Dumbledore's employment policy (WAS: Characters You Hate)

[Grey Wolf <greywolf1@jazzfree.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51161

I wrote:
> The fact is that, until that point, he might not have looked like the 
> most brilliant DADA teacher imaginable, but certainly he was good 
> enough, especially when no other choices were available.
> 
> SNAPESANGEL WRITES:
> He was not good enough! He was a disaster and would have been
> dangerous had he done any proper teaching after the first "practical
> lesson" incident. There seemed to be no checking of CVs either. I
> would expect anyone to go through rigrous checks about previous
> achievements etc. Hiring him was a professional eror on Dumbleodr's
> part - not because he's meant to be omnipotent but because he was
> ineffectual in his coss examination and testing of the candidate.

You are assuming lots of things about how employment works in Hogwarts 
and in the WW. CVs are a relatively modern invention (and nothing that 
Lockhart couldn't fake, anyway), and you cannot know that they exist at 
all in the WW - and, as I say, even if they do, Lockhart would have an 
easy time getting himself hold of a glowing one (in more than one sense 
<g>).

Also, you sound like someone from Human Resources. Dumbledore could've 
just put an advertisement, and hired Lockhart when he was the only one 
available. His reputation was, at the time, good enough to pass him by. 
Notice that, after that, Dumbledore learnt from his mistake and hired 
people he personally *knows* to be good DADA teachers, even if they are 
considered dangerous by the rest of the society.

> Tom ads:
> I agree that Dumbledore wasn't thorough enough. I often thought to 
> myself that, with one requested charm Dumbledore could have 
> disqualified Lockhart - provided it wasn't a memory charm.
> 
> And there was a better choice - Dumbledore himself. When I was in 
> school, the Headmaster had to fill in for teachers more than once 
> because there was no substitute available.
> 
> And even if it taxed Dumbledore's time a little, it would have been a 
> better choice than having that idiot teaching such an important 
> class - for all intents and purposes that ENTIRE year of DADA was 
> wasted.
> 
> -Tom

I am not saying that Dumbledore, in hindsight, Lockhart's adquisition 
was a bad one. I'm only saying that it was Dumbledore's only option, 
and that there was nothing he could do about it, once the school had 
started, to change him. After all, once the school had started there is 
no time to hire another (especially when *there is no other*). And 
certainly, he didn't look that bad when hiring him - the things he 
writes in the books are impresive enough.

Besides, Dumbledore is a busy man (preventing the apocalypse and 
colapse of civilization as we know it tends to curfew one's free time, 
for some reason <g>), so I don't think him teaching DADA is an option 
(I insist, is a full time job, 42 hours a week).

What is my point, then? Yes, Lockhart wasn't much good, but you cannot 
blame Dumbledore for hiring him. We don't know (and I doubt) that you 
need to pass an eam to teach at Hogwarts (especially for DADA. What 
would you do, throw him an Imperious and see if he can shake it?). 
Lockhart probably could pass a theorical exam well enough (he *had* to 
learn something in writting all those things he didn't do). And 
Dumbledore had no way of knowing he would be that useless. And, As I've 
repeated to exhaustion, it's not as if he had any other choice. Your 
suggestions all fail to address the major point: you need someone with 
full dedication, since DADA is a full time job, someone who knows about 
DADA more than Lockhart (who knows all the theory, or at least his 
books do) and above all someone who is *willing* to teach it. And 
Dumbledore didn't have that.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who has just realised he must be about to break his personal 
posting record