Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner
GA 300b
4 October 1922, Stuttgart
Thirty-Sixth Meeting
Dr. Steiner: I have called you together to discuss the recent situation that occupies you so much. Otherwise we could have waited a few days. It seems important to me that we do not discuss such things as a specific case. We cannot do that, but instead we need to treat all of these things in this difficult time for us in connection with the anthroposophical movement. We should be careful that it is not used against the anthroposophical movement. We are actually sitting in a glass house and should avoid all such things that can lead to all kinds of opposition to the anthroposophical movement. What is now important is that we gain some clarity about what occurred and how we should judge it.
A group of students from the 9th, 10th, and 11th grades had been involved in some lying, thefts, and drunkenness. One of the students had given another student some injections and attempted to hypnotize her. Upon discovery of what had been occurring, the faculty had discussed the situation with Dr. Steiner in Dornach by telephone. The faculty then questioned the students in detail and sent Dr. Steiner a detailed report. The students involved were temporarily suspended from school.
Dr. Steiner asks about the age of each of the students involved, about which class they were in and about how long they had been in the school. He also asks about the parents and the home environment.
Dr. Steiner: When was the first time that something was said against these children? How did you discover what had been happening?
A teacher: Through the business with the hypnotizing by G.S. One student wanted to speak with me alone and told me that there were things that occurred in S.’s house that we should know about.
Dr. Steiner: In your opinion, had G.S. ever hypnotized anyone?
A teacher: No, at least not completely, although he has often attempted it with various students.
Dr. Steiner: We can hardly assume that if he did not exercise some unfavorable influence, that he could have caused any real harm with those he attempted to hypnotize. There was certainly moral damage, but he did not do things that would cause real damage. In any event, there is not much to be done with this whole hypnotizing business. I had the impression from the report that this whole thing was simply a bunch of dumb tricks that got out of hand due to G.S.’s craziness. Does anybody know anything about this hypnotizing that is more serious?
A detailed report is given about G.S. and his home situation. Among other things, one teacher reports that the boy has been interested in such things since he was ten years old and that his father has some books about such matters. The boy likes to experiment and has made a small laboratory.
Dr. Steiner: Other than the fact that he was very diligent, is there nothing more to say about how G.S. is at school?
A teacher: I used to be quite satisfied with him, but he has slacked off in the last three or four months.
Dr. Steiner: To the extent that G.S. is concerned, the business with the injections seems to be like that of the hypnotizing. We should now take a look at how things are with H.B. From all that I have read, he seems to be a real gang leader and is behind a number of things. It also appears that he was the main motivator in this socalled club. Were you satisfied with him here at school?
A teacher: He did not participate with much interest. He avoided conflicts, but was not really with things.
There is then a detailed discussion about the student.
Dr. Steiner: What does N.G. say to all this? Why was he readmitted to school after he had already left?
A number of teachers report.
Dr. Steiner: Now there is one other thing I would like to know. I had asked Mr. J. about some report or another and he told me about an evening where there was a discussion between the students and teachers. How is it that a student association has a chairman and the teachers met with them and asked the student president to speak? I nearly fell off my chair.
There is a discussion about this.
Dr. Steiner: Now N.G., O.R., U.A., and F.S. have been suspended because they are cutting school. H.B. and S.K. were suspended because of their black-market activities, and G.S. has been expelled. How is it possible that there has been so little contact with the students in these upper grades recently? The lack of contact was what caused these classes to come to me in May. What is happening here?
The discussion I had with them showed me that the teachers no longer had any contact, particularly with the 10th grade. Why is that? Undoubtedly, there is a considerable difference between these classes and the lower grades where there has always been a strong contact between the class teacher and the children. There is a significant difference in the way that the relationship developed toward these 9th- and 10th-grade classes. There is no doubt that these classes have gotten out of the control of the faculty. That evening discussion did not lead to the faculty gaining control over the children. Instead, it is quite clear that the students have taken the helm. To have such discussions!
A number of teachers report about the discussions between the students and faculty.
Dr. Steiner: It must have begun somewhere. Mr. S. has left. Somewhere, there must be a beginning.
The difficulty is that there is a whole group of students that we do not need here at school, but if we throw them out, then the same sort of thing will happen as did earlier. The whole situation will result in a new affair connected with the anthroposophical movement. Of course, the thing with N.G. is not so easy. He must have known that old G. was planning some activities against the anthroposophical movement. He is not really so bright, but he is planning something nevertheless, and that should have been a warning for us to be cautious with regard to N.G. It is certainly a difficult thing for the other students to reject the student association.
N.G. is a rascal, the result of an unbelievable family life. There are a number of cases where the home situation is not good, but this particular situation is one of the worse excesses to be seen in modern social life. He grew up in that and is now psychopathic, totally sick. It is really difficult to decide which one is worse, F.S. or N.G.
I have to admit that it is really a problem that these children did not find it possible to gain a natural connection to the faculty. They had no trust in the faculty. I certainly need to say that in fact these children were not filled with any trust in the faculty.
You will seldom find a boy who is inwardly so torn apart as N.G. is, in spite of the fact that there are today so many children who are torn apart. What you have told me about are simply stupid, boyish tricks, and you certainly know that there are such boys in every school. However, there are certain inner or soul things here but what you have told me about today belongs in the category of things that occur in every school.
There appears to be a misunderstanding of the situation here. You have told me that N.G. and G.S., and perhaps some of the others, have been impertinent and that they asked how it is that people say that there is no anthroposophy in the instruction. How did you understand that? What did you think about all those questions?
A teacher: When N.G. asked about those things, I had the feeling that he wanted to know the truth, but that he also wanted to trip us up.
Dr. Steiner: The situation with N.G. is such that he is now grown up. At the time when he was a small child and learning to speak, he did not hear one true word in his family. His mother is a complete lie, just as his father is. They were totally contradictory, so that N.G. one day when he was quite young, perhaps only seven or eight years old, asked himself, “What is the world, then? My father, who is such a terrible boor, still made it through graduate school. How is that possible?” Now, N.G. is in the school where he also found that all the teachers are boors. He came here and said to himself that it is said that the teachers here at the Waldorf School are not boors, but I want to see for myself if they are boors or not. Everybody told him time and again that there is no Anthroposophy in the instruction. But Anthroposophy is just what he wanted. It would have been just the thing for him as he sought the opportunity to learn about Anthroposophy. He wanted to know why everyone withheld that and he perceived it as an untruth. He then soon left and worked to earn money.
After a long time, N.G. came to me and said, “I don’t know what I should do. I had a great hope that I would become a better human being when I went to the Waldorf School. I rode my bicycle over to Dornach and had a look at the building there. That building made me into a better human being, but I am not getting anywhere. I do not see any difference between good and evil and I see no reason why I should be good now. Why should I not be a person who is intent upon destroying everything?” Now recently since he returned again, something has happened to the boy. Either we should not have accepted him again, or he should have been able to gain some trust in the faculty. He is in a terrible position. Think about what kind of trophy that is for people who gather data against the anthroposophical movement.
I have to admit that as I learned of the situation I thought of it as being one situation at school like many others. You would have to really look for schools where such things do not come up. It is also easy for other schools to cope with such things. For us it is not so easy because we have to really be aware of how the anthroposophical movement is affected by such things. We thus have the choice between removing the student from the school with all justification and publicly, or of coping with such cases. The opinion that the world has about us in such cases needs to come from us.
We need to stop turning people away because of the difficulties they bring, since they become our enemies. A reason for expelling a student is really something quite different from what we now have before us. There is not much that we can do with the information we now have. The things that G.S. has done were really just stupid, boyish pranks and lead to the situation where people could ask what kind of a school this is that would allow the children so much time that they could get drunk.
A teacher: The children have forty-four hours of school per week.
Dr. Steiner: If you look at what you have presented, it would appear as though the children had no time at all to come to school. It is not only the fact that the children do not have any feeling that they are at school, it is also the fact that they do not feel that they are at a school where they cannot do such things.
I think that this is something you should have noticed. Here in the report, you state how G.S. formed a detective club over Christmas. This all occurred outside the school, but was there no effect upon the school? You should certainly be able to notice when there is a student of the sort who would form a detective club.
Now people can say that the children have been thrown out. I was in the 10th and 11th grade classes today, and I think they are quite well-behaved. You should be able to do anything with them.
A teacher: It is now really enjoyable to work with the class.
Dr. Steiner: The 11th-grade class is very upright and you should be able to do anything with them. To what extent has the situation with these children who have left affected the remainder of the class?
A teacher: They are all terribly happy about it.
Dr. Steiner: If you were to ask them, what would they say?
A teacher: They would say that they are happy the others are gone.
Dr. Steiner: The impression I have from all the questioning is that these delinquents did nothing more during the questioning than to lie out of both sides of their mouths, and certainly not much can result from that. It was rather unpleasant for me today to hear the discussion that someone had with one N.G.’s school comrades. What was said points to things that occurred last Christmas. I need to ask if you noticed nothing about all the things that this schoolgirl said.
It is really difficult to find a way to rectify things in this case. What would you do if in six months time one of those members of that clique of clerics were to handle H.B.’s case in the following way? H.B. is an upright student until he went to the Waldorf School. Afterward, he was also quite honorable. It took three years until he began his black-market activities. It is quite clear in this instance that it was not immediately possible to make such an honorable student into something so bad. It took three years of Waldorf School indoctrination—what would you say if that were to be said?
A teacher: I would see no possibility of working with such people in the school.
Dr. Steiner: What was actually the cause of all this? The reason is that contact was lost with the boys and girls. I had thought that after I spoke so seriously and that in some way we should again try to accept N.G. into the school, that a connection would then form with him. There must be some reason that we lost the boy. N.G. has been at school for two years.
A teacher: We could never find the proper relationship to him. I have often had the impression that we place ourselves above the children and not alongside of them.
Dr. Steiner: Why do you say that you have placed yourself above the children? What should have happened is that the children placed you above themselves. That is how things should be. The children should place you above them as a matter of course. That is the only possible proper relationship as then there will no longer be any discussions in which the children tell you that they reject the whole school.
We cannot glue things together again. We must nevertheless remove eight of the children. We cannot mend things in any other way. Nothing else can be done. We need to be able to justify the situation and represent it in such a way that it cannot be used against us. We must have the possibility of treating the situation in such a way that we can justify that we have expelled these eight children. It is really very difficult to cope with this situation. We need some firm ground under our feet, but what is important is that people hear how the situation is with the remainder of the class.
A teacher: The experience has been a relief and a freeing for the children in the 11th grade.
Dr. Steiner: Then we can handle it in the following way. We must come to a decision in the next few days. Tomorrow morning I will have a look at the 11th-grade class and then the tenth. The whole thing is so frustrating. It’s a dead end. It was a major mistake that the situation was handled by individuals. It should have been done with groups. I told that to Mr. R. and in spite of it I received this interrogation report. Just look at this report about S.H. Four-and-a-half pages long. Look at the report and you will see that it was just a joke for her. She said things and then laughed behind her hand. I do not think that she thought for one moment that the teachers stand above her. I need to look at the 10th- and 11th-grade classes.
A teacher: Did I understand you properly that it would be less of a blemish were we to keep the children?
Dr. Steiner: You cannot keep the children, but how can we get out of this? We cannot simply decide to expel them if we have no reasons for doing so. We need to find a reason. There must be some way of stopping a repetition of this. There must be some way of not allowing the children in the upper grades to get out of the faculty’s control, but that has now happened. If there is no will to keep the children under control, then they will get out of our control, especially due to the advantages of our methods. The disadvantage of those methods is that the children become too clever. Laziness occurs in other schools also, but with the understanding common among the students and teachers in those schools, this loss of control does not occur there. The real error lies in the way you have held discussions.
We need to protect ourselves from those people who seek every opportunity—and you cannot imagine how much attention is paid by them—to rid the world of the anthroposophical movement. We need to be able to counter that by avoiding such things in the future. I am not totally convinced that they will not recur. I can only believe that the boys and girls by the time they reach the age of fifteen or sixteen will time and again slip out of the teachers’ hands. We need to undertake something that will give a breath of life throughout the instruction. I don’t want to be preaching, but a breath of life must go through the teaching and into the classes. There is still some breath of life in the lower grades and it could also be in the upper grades. Basically, we have really quite good students here. These two classes made a quite good impression upon me. It is very frustrating when no one understands that the whole thing should be coming from another impulse. It should be impossible that students come to you and say that they reject the whole school. There needs to be some will to change such things.
A teacher: Couldn’t you say some more about that? We are confronted here with our own lack of ability.
Dr. Steiner: There is no will. If you were to concentrate your entire will upon this matter, then things would go differently. From an external perspective, there is a noticeable difference between the lower and upper grade classes. In the lower classes, what occurred with Miss U. occurs often and the children make quite a spectacle so you do not have the feeling that they are asleep. That was really a quite noteworthy example in your class. In the upper grades, the class is asleep. They don’t know anything, not even the simplest things. There was not one person there who knew that there had been the crusades. I understand something different with the idea of being awake. They had no idea at all about how the Crusades began.
We need to have a different kind of will. At a certain point in time, we come out of the proper understanding of the class and fall into simply lecturing. We leave the living connections behind.
Things would have been more understandable had you brought up Jakob Böhme today. You should not bring up so many details that one covers up the other. At 10:00 o’clock there was a whole lot of dictation and questioning. You need to round it out to form a picture and it is the picture that should remain. Had you added Jakob Böhme to everything else today, then they would certainly have been confused. Why is it that when we have three hours one after the other, what is done in the second hour wipes out what was done in the first? In history, you could do an hour and a half of something new and then illuminate it through other things the children have already learned. We need to develop the will to keep the children lively, so that they will have something from all these things when they learn them. That is something that we need to achieve, since otherwise we cannot dare to keep these higher grades. I am not saying all of this simply to complain. The fact is that the class is asleep.
Sechsunddreissigste Konferenz
Im August war Rudolf Steiner auf Einladung des britischen Bildungsministers mit Lehrern und Schülern an einer pädagogischen Tagung an der Universität Oxford. Die Tagung gestaltete sich sehr erfolgreich (Die geistig-seelischen Grundkräfte der Erziehungskunst, GA 305). In Dornach fand nach seiner Rückkehr der Dritte Theologen-Kurs zur Begründung der Christengemeinschaft statt, und in Stuttgart warteten fast hundert Jugendliche auf Steiner für die Vorträge des pädagogischen Jugendkurses (GA 217). Nach der 38. Konferenz reiste Steiner zurück nach Dornach.
Themen [36. bis 39. Konferenz]: Pädagogische Probleme in der 11. Klasse. Haltungsfragen der Lehrer. Die sokratische Illusion. Das Dozieren. Vorwurf des Schulschlendrians. Selbstdisziplinierung. Üb-stunden für Rechnen und Grammatik im Hauptunterricht, zweimal die Woche 30 Minuten. Mangelnder Kontakt der Lehrer untereinander. Einrichtung einer Gabelung beim alt- und neusprachlichen Unterricht. Mangelnder Kontakt zu den Schülern. Revision des Stundenplans.
Bemerkungen: Oberstufenschüler hatten sich in den Ferien schlecht benommen. Die Entrüstung der Lehrer war so groß, dass man sich zu Schulausschlüssen entschloss, ohne Steiner davon in Kenntnis zu setzen. Als Steiner dann dazugerufen wurde, analysierte er die Situation genau, sprach mit allen Beschuldigten und konnte keinen Grund für die Ausschlüsse feststellen; im Ganzen waren es nicht üble Schüler. Eine Schiadensbegrenzung war kaum noch möglich. Die Lehrer mussten verstehen lernen, dass dieses Verhalten der Schüler mir ihrer eigenen Haltung zusammenhing.
In allen vier Konferenzen war das Aufrütteln der Kollegen, weg von der inneren Bequemlichkeit, dieses Nicht-mit-der-Seele-dabei-Sein, dieses mangelnde Feuer das Hauptthema der Darstellungen.
Zum Schluss erinnerte Steiner die Lehrer an das Urteil des Schulrates: Für deren Methoden könne man mit mittelmäßigen Leuten auskommen. Für Waldorfschuhnethoden brauche man lauter Genies.
Steiners Kommentar: [eh will nicht behaupten, dass er recht hat. Etwas ist dran.
Steiner bat die Kollegen, eingedenk der erlebten Schwierigkeiten, die besprochen worden waren, «ein wenig zu berücksichtigen, dass wir mit der Waldorfschule kein Fiasko machen dürfen».
RUDOLF STEINER: Ich habe Sie gebeten., hauptsächlich schon um den Fall zu behandeln — wir hätten sonst noch einige Tage zu warten gehabt —, der Sie hier beschäftigt hat. Nun scheint mir das wichtig zu sein, dass wir solche Dinge jetzt gar nicht [als einzelne] bloß behandeln dürfen. Das darf bei uns nicht sein, sondern wir müssen alle diese Dinge jetzt in dieser für uns so schweren Zeit im Lichte der anthroposophischen Bewegung behandeln. Es muss bei allem darauf gesehen werden, dass es nicht ausgenützt wird gegen die anthroposophische Bewegung. Wir sitzen doch im Glashaus und müssen solche Dinge vermeiden, die neuerdings wiederum zu allem Möglichen gegen die anthroposophische Bewegung führen können. Nun, nicht wahr, handelt es sich darum, dass wir einmal ganz klar werden, was eigentlich vorgegangen ist, und wie das zu beurteilen ist, was vorgegangen ist.
Bei einer Gruppe von Schülern der 9., 10. und 1. Klasse waren Betrügereien} Diebstähle und Saufereien vorgekommen. Einer hatte auch seinen Mitschülern Injektionen gemacht und hatte versucht, sie zu hypnotisieren. — Daraufhin hatte man in dieser Sache mit Rudolf Steirer in Dornach telefonisch Rücksprache genommen. Dann hatte man die Schüler eingehend verhört und hatte an Rudolf Steiner einen sehr ausführlichen Bericht geschickt. Die betreffenden Schüler waren vorläufig vorn Unterricht suspendiert worden. Rudolf Steiner ließ sich nun bei jedem der Beteiligten das Alter sagen, in welcher Klasse er sei und wie lange auf der Schule und fragte auch nach den Eltern und den häuslichen Verhältnissen. Das Alter der Beteiligten lag etwa zwischen 16 und 19 Jahren.
RUDOLF STEINER: Nun, wann ist denn zum ersten Mal überhaupt irgendeine Anklage gegen die Kinder zutage getreten? Wodurch ist die ganze Sache aufgekommen?
EUGEN KOLISKO: Durch die Hypnosegeschichte mit M. G.
HERMANN VON BARAVALLE: R. G. ist zu mir gekommen und hat mir gesagt, dass in der Wohnung von G. solche Dinge vorgehen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Woher hat R. G. es gewusst?
Antwort: Er hat es erfahren von A. K.
RUDOLF STEINER: A. K. ist dazu gekommen, Herrn Boy es mitzuteilen. In welcher Form hat es R. G. Ihnen gesagt?
HERMANN VON BARAVALLE: Er wollte mich alleine sprechen und mir sagen, dass im Haus G. Dinge vorgehen, die wir wissen sollten. Es war ihm besonders leid uni den E, bei dem sich allerlei unangenehme Symptome zeigten.
RUDOLF STEINER: Haben noch andere Schüler etwas ausgesagt über diese Hypnose?
EUGEN KOLISKO: M. G. hat sich früher schon viel mit Hypnose beschäftigt. Den F. hat er mehrere Male hypnotisiert. Einmal war der A. K. dabei, und der hat es Herrn Boy berichtet.
RUDOLF STEINER: Haben Sie die Ansicht, dass es irgendeinmal dem M. G. gelungen ist, eine Hypnose herbeizuführen?
EUGEN KOLISKO: Nein, jedenfalls keine vollständige. Er hat es aber oft versucht an verschiedenen Schülern.
RUDOLF STEINER: Man kann wohl kaum annehmen, wenn er nicht einen ungünstigen Einfluss ausgeübt hat, dass er irgendwelches Unheil bewirkt hätte bei denjenigen, die er zu hypnotisieren versucht hat. Moralisches Unheil sicher, aber er hat es nicht bis ins Krankhafte getrieben.
EUGEN KOLISKO: M. G. hätte einen ungünstigen Einfluss auf F. gehabt durch suggestives Fragen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Nun, jedenfalls ist aus der ganzen Hypnotisiergeschichte nicht viel zu machen.
EUGEN KOLISKO: F. hat die Ansicht geäußert, dass er sterben will,
RUDOLF STEINER: Ich hatte aus den Tagebuchnotizen von A. IC doch nur den Eindruck, dass diese Fragen von M. G. gestellt worden sind, weil der F. solche Dinge irgendwie geäußert hat, und die haben solche Äußerungen von F. dann einbezogen. Der ganze Bericht hat den Eindruck gemacht, dass es nicht viel mehr als eine Summe von Dummen-Jungenstreichen war, [in die die Verrücktheiten von diesem. E hineingespielt haben].
[...] [Über einen Brief] Weiß noch irgendjemand etwas über die Hypnotisiergeschichte, was etwas Gravierendes enthält? Was für Leute sind denn die Eltern des M. G.?
MARIA RÖSCHL: Der Vater hat früher getrunken, ist jähzornig. Die Kinder leiden unter ihm. Die Familienverhältnisse sind ungünstig.
RUDOLF STEINER: Was haben Sie für einen Eindruck über die inneren Gründe, [über die Motive]? Der Junge wollte hinarbeiten, uni der Glanz der Waldorfschule zu werden.
MARIA RÖSCHL; Der Junge hat keinen Maßstab für sich, weil ihn die Umgebung nicht bieten kann. Er kommt sich zu Hause unverstanden vor.
RUDOLF STE1NER: Was kann ihn dahin geführt haben zum Hypnotismus?
MARIA RÖSCHL: Der Vater hat solche Bücher gehabt.
EUGEN KOLISKO: Er [M. G.] hat sich seit dem zehnten Jahr mit diesen Dingen befasst. Er hat einen Experimentiertrieb, er hat ein Laboratorium eingerichtet.
RUDOLF STEINER: Was glauben Sie, warum diese G. H. über M. G. diese Aussagen gemacht hat, und warum sie das bemerkt hat, dass das sich nach Weihnachten geändert hat?
MAX WOLFFHÜGEL: Die G. H. ist künstlerisch begabt; die beiden hatten viel Berührungspunkte gehabt. Bei mir hat M. G. gut mitgearbeitet.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es ist wichtig, dass man sich das anschaut. Ist aber über das Verhältnis des M. G. in der Schule selbst nichts zu sagen außer dies, dass er sehr fleißig gearbeitet hat?
EUGEN KOLISKO: Ich war früher zufrieden, seit drei bis vier Monaten hat er nachgelassen.
RUDOLF STEiNER: Eigentlich dieselbe Geschichte wie mit dem Hypnotisieren ist es auch mit dem Injizieren, was den M. G. anbetrifft.
Der Nächste, über den man etwas wissen müsste, wäre der W. H. Aus allen den Darstellungen, die ich gelesen habe, geht hervor, dass der W H. ein ziemlicher Rädelsführer war und eigentlich hinter vielem steckt. Dass also auch der W. H. der treibende Faktor war in [diesem sogenannten] Klub. Wie waren Sie in der Schule mit ihm zufrieden?
HERMANN VON BARAVALLE: Er hat nicht mit innerem Interesse mitgearbeitet, hat jeden Konflikt gemieden, war aber nicht innerlich dabei. —
Es wird über diesen Schüler ausführlich gesprochen.
RUDOLF STEINER: In welchem Verhältnis steht denn H. L. zu der ganzen Geschichte?
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN liest einen Brief Vor.
RUDOLF STE,INER: Was hat dazu geführt, dass dieser H. L. [wieder] bei uns in der Schule ist, [nachdem er schon einmal fortgegangen war]?
Ausführliche Darstellung der Verhältnisse durch Karl Stockmeyer und Walter Johannes Stein.
RUDOLF STEINER: Über die anderen ist nicht viel zu sagen. [...] [Weiteres Gespräch über H.
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN: Die häuslichen Verhältnisse sind furchtbar.
RUDOLF STEINER: jetzt wollte ich eines noch wissen. Als ich nach irgendeinem Bericht mit Herrn Uehli sprach, erzählte er mir von [einem Abend mit] einer Aussprache [?], zu dem er gekommen ist, welche die Schüler mit den Lehrern hier gehalten haben. Wie steht es denn damit, wenn ein Schillerkonsortium einen Vorsitzenden hatte, und die Lehrer da waren und das Wort erbeten haben von einem Schülervorsitzenden?
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN: Das hat Herr Doktor gewusst.
RUDOLF STEINER: Ich wollte vom Stuhle fallen.
Es wird darüber gesprochen.
RUDOLF STEINER: jetzt sind suspendiert H. L., O. W, R. M. und E, wegen des (Sich-Entfernens aus der Schule; wegen der Schieberei sind suspendiert W. H. und R. S. Der M. G. ist ausgeschlossen. Wie kommt es, dass in der letzten Klasse in der letzten Zeit mindestens mit einer Anzahl von Schülern kein Kontakt mehr war? Dass kein Kontakt war, hat dazu geführt, dass diese Klasse im Mai zu mir gekommen ist. Woher kam das? Diese Unterredung zeigte mir, dass die Lehrer keinen Kontakt hatten, mit der ganzen 10. Klasse nicht mehr. Am größten wäre noch Kontakt gewesen mit [der] G. H. Woher kam das?
Es ist schon zweifellos ein großer Unterschied gewesen zwischen den Klassen, die darunter sind, wo eigentlich immer ein starker Kontakt da ist zwischen dem Klassenlehrer und den Kindern, und der Art und Weise, wie sich das Verhältnis herausgebildet hat so über die 9., 10. Klasse hinüber. Es ist ganz zweifellos gewesen, dass diese ganze Klasse der Lehrerschaft über den Kopf gewachsen war. Dieser Abend hat nicht dazu geführt, dass die Lehrer die Herrschaft über die Kinder errungen haben, sondern, wie es ganz deutlich ersichtlich ist, dazu, dass die Schüler das Steuerruder ergriffen haben. Wenn Diskussionen geführt werden!
Mehrere Lehrer berichten über die Aussprachen zwischen Schülern und Lehrern.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es muss doch einmal ausgeartet sein. Stockmeyer ist doch fortgegangen. In diese Dinge müssen doch hineinfallen die Antezedenzien zu so etwas. Jedenfalls scheint innerhalb des Unterrichts selbst, scheint sich das abgespielt zu haben, dass Dr. Hahn genötigt war, den H. L. und W. H. zu ermahnen.
Die Schwierigkeit ist nur diese: Brauchen kann man eine ganze Reihe von Schülern nicht mehr in der Schule, wenn wir sie aber hinauswerfen, werden wir die ähnlichen Erfahrungen machen [wie früher], wobei der alte G. noch ein verhältnismäßig gutmütiger Mensch ist. Die ganze Sache geht in einer schrecklichen Weise als eine neue Affäre an der anthroposophischen Bewegung aus. Es ist natürlich mit dem H. L. nicht so leicht. Der hauptsächlich muss gewusst haben, dass der alte L. einen großen Feldzug plant gegen die anthroposophische Bewegung. Er ist ja nicht ganz vollsinnig, aber jedenfalls plant er eine Sache, und das hätte zur Vorsicht mahnen sollen dem H. L. gegenüber. — Es ist eine furchtbar schwere Sache, die Ablehnung des ganzen Konsortiums durch die anderen Schüler.
Der H. L. ist ein Strick, ein Produkt des ganzen unglaublichen Familienlebens. Es gibt sehr viele schlechte Familienverhältnisse, aber dieses Familienleben gehört zu den allerübelsten Auswüchsen im sozialen Leben der Gegenwart. Nun ist er daraus herausgewachsen. Nun ist der Junge ein Psychopath, ist also absolut krank. Es ist wirklich sehr schwer zu entscheiden, wer krank ist, ob F. oder H. L.
Nun, nicht wahr, muss ich sagen, es ist schon ein Problem, dass also eben gar nicht die Möglichkeit gewesen ist, dass sich diese Kinder in einer naturgemäßen Weise an die Lehrerschaft angeschlossen haben. Sie waren von keinem Vertrauen zur Lehrerschaft erfüllt. Ich will nur sagen, dass tatsächlich diese Kinder von keinem Vertrauen zur Lehrerschaft erfüllt waren.
Man wird selten einen so innerlich zerrissenen Jungen finden, trotzdem es heute so viele zerrissene Kinder gibt, wie dieser H. L. ist. Dasjenige, was vorgebracht worden ist, das sind bei ihm Dumme-Jungenstreiche, von denen Sie selber wissen werden, dass in jeder Schule solche Jungen sind. Innerlich, seelisch liegen andere Dinge vor, aber das, was heute vorgebracht worden ist, das gehört in die Kategorie, wie es manche gibt in den Schulen.
Nun liegt noch eine Verkennung vor, ein Missverständnis. Sehen Sie, bei 1-1. L. und F., vielleicht auch noch bei den anderen. Sie sagen, die Jungen sind frech geworden und haben gefragt, wie das ist, dass gesagt wird, es käme keine Anthroposophie in den Unterricht hinein und so weiter. Wie fassen Sie das auf? Was ging Ihnen hervor aus all den Fragen?
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: Als H. L. diese Frage stellte, hatte man das Gefühl, er will Wahrheit haben, er will aber auch ein Bein stellen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Bei H. L. ist US so, der ist aufgewachsen und hat als kleines Kind zugleich mit dem Sprechenlernen kein wahres Wort in seiner Familie gehört. Die Mutter ist total innerlich verlogen, der Vater total innerlich verlogen. Sie wirkten gegeneinander, sodass also eines Tages sehr früh der H. L., vielleicht war er erst sieben oder acht Jahre alt, sich gefragt hat: Die Welt, wie ist denn die? Mein Vater, der ist so ein furchtbares Rindvieh, und ist zum Doktor gemacht worden. Wie ist das möglich? Die Mutter ist nicht zum Doktor gemacht worden. Manche Leute haben ihre Dichtungen nicht gerade schlecht gefunden. Nun ist er in eine Schule gekommen, welche seine Mutter darstellt, da hat er gefunden, die Lehrer sind auch alle Rindviecher. Nun ist er hierhergekommen und hat sich gesagt, von der Waldorfschule wird gesagt, die Lehrer sind keine Rindviecher. Ich will mich überzeugen, ob die auch Rindviecher sind. — Das ist ihm furchtbar viel vorgeredet worden davon, dass keine Anthroposophie im Unterricht ist. Nun wollte er aber gerade Anthroposophie. Ihm wäre es recht gewesen, er wollte Gelegenheit haben, die Anthroposophie kennenzulernen. Er wollte wissen, warum man so zurückhaltend ist; er hat es als eine Unwahrheit empfunden. Und nun, nicht wahr, war diese Geschichte, der man nicht entgehen konnte, und wenn einzelne Gutmeinende dabei waren, wenn aber der H. L. auch dabei war. Nun kam er sehr bald weg, hat in Dornach gearbeitet und sich einiges Geld verdient, [...] [Über seine Geschwister.]
Als eine lange Zeit vergangen war, kam dieser H. L. zu mir und sagte: Ich weiß nicht, was ich mit mir anfangen soll. Ich habe große Hoffnungen gehabt, dass aus mir ein besserer Mensch gemacht wird, wenn ich in die Waldorfschule komme. Dann bin ich mit dem Rad wieder hinübergefahren nach Dornach und habe den Bau angeschaut. Der Bau hat mich immer zu einem besseren Menschen gemacht, Aber ich kann zu nichts kommen. Ich sehe, dass da kein Unterschied ist zwischen Gut und Böse. Und ich sehe nicht ein, warum ich jetzt gut werden soll. Warum soll ich nicht ein Mensch werden, der alles darauf anlegt, alles zu zerstören? — Nun, es ist wirklich in der letzten Zeit, als er wieder zurückgekommen ist, etwas anderes eingestürmt auf den Jungen. Aber entweder hätte man den H. L. nicht zurücknehmen sollen, oder es hätte doch dahin gewirkt werden müssen, dass er Vertrauen fasst zur Lehrerschaft. Er ist in einer furchtbaren Lage gewesen. Denken Sie nur einmal, was das für ein Wildbret ist für die Menschen, die Daten sammeln [gegen] die anthroposophische Bewegung.
Denn ich muss sagen, so, wie ich ihn jetzt kennengelernt habe, ist es ein Schulfall wie andere Schulfälle. Man soll einmal die Schulen suchen, wo das nicht vorkommt. Und es ist eigentlich für jede andere Schule leicht, damit fertigzuwerden. Wir können nicht damit leicht fertigwerden, weil wir wirklich darauf sehen müssen, wie die anthroposophische Bewegung von diesen Dingen berührt wird. Also wir hatten die Wahl zwischen dem einen, nun wirklich diese Schüler mit völliger Motivierung, aber in aller Form und Öffentlichkeit aus der Schule zu entfernen, oder mit den Fällen fertigzuwerden. Die Beurteilung muss von uns ausgehen, die die Welt haben kann von diesen Fällen.
Wir müssen aufhören mit dem, was Schädigungen gebracht hat, dass man immer wiederum die Leute herausgesetzt hat, und die sind Feinde geworden. Aber [zum Heralassetzen], muss ich schon sagen, gehört etwas völlig anderes [als] dasjenige, was vorliegt. Mit dem Material, was hier vorliegt, lässt sich nicht viel anfangen. Denn die Sachen von M. G. sind wirklich Dumme-Jungenstreiche, wo noch extra die Leute sagen werden: Na, was ist das für eine Schule, die den Kindern so viel Zeit gibt für Saufereien.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: Die Kinder haben vierundvierzig Stunden in der Woche.
RUDOLF STEINER: Wenn man dies Protokoll liest, so schaut es aus, als ob die Kinder überhaupt nicht Zeit hätten, in die Schule zu kommen. Es ist nur das nicht da, dass die Kinder gefühlt hätten, sie sind in der Schule; dass sie einer solchen Schule angehören, dass sie das nicht tun können.
Ich muss sagen, nicht wahr, so etwas müsste man doch [merken]. Hier [im Protokoll] wird erzählt, dass der M. G. zu Weihnachten einen Detektivklub gegründet hat. (Außerhalb] hat sich die Sache abgespielt. Ist da kein Reflex in die Schule hineingeworfen worden? Man muss doch etwas bemerken, wenn unter den Schülern einer ist, der einen Detektivklub gründet.
Nicht wahr, im Ganzen kann man sagen, jetzt sind die Leute hinausgeworfen. Nun war ich heute in der 10. und 11. Klasse darin. Ja, ich meine, die Klasse ist doch sehr manierlich. Sie sind doch so, dass man alles Mögliche anfangen kann.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: jetzt ist es ein Vergnügen, in der Klasse zu arbeiten.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es ist doch die 11. Klasse eine absolut anständige Klasse, mit der man alles Mögliche machen kann. Inwieweit spielt nun dasjenige hinein, was von diesen Schülern ausgegangen ist, wie äußert sich das bei den anderen?
EUGEN KOLISKO: Die sind furchtbar froh.
RUDOLF STEINER: Wenn man sie fragen würde, was die aussagen.
EUGEN KOLISKO: Man ist froh, dass die draußen sind.
RUDOLF STE[NER: Aus diesen sämtlichen Verhören gewinnt man nichts anderes als den Eindruck, dass alle diese Delinquenten bei diesen Verhören immer den Buckel vollgelogen haben, und dass dabei nicht viel herausgekommen ist. Ich war heute etwas recht unangenehm berührt von dem Gespräch, das jemand gehabt hat mit [einer Mitschülerin des H. L., G. H. [...] [Über G. H. und ihre Aussagen zu H. L.] Eigentlich weist diese Aussage zurück bis in die vorige Weihnacht. Nun möchte ich wirklich fragen: ja, ist von alldem, was diese [Schülerin] aussagt, nichts bemerkt worden?
Es ist wirklich sehr schwer, in dieser Sache das zu finden, wodurch man den Fall zurechtrücken kann. Was werden Sie sagen, wenn nach einem halben Jahr irgendeiner aus der klerikalen Clique seitenlang den Fall H. behandelt in der folgenden Weise Der W H. war ein ganz anständiger Schüler, bis er in die Waldorfschule gekommen ist. Er war auch nachher ein anständiger Schüler. Es hat drei Jahre gedauert, bis er dazu gebracht war, Schiebergeschäfte zu machen, Man sieht an diesem Fall ganz klar, dass es selbst bei einem anständigen Schüler von Anfang nicht möglich war, ihn so weit zu verderben. Dazu waren drei Jahre Waldorfschulzucht notwendig. — Was werden Sie sagen, wenn das darin stehen wird?
EUGEN KOLISKO: Ich sehe keine Möglichkeit, jetzt noch mit diesen weiter in der Schule zu arbeiten.
RUDOLF STE1NER: Wodurch ist es wirklich dazu gekommen? Es ist doch der Kontakt mit diesen Jungen und Mädchen verloren gegangen. ich habe geglaubt, nachdem ich so ernsthaft geredet habe, dass irgendwie bei der Wiederaufnahme des H. L. versucht würde, dass ein Band wieder gebildet würde. Es muss doch irgendwo der Grund liegen, dass die Jungen verloren gegangen sind. H. L. ist auch zwei Jahre in der Schule.
MAX. WOLFFHÜGEL: Wir haben nicht das rechte Verhältnis gefunden. Ich habe oft den Eindruck gehabt, dass wir uns über die Kinder gestellt haben und nicht neben sie.
RUDOLF STEINER: Warum sagen Sie, Sie hätten sich über die Kinder gestellt? Was sein müsste, ist das, dass die Kinder einen über sich stellen. So muss die ganze Sache sein. Die Kinder müssen selbstverständlich einen über sich stellen. Das kann das einzig richtige Verhältnis sein_ Dann kann man nicht in dieser Weise erörtern, dass man sich sagen lässt von den Kindern, wir lehnen die ganze Schule ab. So etwas kann nicht so verlaufen.
W. K. war in der 11. Klasse, R. S. in der 9. Klasse, F. 11. Klasse, R. M. 11, Klasse, O. W. 11. Klasse, F. S. 10. Klasse, N. 9. Klasse, G. H. 11. Klasse, St. 10. Klasse. Es geht durch drei Klassen. Die Schüler sind W. H., H. L., R. S., F., R. M., O. W., F. S., N. W, die müssten heraus. [Weiter über diese Schüler.]
Wir können die Sache nicht so leimen. Es bleiben immer noch acht Schüler zu entfernen. Wir können das nicht auf irgendeine Art [machen, dass] wir die Sache leimen. Solche Dinge kommen nicht in Betracht. Wir müssen die Möglichkeit haben, den Fall vor der Welt vertreten zu können, und es auch tun; wir müssen ihn vor der Welt vertreten, sodass er nicht gegen uns vertreten wird. Wir müssen unbedingt die Möglichkeit haben, den Fall so zu behandeln, dass wir es rechtfertigen können, wenn wir auf irgendeine Weise diese acht Schüler entfernen. Es ist wirklich so sehr schwer, in der Sache zurechtzukommen. Denn man muss auf festem Boden stehen. Vor allen Dingen, man müsste wirklich hören, wie es mit dem Rest der Klasse stehen wird.
HERMANN VON BARAVALLE: Für die Kinder der 11. Klasse ist es ein Erlebnis der Erlösung und Befreiung.
RUDOLF STE1NER: Wir werden die Sache so machen. In den allernächsten Tagen muss man es zur Entscheidung bringen. Ich werde mir morgen diese 11. Klasse noch einmal anschauen und die 10.
Eigentlich ist es zum Verzweifeln, die ganze Sache. Es ist eine Sackgasse geworden. Es liegt denn auch das vor, dass es ein großer Fehler war, dass man einzeln verhandelt hat, während man hätte mit Gruppen verhandeln müssen. Man hätte müssen mit Gruppen verhandeln. Ich habe das schon Herrn Stockmeyer gesagt, und trotzdem bekomme ich Protokolle. Wenn man dieses Protokoll durchliest über die E S. — das ist viereinhalb Seiten lang —, sieht man ihm an, dass sie sich lustig gemacht hat. Sie hat so geredet, dass sie sich ins Fäustchen gelacht hat. Ich glaube gar nicht, dass sie gedacht hat, die Lehrer stehen über ihr. — Ich muss mir die 10. und 11. Klasse doch anschauen.
Was machen wir mit der 1. Klasse? Der provisorische Zustand kann nicht weitergehen. Wer würde das alles machen?
KARL STOCKMEYER: Fräulein von Grunelius möchte gerne beurlaubt werden für den Kindergarten.
RUDOLF STEHNER: Fräulein Doflein kann man die Klasse übergeben. Mindestens kann sie supplieren.
ALEXANDER STRAKO5CH: Habe ich Herrn Doktor so verstanden, dass es das geringere Malheur wäre, wenn man die Kinder halten könnte?
RUDOLF STEINER: Sie können die Kinder nicht halten. [Aber] unter welchen Umständen kommt man heraus? Man kann nicht beschließen, man schließt sie aus, wenn die Antezedenzien noch nicht geschaffen sind. Man muss sie schaffen. Es muss dann tatsächlich auch die Möglichkeit vorliegen, dass es sich nicht wiederholt. Dass nicht in den oberen Klassen wirklich die Schüler über den Kopf der Lehrer wachsen. Das ist [nun] einmal geschehen. Wenn nicht irgendwie der Wille herrscht, die Schüler in der Hand zu haben, so werden die Schüler [uns] über den Kopf wachsen, gerade durch die Vorzüge der Methode. Der Nachteil besteht darinnen, dass Sie die Kinder zu gescheit machen. in anderen Schulen kommt die Nichtsnutzigkeit auch vor, aber die Auffassung, die bei den Schülern herrscht, und die bei den Lehrern herrscht, das kommt an anderen Schulen nicht vor. An der Art und Weise, wie die Diskussionen geführt worden sind, liegt der Fehler.
KARI. STOCKMEYER: Wäre es nicht möglich, den Schülern zu sagen, dass sie nicht dableiben können, weil sie nichts lernen?
RUDOLF STEINER: Wir müssen uns schützen vor den Leuten, die auf jede Gelegenheit passen — man macht sich hier gar keine Vorstellung, wie darauf gepasst wird, um die anthroposophische Bewegung aus der Welt zu schaffen. Es wäre eine Lappalie, wenn sich nicht Leute diese Kinder beibiegen und unglaubliche Sachen machen. Wir müssen das Gegengewicht haben, dass solche Dinge in der Zukunft nicht wieder vorkommen. ich habe nicht die Überzeugung gewinnen können, dass sie nicht wieder vorkommen. Ich kann nur glauben, dass immer wiederum die Knaben und Mädchen, sobald sie fünfzehn, sechzehn Jahre alt sind, einfach den Händen der Lehrer entsinken. Es müssen Maßregeln getroffen werden, dass durch den ganzen Unterricht [hin durch ein Zug von Leben geht. Ich will nicht Moral predigen: Es muss ein Zug von Leben durch den Unterricht hindurchgehen. Ein Zug von Leben muss in den Klassen sein. Es ist ja doch in den untern Klassen ein Zug von Leben, und der könnte auch in den oberen Klassen sein. Es ist im Grunde genommen doch ein gutes Schülermaterial. Auf mich haben die zwei Klassen einen sympathischen Eindruck gemacht. Es ist zum Verzweifeln, wenn man nicht einsieht, dass die ganze Sache aus einem anderen Impuls heraus gehen muss. Es muss unmöglich werden, dass Schüler kommen können und sagen, wir lehnen die ganze Schule ah. Diese Sachen, es müsste der Wille dazu vorhanden sein, das zu ändern.
MARIA RÖSCHL: Möchten Sie nicht mehr sagen [in dieser Richtung'? Wir standen vor der Frage der eigenen Unfähigkeit.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es liegt nicht der Wille vor. Wenn man den ganzen Willen auf die Sache konzentriert, dann kann es anders gehen. Es ist schon äußerlich eine merkwürdige Verschiedenheit von den unteren Klassen nach den höheren Klassen. In den unteren Klassen kommt das häufig vor, was bei Fräulein Mellinger war, die Kinder machen einen Spektakel, dass man nicht zu dem Gefühl kommt, die schlafen. Bei Ihnen war eine rühmenswerte Ausnahme. Die Klasse schläft in den oberen Klassen. Die Klasse weiß nichts, nicht die einfachsten Dinge. Kein einziges Individuum hat gewusst, dass es Kreuzzüge gegeben hat. Ich verstehe unter dem Wachsein etwas anderes. Sie haben plötzlich keine Ahnung, wie die Kreuzzüge angefangen haben.
Es muss ein anderer Wille eintreten. Man kommt in einem gewissen Zeitpunkt aus einem richtigen Fassen der Klasse zum Dozieren. Man kommt weg von diesem lebendigen Zusammenhang.
Wenn Sie heute noch den Jakob Böhme beigebracht haben, dann ist es zu begreifen. Man darf nicht so viele Details beibringen, dass eines das andere totschlägt. Um zehn Uhr war eine Menge von Diktat und Repetitionsfragen. Nicht wahr, nun muss man die ganze Sache abrunden zu einem Bild, und dann muss das Bild bleiben. Wenn Sie zu all dem heute noch den Jakob Böhme hinzugefügt haben, dann müssen sie einen wirren Kopf bekommen. Warum liegt es in unserem Stundenplan, dass man drei Stunden hintereinander in der zweiten das auslöscht, was in der ersten gegeben wurde. Sie können bei der Geschichte eineinhalb Stunden etwas Neues nehmen, und dann das [allesJ beleuchten durch alte Reminiszenzen. Das ist notwendig, dass wir den Willen entwickeln, die Kinder in Lebendigkeit zu erhalten. Dass sie von all den Dingen etwas haben, indem sie es aufnehmen. Wir müssen das erreichen, sonst können wir es gar nicht wagen, diese höheren Klassen aufrechtzuerhalten. Es ist das alles nicht, um zu nörgeln; es ist so, dass die Klasse schläft.
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN: Ich Lasse beurteilen das, was am Tage vorher hingestellt worden ist. Ich empfinde es so, dass meine Vorbereitung da anfängt, wo sie aufhört.
Thirty-sixth conference
In August, Rudolf Steiner attended an educational conference at Oxford University with teachers and students at the invitation of the British Minister of Education. The conference was very successful (The Spiritual and Soul Forces in Education, GA 305). After his return, the Third Theologians' Course on the Foundations of the Christian Community took place in Dornach, and in Stuttgart almost a hundred young people were waiting for Steiner to give lectures for the educational youth course (GA 217). After the 38th conference, Steiner traveled back to Dornach.
Topics [36th to 39th conferences]: Educational problems in the 11th grade. Questions of teacher attitude. The Socratic illusion. Lecturing. Accusations of school routine. Self-discipline. Practice lessons for arithmetic and grammar in main lessons, twice a week for 30 minutes. Lack of contact between teachers. Establishment of a fork in ancient and modern language teaching. Lack of contact with students. Revision of the timetable.
Comments: Upper school students had behaved badly during the holidays. The teachers' indignation was so great that they decided to expel some students without informing Steiner. When Steiner was called in, he analyzed the situation carefully, spoke with all those accused, and could find no reason for the expulsions; on the whole, they were not bad students. It was hardly possible to limit the damage. The teachers had to learn to understand that this behavior on the part of the students was related to their own attitude.
In all four conferences, the main theme of the presentations was to shake up colleagues, to move them away from their inner complacency, this lack of soul, this lack of fire.
Finally, Steiner reminded the teachers of the school board's verdict: mediocre people could manage with their methods. Waldorf methods required nothing but geniuses.
Steiner's comment: [He doesn't want to claim that he is right. But there is something to it.
Steiner asked his colleagues, mindful of the difficulties they had experienced and discussed, to “take into account that we must not allow the Waldorf school to become a fiasco.”
RUDOLF STEINER: I asked you to deal mainly with the case that has been occupying you here, otherwise we would have had to wait a few more days. Now it seems important to me that we do not treat such things [as individual cases] at all. . That must not be the case with us; rather, we must now deal with all these things in the light of the anthroposophical movement during this difficult time for us. In everything, we must ensure that it is not used against the anthroposophical movement. We are sitting in a glass house and must avoid such things, which could recently lead to all kinds of things against the anthroposophical movement. Well, isn't it true that we need to be very clear about what actually happened and how to judge what happened?
A group of students in grades 9, 10, and 1 had been involved in fraud, theft, and drunkenness. One of them had also given his classmates injections and tried to hypnotize them. — This matter was then discussed by telephone with Rudolf Steiner in Dornach. The students were then questioned in detail and a very detailed report was sent to Rudolf Steiner. The students in question were temporarily suspended from class. Rudolf Steiner asked each of the students involved to state their age, which grade they were in, and how long they had been at the school, and also asked about their parents and home circumstances. The ages of those involved ranged from about 16 to 19.
RUDOLF STEINER: Well, when did the first accusation against the children come to light? How did the whole thing come about?
EUGEN KOLISKO: Through the hypnosis story with M. G.
HERMANN VON BARAVALLE: R. G. came to me and told me that such things were going on in G.'s apartment.
RUDOLF STEINER: How did R. G. know about it?
Answer: He heard it from A. K.
RUDOLF STEINER: A. K. came to tell Mr. Boy about it. How did R. G. tell you?
HERMANN VON BARAVALLE: He wanted to speak to me alone and tell me that things were happening in the G. house that we should know about. He was particularly sorry for E., who was experiencing all kinds of unpleasant symptoms.
RUDOLF STEINER: Did any other students say anything about this hypnosis?
EUGEN KOLISKO: M. G. had been involved with hypnosis for a long time. He hypnotized F. several times. Once, A. K. was there and reported it to Mr. Boy.
RUDOLF STEINER: Do you think that M. G. ever succeeded in inducing hypnosis?
EUGEN KOLISKO: No, at least not completely. But he often tried it on various students.
RUDOLF STEINER: It is hardly conceivable that, unless he exerted an unfavorable influence, he would have caused any harm to those he tried to hypnotize. Moral harm, certainly, but he did not take it to the point of causing illness.
EUGEN KOLISKO: M. G. would have had an unfavorable influence on F. through suggestive questioning.
RUDOLF STEINER: Well, in any case, there is not much to be made of the whole hypnosis story.
EUGEN KOLISKO: F. has expressed the view that he wants to die.
RUDOLF STEINER: From A. IC's diary notes, I only got the impression that these questions were asked by M. G. because F. had somehow expressed such things, and they then included such statements by F. The whole report gave the impression that it was little more than a series of silly pranks [into which the crazy ideas of this E. had played].
[...] [About a letter] Does anyone else know anything about the hypnosis story that contains something serious? What kind of people are M. G.'s parents?
MARIA RÖSCHL: The father used to drink and is quick-tempered. The children suffer because of him. The family circumstances are unfavorable.
RUDOLF STEINER: What is your impression of the inner reasons, [the motives]? The boy wanted to work his way up to become the star of the Waldorf school.
MARIA RÖSCHL: The boy has no standards for himself because his environment cannot provide them. He feels misunderstood at home.
RUDOLF STEINER: What could have led him to hypnotism?
MARIA RÖSCHL: His father had books like that.
EUGEN KOLISKO: He [M. G.] has been involved with these things since he was ten. He has an urge to experiment; he has set up a laboratory.
RUDOLF STEINER: Why do you think this G. H. made these statements about M. G., and why did she notice that things changed after Christmas?
MAX WOLFFHÜGEL: G. H. is artistically gifted; the two had a lot in common. M. G. worked well with me.
RUDOLF STEINER: It is important to look at this. But is there nothing to say about M. G.'s relationship at school itself except that he worked very hard?
EUGEN KOLISKO: I used to be satisfied, but for the last three to four months he has been slacking off.
RUDOLF STEINER: Actually, the same story applies to hypnosis as to injections, as far as M. G. is concerned.
The next person we need to know something about is W. H. From all the accounts I have read, it appears that W. H. was quite a ringleader and was actually behind a lot of things. So W. H. was also the driving force in [this so-called] club. How satisfied were you with him at school?
HERMANN VON BARAVALLE: He didn't participate with any inner interest, avoided every conflict, but wasn't really there mentally. —
There is detailed discussion about this student.
RUDOLF STEINER: What is H. L.'s relationship to the whole story?
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN reads a letter aloud.
RUDOLF STEINER: What led to this H. L. [returning] to our school [after he had already left once]?
Detailed description of the circumstances by Karl Stockmeyer and Walter Johannes Stein.
RUDOLF STEINER: There is not much to say about the others. [...] [Further discussion about H.
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN: The home situation is terrible.
RUDOLF STEINER: Now I wanted to know one more thing. When I spoke to Mr. Uehli after some report, he told me about [an evening with] a discussion [?] that he had attended, which the students had held with the teachers here. What about when a Schiller consortium had a chairperson, and the teachers were there and asked a student chairperson to speak?
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN: The doctor knew about that.
RUDOLF STEINER: I almost fell off my chair.
It is being discussed.
RUDOLF STEINER: H. L., O. W, R. M., and E. are now suspended because of (leaving school; W. H. and R. S. are suspended because of cheating. M. G. has been expelled. How is it that in the last class, there has been no contact with at least a number of students recently? The lack of contact led to this class coming to me in May. Where did this come from? This conversation showed me that the teachers had no contact with the entire 10th grade anymore. The greatest contact would have been with [the] G. H. Where did this come from?
There was undoubtedly a big difference between the classes below, where there is always strong contact between the class teacher and the children, and the way the relationship developed in the 9th and 10th grades. There is no doubt that this whole class was too much for the teachers to handle. That evening did not result in the teachers gaining control over the children, but, as is quite clear, in the students taking the helm. When discussions are held!
Several teachers report on the discussions between students and teachers.
RUDOLF STEINER: It must have gotten out of hand at some point. Stockmeyer left. There must be antecedents to something like this. In any case, it seems that within the classroom itself, Dr. Hahn was forced to admonish H. L. and W. H.
The difficulty is simply this: we can no longer have a whole group of students at the school, but if we expel them, we will have similar experiences [as before], even though old G. is still a relatively good-natured person. The whole thing is turning out to be a terrible new affair for the anthroposophical movement. Of course, it's not so easy with H. L. He must have known that old L. was planning a major campaign against the anthroposophical movement. He's not entirely sane, but in any case he's planning something, and that should have prompted caution toward H. L. — It is a terribly difficult thing, the rejection of the entire consortium by the other students.
H. L. is a rope, a product of the whole unbelievable family life. There are many bad family situations, but this family life is one of the worst excesses in contemporary social life. Now he has outgrown it. Now the boy is a psychopath, so he is absolutely sick. It is really very difficult to decide who is sick, whether it is F. or H. L.
Well, I have to say, it is indeed a problem that these children did not have the opportunity to bond with their teachers in a natural way. They had no trust in their teachers. I just want to say that these children really had no trust in their teachers.
It is rare to find a boy as internally torn as H. L., even though there are so many torn children today. What has been brought up are silly boyish pranks, which you yourself will know exist in every school. Internally, emotionally, there are other issues, but what has been brought up today belongs to the category of things that are common in schools.
Now there is another misunderstanding, a misjudgment. Look at 1-1. L. and F., and perhaps the others as well. You say that the boys have become cheeky and have asked how it is that it is said that anthroposophy will not be included in the lessons, and so on. How do you interpret that? What did you gather from all the questions?
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: When H. L. asked this question, one had the feeling that he wanted the truth, but he also wanted to trip someone up.
RUDOLF STEINER: With H. L., it's like this: he grew up and, as a small child, at the same time as he was learning to speak, he never heard a true word in his family. His mother is totally dishonest inside, his father totally dishonest inside. They worked against each other, so that one day, very early on, H. L., who was perhaps only seven or eight years old, asked himself: What is the world like? My father is such a terrible brute, and he has become a doctor. How is that possible? His mother did not become a doctor. Some people did not think her poetry was bad. Now he has come to a school that his mother represents, and he has found that the teachers are all cattle too. Now he has come here and said to himself, they say that the teachers at the Waldorf school are not cattle. I want to see for myself whether they are cattle too. — He had been told so much about how there was no anthroposophy in the lessons. But he wanted anthroposophy. He would have been happy to have the opportunity to get to know anthroposophy. He wanted to know why people were so reticent; he felt it was untrue. And now, of course, there was this story that couldn't be avoided, and even if there were a few well-meaning people involved, H. L. was also involved. He left very soon after that, worked in Dornach and earned some money, [...] [About his siblings.]
After a long time had passed, this H. L. came to me and said: I don't know what to do with myself. I had high hopes that I would become a better person when I went to the Waldorf school. Then I rode my bike back to Dornach and looked at the building. The building has always made me a better person, but I can't achieve anything. I see that there is no difference between good and evil. And I don't see why I should become good now. Why shouldn't I become a person who sets out to destroy everything? — Well, it's really been lately, since he came back, that something else has come over the boy. But either H. L. should not have been taken back, or efforts should have been made to help him gain confidence in the teaching staff. He was in a terrible situation. Just think what a target he is for people who collect data [against] the anthroposophical movement.
Because I have to say, from what I have seen of him now, it is a school case like any other school case. You would be hard pressed to find a school where this does not happen. And it is actually easy for any other school to deal with. We cannot deal with it easily because we really have to see how the anthroposophical movement is affected by these things. So we had the choice between, on the one hand, removing these students from the school with complete motivation, but in a formal and public manner, or dealing with the cases. The assessment must come from us, which the world can have from these cases.
We must stop doing what has caused damage, which is always expelling people, who then become enemies. But [to make a statement], I must say, requires something completely different [than] what is at hand. Not much can be done with the material that is available here. Because M. G.'s actions are really just silly boyish pranks, where people will say: Well, what kind of school is this that gives children so much time to drink?
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: The children have forty-four hours a week.
RUDOLF STEINER: When you read these minutes, it looks as if the children had no time at all to come to school. The only thing missing is that the children felt they were at school; that they belonged to such a school that they couldn't do that.
I have to say, don't you think, something like that would have to be [noticed]. Here [in the minutes] it is reported that M. G. founded a detective club at Christmas. (Outside] the school, the matter took place. Wasn't there a reflection of this in the school? Surely one must notice when there is a student among the pupils who founds a detective club.
Isn't it true that, on the whole, one can say that people are now being thrown out? Well, today I was in the 10th and 11th grades. Yes, I think the class is very well-behaved. They are such that one can start all sorts of things.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: Now it's a pleasure to work in class.
RUDOLF STEINER: The 11th grade is an absolutely decent class with which you can do all sorts of things. To what extent does what has emanated from these students play a role, how does that manifest itself in the others?
EUGEN KOLISKO: They are terribly happy.
RUDOLF STEINER: If you asked them what they would say.
EUGEN KOLISKO: People are glad that they are out.
RUDOLF STE[NER: All these interrogations give the impression that all these delinquents have been lying through their teeth during these interrogations, and that not much has come of it. Today, I was quite disturbed by the conversation someone had with [a classmate of H. L., G. H. [...] [About G. H. and her statements about H. L.] Actually, this statement goes back to last Christmas. Now I really want to ask: yes, has nothing been noticed about everything this [student] says?
It is really very difficult to find anything in this matter that could rectify the case. What will you say if, after six months, someone from the clerical clique writes pages and pages about the H. case in the following manner W H. was a very decent student until he came to the Waldorf School. He remained a decent student afterwards. It took three years to get him to engage in shady dealings. This case clearly shows that even a decent student could not be corrupted to such an extent from the outset. It took three years of Waldorf schooling to achieve this. — What will you say when this is written?
EUGEN KOLISKO: I don't see any possibility of continuing to work with them at school now.
RUDOLF STEINER: What really caused this? The contact with these boys and girls has been lost. After I spoke so seriously, I believed that somehow, when H. L. returned, an attempt would be made to reestablish a bond. There must be a reason somewhere why the boys have been lost. H. L. has also been at the school for two years.
MAX. WOLFFHÜGEL: We haven't found the right relationship. I have often had the impression that we have placed ourselves above the children rather than alongside them.
RUDOLF STEINER: Why do you say you placed yourselves above the children? What should happen is that the children place someone above themselves. That's how the whole thing should be. The children must, of course, place someone above themselves. That can be the only right relationship. Then you can't discuss it in this way, letting the children tell you that they reject the whole school. Something like that can't happen.
W. K. was in 11th grade, R. S. in 9th grade, F. in 11th grade, R. M. in 11th grade, O. W. in 11th grade, F. S. in 10th grade, N. in 9th grade, G. H. in 11th grade, St. in 10th grade. It spans three grades. The students are W. H., H. L., R. S., F., R. M., O. W., F. S., N. W., who would have to leave. [More about these students.]
We can't just gloss over the matter. There are still eight students to be removed. We can't just gloss over the matter in any way. Such things are out of the question. We must have the opportunity to present the case to the world, and we must do so; we must present it to the world so that it is not presented against us. We must absolutely have the opportunity to handle the case in such a way that we can justify removing these eight students in some way. It is really very difficult to deal with this matter. Because you have to stand on solid ground. Above all, you really need to hear how things will be with the rest of the class.
HERMANN VON BARAVALLE: For the children in the 11th grade, it is an experience of redemption and liberation.
RUDOLF STEINER: We will do it this way. A decision must be made in the next few days. Tomorrow I will take another look at this 11th grade class and the 10th grade class.
Actually, the whole thing is exasperating. It has become a dead end. It is also clear that it was a big mistake to negotiate individually when we should have negotiated with groups. We should have negotiated with groups. I already told Mr. Stockmeyer this, and yet I still receive minutes. When you read through these minutes about E S. — which are four and a half pages long — you can see that she made fun of us. She spoke in such a way that she was laughing up her sleeve. I don't think she believed that the teachers were above her. — I have to take a look at the 10th and 11th grades.
What do we do with the 1st grade? The provisional situation cannot continue. Who would do all that?
KARL STOCKMEYER: Miss von Grunelius would like to be granted leave of absence for the kindergarten.
RUDOLF STEHNER: Miss Doflein can take over the class. At the very least, she can substitute teach.
ALEXANDER STRAKO5CH: Did I understand the doctor correctly that it would be less of a mishap if the children could be kept?
RUDOLF STEINER: You can't keep the children. [But] under what circumstances can you get out of it? You can't decide to exclude them if the antecedents have not yet been created. You have to create them. There must then also be a real possibility that it will not happen again. That the students in the upper classes will not really grow above the teachers' heads. That has [now] happened. If there is no will to keep the students under control, they will rise above [us], precisely because of the advantages of the method. The disadvantage is that you make the children too clever. In other schools, uselessness also occurs, but the attitude that prevails among the students and among the teachers does not occur in other schools. The mistake lies in the way the discussions have been conducted.
KARI. STOCKMEYER: Wouldn't it be possible to tell the students that they can't stay because they're not learning anything?
RUDOLF STEINER: We must protect ourselves from people who wait for every opportunity — you have no idea how eagerly they wait to destroy the anthroposophical movement. It would be a trifling matter if people did not bend these children to their will and do unbelievable things. We must have a counterweight so that such things do not happen again in the future. I have not been able to convince myself that they will not happen again. I can only believe that, once again, the boys and girls will simply slip out of the teachers' hands as soon as they reach the age of fifteen or sixteen. Measures must be taken to ensure that a breath of life runs through the entire teaching process. I do not want to preach morality: a breath of life must run through the teaching. There must be a breath of life in the classrooms. There is a breath of life in the lower classes, and there could be in the upper classes too. Basically, it is good student material. The two classes made a favorable impression on me. It is exasperating when people do not realize that the whole thing must come from a different impulse. It must become impossible for students to come and say, “We reject the whole school.” There must be the will to change these things.
MARIA RÖSCHL: Would you like to say more [in this direction'? We were faced with the question of our own inability.
RUDOLF STEINER: The will is not there. If you concentrate all your will on the matter, then things can be different. There is already a strange difference between the lower classes and the higher classes. In the lower classes, what happened with Miss Mellinger often occurs: the children make such a spectacle that you don't get the feeling that they are asleep. Yours was a commendable exception. The class sleeps in the upper classes. The class knows nothing, not even the simplest things. Not a single individual knew that there had been crusades. I understand something else by being awake. Suddenly they have no idea how the crusades began.
A different will must come into play. At a certain point, you move away from a proper grasp of the class to lecturing. You move away from this lively context.
If you still taught Jakob Böhme today, then it is understandable. You mustn't teach so many details that one kills the other. At ten o'clock there was a lot of dictation and review questions. Right, now you have to round the whole thing off into a picture, and then the picture has to remain. If you added Jakob Böhme to all that today, then you must get confused. Why is it in our timetable that three hours in a row in the second period erase what was given in the first? You can take something new for an hour and a half in history, and then illuminate it all with old reminiscences. It is necessary that we develop the will to keep the children alive. That they gain something from all these things by absorbing them. We must achieve this, otherwise we cannot dare to maintain these higher classes. It's not about nagging; it's that the class is asleep.
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN: I let what was presented the day before be judged. I feel that my preparation begins where it ends.