private institutions, also exists in

publicly funded settings.5

Although many parents, teachers, administrators, and students

commend the holistic, artistic approach undertaken by public

Waldorf education, a group consisting of parents of former

Waldorf students and certain taxpayers is not so supportive.6 In

fact, this group is the plaintiff in a lawsuit, which alleges that

publicly funded Waldorf education is religious in nature7 and thus

violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.8

Representatives and supporters of Waldorf schools, as well as

followers of anthroposophy, forcefully deny this accusation,

asserting that anthroposophy is merely a spiritual philosophy—not

a religion.9 Thus, what actually qualifies as a religion under the

Constitution is central to the resolution of this dispute. Whereas a

Copyright 2012, by MICHAEL RHEA.

1. See discussion infra Part I.B.

2. See discussion infra Part I.B.

3. See discussion infra Part I.A–B.

4. See discussion infra Part I.A.

5. See discussion infra Part I.B.

6. See discussion infra Part I.C.

7. See discussion infra Part I.C.

8. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend. I.

9. See discussion infra Part I.C.

1096 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 72

significant line of cases addresses the issue of defining religion

when a group claims or admits religious status, the Waldorf

controversy provides the uncommon situation in which an entity

denies religiosity.10

The characteristics of the Waldorf paradigm engender interests,

arguments, and legal questions distinct from those germane to the

more commonly litigated Free Exercise and Establishment Clause

fact patterns.11 Specifically, the stakes involved when an entity

asserts or admits its religious nature differ significantly from the

individual and societal concerns in the less common situation in

which a party denies its religious nature.12 Accordingly, these

dissimilarities in interests raise the question of whether a court has

the authority to label a party as religious against its will. Further,

these dissimilarities shed light on how courts should define

religion.

Moreover, contemporary notions of American religious

diversity demand an examination of the legal definition of religion

and suggest that controversies like the Waldorf dispute will appear

in the future in greater numbers and with greater frequency. Such

disputes will likely increase as religious subgroups and even

completely novel religious groups emerge and seek to establish

themselves in the United States.13 Not only do non-Christian

minority religions represent an increasingly large percentage of the

American population, but subgroups within these minority

traditions as well as within Christianity are also multiplying.14

Furthermore, in light of the perceived failure of many traditional

public schools in the United States,15 parents’ and communities’

10. See Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 200 (3d Cir. 1979) (Adams, J.,

concurring); see also in fra note 82.

11. See supra note 8. The first clause of the quoted portion of the

amendment is the Establishment Clause; the second is the Free Exercise Clause.

12. See discussion infra Part IV.

13. See infra note 180 and accompanying text.

14. See infra note 180 and accompanying text.

15. See, e.g., John Stossel, John Stossel’s “Stupid in America,” How Lack

of Choice Cheats Our Kids Out of a Good Education, ABC NEWS, Jan. 13, 2006,

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338; Lou Dobbs, Dobbs: No

Summer Vacation for Our Failing Schools, CNN, June 27, 2006, http://

articles.cnn.com/2006-06-27/us/dobbs.june28_1_high-school-diploma-dropouts-

graduation-numbers?_s=PM:US; Gilbert Cruz, Can Charter-School Execs Help

Failing Public Schools?, TIME, June 27, 2009, http://www.time.com/time/

nation/article/0,8599,1907203,00.html; Valerie Strauss, An Occasion for Civil

Debate, Constitution Day Questioned as a ‘One-Shot Moment’ in Education,

WASH. POST, Sept. 15, 2008, at B02; Robin Finn, Shaping the System That

Grades City Schools, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 16, 2007, at 4; Mitchell Landsberg, The

Vanishing Class; Back to Basics: Why Does High School Fail So Many?, L.A.

TIMES, Jan. 29, 2006, at A1.

2012] COMMENT 1097

confidence in non-traditional education is on the rise.16 Where

non-traditional educational models arising from arguably religious

organizations seek direct financial support from the state, the

potential for Waldorf-like controversies abounds, indicating the

need for a coherent, workable constitutional definition of religion.

In light of the increasingly diverse religious and educational

landscapes in the United States, this Comment contends that the

Waldorf dispute demonstrates why courts should adopt a broad,

unitary definition and be able to apply it in spite of an entity’s

denial of religiosity. Specifically, courts should adopt a definition

that does not apply a “comprehensiveness” requirement but does

incorporate an element focusing on “duties of conscience” in the

mind of an adherent to a belief.17

In reaching this conclusion, Part I of this Comment first

explores the history and current status of anthroposophy, as well as

the Waldorf education program to which Steiner’s philosophy

gives rise. Additionally, Part I examines the Waldorf controversy

in some detail. Next, Part II tracks the jurisprudential development

of the constitutional definition of religion and discusses the

essential failure of the United States Supreme Court in setting forth

a clear, workable definition. Part III distills from past judicial

decisions and scholarly commentary the underlying individual and

societal interests that drive the debate about defining religion in

typically observed cases. Part IV explores how the facts of the

Waldorf dispute bring to light interests that have not arisen in

previously decided cases. Ultimately concluding that societal

concerns outweigh individual concerns in the Waldorf scenario,

Part IV also suggests that courts have the authority to impose a

religious label on an entity that denies its own religiosity. Finally,

acknowledging that the Waldorf scenario implicates a need for a

new definitional framework, Part V presents a forward-looking

solution: an expansive, inclusive definition of religion that

adequately protects the interests entailed in both the Free Exercise

and Establishment Clauses by reflecting the role of religion in a

pluralistic society.

16. See, e.g., V. Dion Haynes, Teachers, Parents Spend Break Getting New

School Ready for Kids, CHI. TRIB., Jan. 5, 1994, at 2; Kate Folmar, Opposites on

Track, 2 Schools in Running for National Blue Ribbon Status, L.A. TIMES, Jan.

12, 1997, at 1; Abby Goodnough, $30 Million Pledged to Help City Revamp

Failing Schools, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 14, 2000, at B6; Kameel Stanley, Putting His

Ideals to the Test, School to Focus on Founder’s ‘Smaller Is Better’ Doctrine,

WASH. POST, Aug. 24, 2008, at LZ01; Rachel Cromidas, Charter Education

Expanding In Chicago, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 8, 2010, at 21A.

17. See discussion infra Part V.