[HPforGrownups] Umbridge the Thief (was Re: HP and the democratic equilibrium)

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 87147

On 15 Dec 2003 at 14:36, Derek Hiemforth wrote:

> Kathryn Cawte wrote:
> >As long as he/she was planning on giving it back at the end of term (or
> >whenever the student went home) I wouldn't have a problem with it. If she
> >wants to keep it from being confiscated for any reason she shouldn't have
> >taken it to the school in the first place.
> 
> Derek:
> So it would be okay for the administrator to walk up to a student and
> say, "You know, I don't like the cut of your jib.  Therefore, I'm taking
> all your money, your expensive wristwatch, your photo of your family...
> in fact, I'm taking everything you have that isn't directly related to
> schoolwork.  But don't worry... I'll give it all back to you at the end
> of the term in six months, so that makes it all okay."

Would it be OK? No.

Would it probably be legal? Yes.

Does it happen? It did to me.

(Form III - basically I wasn't doing the schoolwork expected of me. 
So they decided to deprive me of *all* distractions. Everything I 
owned was taken away unless and until my schoolwork improved, 
unless I actually needed it for classes. In my case, it was only 
for a week - because I got the message - but if I hadn't - ooh 
boy.)

> Do the students have *any* rights at all?  It seems like all the onus is
> being put on the student.  (If the student didn't want his autographed
> photo of Gilderoy Lockhart confiscated, he shouldn't have brought it.)
> Doesn't it make just as much sense to place it on the school?  (If the
> school didn't want the student to have an autographed photo of Gilderoy
> Lockhart, they shouldn't have allowed the student to bring it.)

Students have rights?

"You have the right to remain silent!"

Seriously - really, no, for a long time, students really didn't 
have rights beyond very basic things like the right to be fed, to a 
minimal level of comfort, not to be beaten to the extent that 
permanent injury was caused... 

In more recent history, students have gradually acquired more and 
more rights - but Hogwarts seems a rather traditional school.

Remember this is a place where it seems that in the relatively 
recent past, students could be hung from chains, and where 
apparently the Headmaster or Headmistress can legally have students 
beaten with whips (Dumbledore seems to have *chosen* to stop those 
punishments - but they still seem to be legal).

> I guess I'm just having trouble buying the idea that the psychopathically
> cruel and capricious Dolores Umbridge is somehow within her rights to
> take a student's personal effects simply because she doesn't like the
> student.  I consider this further evidence that she is evil and wrong,
> therefore I don't accept that it's technically allowed.  :)

She is evil and wrong.

That doesn't mean though that she doesn't have the legal power to 
do these things.

And it doesn't mean these things would *necessarily* be wrong in 
the hands of a good teacher.

Remember - Professor McGonnagall took Harry's broom away for quite 
a considerable amount of time in Prisoner of Azkaban - that wasn't 
confiscation, there were other reasons for it - but it certainly 
wasn't theft.


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia