Rather Hoarse Lion
From: golden3000997
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 4:21 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rather Hoarse Lion
Good Morning Linda!
Haven't even had my first cup of coffee yet
and already had to face really dumb responses from Dan Dugan
to my post about studying "handedness". Got one last
night from Peter Farrell pointing me to a professor in Washington
State who makes a case that the correlation between body side
dominance and brain hemisphere research is basically over rated
and over referred to and is akin to phrenology in the 19th century.
http://williamcalvin.com/bk2/bk2ch10.htm
now this one from Dan
http://www.indiana.edu/~primate/
So, I'm really not in the mood to laugh. I
might never be. I would be able to laugh if what they are doing
didn't have such serious implications. You see, if parents do
not like Waldorf Education principles and practices and find
those who do laughable and without merit, they can choose not
to send their child to such a school or to pull the child out
of one. That is why I agree with them about not allowing Waldorf
in public education. Parents who remain by default or choice
in the state system have very little choice about which school
their child goes to except by moving to a different town. They
have every right to state their grievances with a particular
Waldorf teacher or school in public and even encourage others
to avoid Waldorf Schools. People can just as easily make very
good cases against sending children to Catholic schools (wanna
talk about left hand switching and Catholic schools?). And even
in the face of the barrage of pedophile cases being brought to
light in the Catholic community, no group has the right to blanket
label ALL Catholic schools a "racist Nazi cult" - even
though a case with historical basis might be made.
There is no place for "us" (WE &
Anthros) to move to to "avoid" this particular group
of people that we disagree with about educational principles
and practices and who we might find laughable. The slurs and
defamations reach world wide through the internet and will follow
us anywhere and eat at the worldwide system like a virus.
In the case of the professor who refuses to
respond to slanderous personal remarks, we have a different situation.
His individual reputation and position in the college society
was secure and well recognized. Waldorf Schools do not yet enjoy
this kind of respect and acknowlegement widely enough yet to
rest confidently on their basis of support in world opinion.
There are simply too many people around the world who have not
yet "heard" of Waldorf Education and whose first exposure
to it could well be through the PLANS group and their court case.
To continue the analogy started above with
the Catholic Schools, the Catholic Church is certainly established
world wide, in spite of violent opposition and equally violent
defense. They have legal protection in the United States and
most other countries around the world against many forms of attack.
They also have the membership numbers and financial backing to
fight off legal or public relations attacks whereever and whenever
they occur, as well as as many of the finest lawyers in the world
at their disposal as they may ever need. So, even though cases
are brought against them, they have to be extremely well founded
legally to even get a preliminary hearing. Waldorf Schools and
the Anthroposophical Society have no such advantages. Our work
and our existence is very open and vulnerable to attack from
any sector of public or private opinion. It makes no difference
in the "court of public opinion whether the facts support
the allegations. Public opinion is powerful and easily manipulated.
Catholic and Montessori Schools do not belong
in the state school system and I believe they recognize and accept
this (maybe some Montessori exceptions, I don't know). Krishna
schools, Sufi schools, Fundamentalist Christian schools, ANY
school which identifies itself with a religious ideology which
is stated to be exclusive and in its nature considers itself
"mandated" by God to provide recruits to its belief
system - all have no place in the school system as it exists
now in the United States. Despite the fact that the "religious"
element to be found in Waldorf Education is universal and inclusive
and despite the fact that there is no organized religious institution
to recruit any members to, there is enough "associative"
religious connotation in our principles and practices to warrant
the separation of Waldorf Schools and the government school system.
But we cannot and do not have to allow detractors
to enter the private school arena of our work and make wholesale
condemnations and accusations that have no basis in fact. Let
them stick to the arena of public legality, whether we like it
or not. But private schools in this country are still free to
operate and enjoy (to this date at least) some protection from
state interference and public slander. We must use this protection
to the fullest extent while it is still available.
I would like to call on the Waldorf School
movement and the Anthropsophical Society at large to address
this issue and to work diligently to gather legal aid and information
needed to protect our work in the private sector and to "immunize"
us against this very vicious virus that has begun to infect our
worldwide school system.
If anyone knows of people active in the Waldorf
Education movement who have formed or are in the process of forming
action committees in this direction, I would appreciate it if
you would send me the contact information and/ or pass my writings
on this issue to people involved.
I also need to state that I reserve the right
to write to this list and to speak about the WC/ PLANS group
without the need to cc them each time, unless I am offering direct
quotes and interpretations of those quotes. If what I say here
is taken out of context and missed on any other forum I will
protest with every resource at my disposal.
Now I'm going to get some coffee.
Have a nice Wednesday!
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: elredon
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:06 am
Subject: Re: Rather Hoarse Lion and Eagle
Hello Christine,
I wanted to chime in here. I hope you don't
mind.
First of all I truly understand your passion.
It made me think, "I'd like to know this person."
Then I went about responding to many of your
statements, but in the end I tossed it all out. I found myself
poking holes all over the place in your arguments with such terms
as - Parental Free Will; with or without the critics. Parental
Priorities. Freedom of Speech in the US; the internet is a reality
and here to stay. Finally, and what is most important, what is
moral and immoral? If you apply any one of those phrases to each
paragraph you might see where I am coming from.
After that discovery, it brought me to the
larger issue I think is facing the Waldorf Movement today. Morality.
One example you used was the Catholic Church.
Is using the Catholic Church as a roll model, welding its legal
abilities and power, moral? Is it something the Waldorf Movement
desires or wishes to emulate?
I know how you feel about Waldorf in the public
sector, but you must have thought, at some point, that when this
decision was made it would open a virtual Pandora's Box, no?
I must confess that I often wonder what the
true intentions where, what was really on the minds of those
key people who made the decision to push this movement into the
public sector. Was it really a moral decision?
In this last part I am going to quote you.
At the end I have what I believe is one very important question
for all to consider.
But we cannot and do not have to allow
detractors to enter the private school arena of our work and
make wholesale condemnations and accusations that have no basis
in fact. Let them stick to the arena of public legality, whether
we like it or not. But private schools in this country are still
free to operate and enjoy (to this date at least) some protection
from state interference and public slander. We must use this
protection to the fullest extent while it is still available.
I would like to call on the Waldorf School
movement and the Anthropsophical Society at large to address
this issue and to work diligently to gather legal aid and information
needed to protect our work in the private sector and to "immunize"
us against this very vicious virus that has begun to infect our
worldwide school system.
If anyone knows of people active in the
Waldorf Education movement who have formed or are in the process
of forming action committees in this direction, I would appreciate
it if you would send me the contact information and/ or pass
my writings on this issue to people involved.
If a legally developed community exists should
a portion of those funds and efforts be directed to protect and
defend parents and teachers who have endured abuse by particular
schools and individuals within the Waldorf Movement?
I am assuming that we would all agree that
legal action is a financial burden few individuals, who are genuinely
hurt, can afford?
Does anyone know if AWSNA has a code of ethics
schools can/should abide by when it comes to dealing with parents
and teachers who have been hurt by individual Waldorf Schools
or Educators?
Thank you for reading.
-el
...................................................................................................................................
From: Linda Clemens
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rather Hoarse Lion
golden3000997 wrote:
Haven't even had my first cup of coffee
yet and already had to face really dumb responses from Dan Dugan
to my post about studying "handedness".
You were quick to see the contradictions, yes? They argue Waldorf
ed is bogus because its "woo-woo" ideas aren't validated
in mainstream research. Yet if you demonstrate the correlation
to mainstream research, they're quick to dismiss this research
as well. (I was involved in several discussions on other learning
issues in which a particular Waldorf practice was being denounced
as not only bogus but educational malpractice. And when I pointed
out that the same idea was shared by mainstream education, the
objections would shift to something along the lines of "the
practice itself isn't bogus--it's bogus only when Waldorf educators
do it!")
I was involved once in the left-handed switching debate, and
I see the exact same arguments recycling over and over again.
It's idiotic! I try not to make sweeping generalizations, but
I can't help myself on this one. There is only 1 reason that
this issue gets their juices flowing, and it isn't because they're
flooded with first-hand reports of left-handed switching, barbarously
enforced or otherwise. It's because the issue affords a way for
critics to stir up an anti-Waldorf hysteria or phobia without
having to work too hard to so. For centuries, left-handedness
implied something evil, something destructive, and a person too
lazy to argue the issues in Waldorf honestly can rely on this
negative history to emotionally "load" the discussion.
Never mind that Rudolf Steiner's reasons (or those of any Waldorf
educators I've heard of) for switching left-handers had nothing
whatsoever to with these historical connotations of evil or black
magic ROFL!
Similarly, it wasn't so long ago that switching was the mainstream's
view, and there were many horror stories of children being brutally
and cruelly forced to switch whether it was by physical punishments
or emotional pressures. It's a "convenience" for the
critics to conjure up those images as well, hoping that by associating
those horror stories to Waldorf, they can implicate Waldorf as
engaging in child abuse. Never mind that Steiner himself INSISTED
that this switching proceed only if there were clearly no harm
to the child in doing so. Never mind that there is absolutely
nothing to indicate that Steiner would have approved of torturing
children in order to get them to write with their right hand.
And never mind that NOBODY in Waldorf today advocates anything
like this.
This practice of left-handed switching is so freakin' rare, after
10 years as a Waldorf parent I've yet to meet anyone who says
their left-hander was pushed to switch. I have a left-hander
myself. The classes are full of left handers. Left handed teachers
teach there too. With something like 1 out 10 persons left-handed,
it's not like Waldorf schools are rarely confronted with the
issue! Where are all the REAL horror stories (as opposed to those
the critics would anticipate going on?)
Ask any Waldorf parent if their left-hander suffers from "switching",
and if they say yes, I promise you 99.99% of the time it is in
terms of knitting, crocheting, and playing the flute! Not in
writing.
So understand that this left-handed switching thing isn't a genuine
curiosity or concern with them about brain integration or dominance.
[I've decided that if they can attach "motives" to
what I say, I'm free to attach them to what they say.] The issue
is of genuine interest to them because it has a pizzazzy way
of attracting uninformed or paranoid criticisms toward Waldorf,
which fits their agenda. There is no real honest concern for
real living and breathing left-handers in their argument. Ask
the Waldorf "survivors" as they call themselves if
they have any direct experience with this so-called problem themselves
or at their former school. I'd be curious. Because from where
I sat, they spent all their time arguing about left-handers'
mistreatments from the middle-ages, etc., but no time whatsoever
sharing actual examples of these so-called horror stories supposedly
going on in Waldorf today.
The slurs and defamations reach world wide through the internet
and will follow us anywhere and eat at the worldwide system like
a virus.
Christine, unfortunately reckless accusations
of "racism" are a currency these days. You can wield
a lot of power in some circles by slapping that word on someone,
and unfortunately--you can buy a lot of influence over a lot
of people when you do that. I see politicians from ALL sides
guilty of this. And although I'd be an idiot if I didn't acknowledge
that race plays a huge role in the complex issues facing mainstream
education, there's no question in my mind but that the accusations
are so loaded and incautiously tossed at people in mainstream
education, that the "race police" I call them are causing
immense damage in an already fragile situation. Just the term
itself behaves like a million watt flash and it seems to short-circuit
people's thinking processes like a sun spot storm.
If you can find the best solution for defusing
these kinds of accusations, which do tend to behave like "bombs",
I'd be tickled no end. Our Waldorf school is one of the few arenas
I'm involved in these days where such charges DON'T have this
kind of power. ( It's absolutely ludicrous that Waldorf critics
would be so obsessed with racism in Waldorf schools, because
My God! The public schools? HELLO?!?!?!!!!!! And I speak from
experience on this--there was (IS) more racism in public schools
than just about anyplace in our culture! That was true for my
children. I recently learned one of my son's classmates is a
refugee from public school where not only was he openly targeted,
but the teachers and administration wouldn't even speak out against
it let alone lift a finger to protect him from it. He endured
it for two years before his parent realized it was never going
to change.)
In my experience, rolling your eyes to obviously
idiotic accusations worked as well as anything did, which isn't
saying a lot but I can say that tackling the charges head on
doesn't work well either. Like I said, clear headed thinking
doesn't seem to be effective when it comes to this issue.
This may be small consolation, but I take
it where I can >-). The WC have been trying to push this issue
for years and years now, and I don't see any signs that it's
moved much at all. I don't see much evidence that the WC are
taken too seriously when it comes to that issue.
L
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:44 am
Subject: defamation, libel, and slander
At 19:19 11.02.2004, Linda Clemens wrote:
Christine, unfortunately reckless accusations
of "racism" are a currency these days. You can wield
a lot of power in some circles by slapping that word on someone,
and unfortunately--you can buy a lot of influence over a lot
of people when you do that. I see politicians from ALL sides
guilty of this. And although I'd be an idiot if I didn't acknowledge
that race plays a huge role in the complex issues facing mainstream
education, there's no question in my mind but that the accusations
are so loaded and incautiously tossed at people in mainstream
education, that the "race police" I call them are causing
immense damage in an already fragile situation. Just the term
itself behaves like a million watt flash and it seems to short-circuit
people's thinking processes like a sun spot storm.
The PLANS-WC tactics appear to be based upon
the theory that if you throw the shit at them repeatedly and
incessantly long enough, it will eventually stick. So that's
what they do. They throw this garbage into anthro-faces not only
at every opportunity, but whenever they feel like it, which is
basically all the time. In her remark about Christine calling
Diana a snake (WC Feb 10), Deborah reflects about the legal definition
of defamation and how it relates to libel and slander. And then
she writes:
"There is an old saying
that, "The truth shall set you free." Speaking the
truth is not popular and freedom is more a state of mind than
a reality; however, I have always found that one of the assets
associated with being low-income is that one is thereby "judgment
proof." As a result I love telling the truth, particularly
as concerns those who hold to an endtimes, aryan supremacist
religion."
Thank you for illustrating defamation, libel,
and slander with such a clear example, Deborah.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 4:12 pm
Subject: Re: Rather Hoarse Lion - laterality research
http://williamcalvin.com/bk2/bk2ch10.htm
now this one from Dan
http://www.indiana.edu/~primate/
Now this is the type of stuff I wish Diana
had brought up. William Calvin's site is fascinating, and I have
already ordered two of his books. To the link above, which goes
to an essay titled "Left Brain, Right Brain: Science or
the New Phrenology?" I must say it was a really good read.
It was first published in 1983, and the points he raises are
still relevant. However, I must note that it takes absolutely
no position on handedness. Dr. Calvin is accusing many in the
popular press of simplifying the actual research to support a
false dichotomy. Not a word about the pedagogical implications
of switching, and no facts to support the arguments on either
side of the issue.
M.K. Holder, Ph.D. 's website on "Primate
Handedness and Brain Lateralization Research" doesn't actually
present any research on primate handedness (unless I missed the
link somewhere - I presume he is waiting to publish it somewhere
more prestigious than the Internet). He has a one page description
of why "handedness" is a vague term:
"«Handedness»
is a vague term, and can mean many things to many people. Most
people in our society define handedness as the hand you use for
writing. Within the scientific community, the vagueness of this
term has led to much debate. Researchers define handedness based
on different theoretical assumptions. For instance, some define
handedness as (a) the hand that performs faster or more precisely
on manual tests, while others define it as (b) the hand that
one prefers to use, regardless of performance. Some think that
there are two types of handedness: (a) either left or right,
or (b) either right or non-right, while others think there should
be three categories (to include ambidexterity). Some think there
are two different kinds of ambidexterity. Some think that handedness
should not be lumped into 2 or 3 or 5 categories, but rather
measured along a scale of a continuum. These are just examples
of a few of the differing criteria for handedness! My work attempts
to resolve some of these issues."
His actual paper on the matter isn't on-line
either; he only has links to libraries where a copy can be obtained.
Finally, he has a whole section on the difficulties of being
a lefty, including about 100 horror stories form MAINSTREAM education.
But no original research on the pedagogical implications of switching.
He has a decent bibliography page, but admits that it is selected
specifically to support the contention that society has a bias
against lefties, something which is doubtless true, but does
not directly pertain to our investigation.
Daniel Hindes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
February/March
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
