Hermione/Snape (OoP and a bit from PS/SS) also broom-bucking

[Sydney]

No: HPFGUIDX 70043

I guess if Shaun and I were on the same jury, we'd be hung forever...
bailiff!  More doughnuts!


> And to classify this one incident as being simply 'one nasty comment' 
> is, IMHO, misleading and incorrect. Because it's a lot more than that. 
> The comment in isolation isn't a major issue.
> 
> But what we have is a situation where a teacher is confronted by two 
> injured students - both injured through no fault of their own - and he 
> sends one to the hospital wing, and verbally attacks the other, by 
> making a comment that dismisses their concerns and injuries.

I'm still not quite understanding this "Snape failed to get medical
care" angle.  He looks at Goyle.  Says, "hospital wing".  Off Goyle
scampers.  Looks at Hermionie.  Says, "I see no difference". 
Instantaneously, Hermionie runs crying off to the hospital wing, and
Harry and Ron start screaming at him.  Any way you slice it, the cheap
shot cost, what, three seconds?  Perhaps you are suggesting that the
next thing Snape would have done, was not say, "well, off you go to
the hospital wing", but rather, kept her through class or stood in the
hallway for an hour making fun of her. I don't think he would have,
but we're not trying the man on possibilities here.
 
> Now, you may still disagree with me, and that's fine - but my point is 
> that it's not the comment itself that is the problem, IMHO. It's the 
> whole situation and Snape's reaction to it.

So, what I'm saying is, that Snape had about five seconds during which
he was actually reacting to that particular situation (from the point
of seeing that Herminie had been hit, I mean).  There simply wasn't
time to see what he would have done next, and I'm not ready to pay
damages or whatever we're doing here, based on what remains:  one
snarky comment.

<snip RE teachers and child psychology>

>This could 
> indicate that it's not reasonable to expect Snape to have these
skills - 
> because the Wizarding World doesn't regard them as important etc.
> 
> Except for one thing, IMHO. The other teachers seem to have them. We 
> don't see any evidence of other teachers abusing their students in the 
> same way Snape does - and I think by now, we would have seen some of 
> that. ...His attitudes cannot simply be 
> explained away because of differences in culture.

Oh, there's no question at all that Snape is simply terrible with
children.  It's arguable that he's a good teacher, in the sense of
getting his students throught their NEWTS, but I think you and I are
in harmonious accord over his suitability, or lack thereof, regarding
everything else the word "teacher" comprehends.  I think hiring him
can be added to the suddenly expanding list of 'Dumbledore's
Mistakes';  not only to spare the kids the hassle, but because it so
bad for Snape.  To be doing something he's lousy at, in the scene of
his previous humiliations, isn't exactly a situation for him to
flourish.  I can only assume that D-dore was REALLY hard pressed for a
Head of Slytherin he could trust.  I think what we do disagree on, is
whether lacking those skills makes one an evil person.

>I want to say that for the most 
> part, I'm greatly enjoying this discussion, including the amount of 
> people who disagree with me. I like being told I'm wrong, especially by 
> people who seem to have put a reasonable level of thought into their 
> responses (-8.

I hope I'm in the 'most part' category... :)

I wrote:
>>Snape would have assumed Hermionie was a normal girl,
> > not a fragile neurotic on the verge of a nervous breakdown, which, as
> > I said before, is the only sort of person for whom this would be a
> > cataclysmic event as opposed to a lousy day. 
> 
Shaun replies:
> I disagree. Most of the students I know who have suffered significant 
> long term damage as a result of such treatment were not neurotics - at 
> least not up until the point they suffered harm. This is mostly because 
> if a person is a neurotic, most people can detect that and most people 
> back off and make allowances for it (unfortunately, not all, there's a 
> subset of the population who view such people as a better target).
> 
> It's the fact that people who don't seem to have problems, can collapse 
> under these stresses that makes it so important for teachers to avoid 
> them.

I have to plead ignorance of child psychology here, and will have to
take your word I suppose that those five seconds really could severely
damage a 13-year-old.  It goes against my instincts, but no one ever
said I have particularily good instincts about kids.

But if this is the case, why is ANYONE allowed around such delicate
creatures, never mind teachers?  Sure, teachers are around them a lot,
but a situation like that could arise anywhere, after all.  If you
need special technicians to handle these volatile materials, they need
round-the-clock surveillance.  Why are they allowed into Hogsmead if
at any second someone could be harsh with them and explode them like
balloons?  Mind you, as I tend to hold a baby as though it were a
ticking bomb, I already do regard kids with a high level of
trepidation!  A level which is bound to increase exponentially after
this discussion... to be on the safe side, probably I shouldn't be
allowed around kids either.  No one should, without an advanced
degree, it seems.


<snip re:  is this the equivalent of assult?> 
> Actually, courts of law would agree with me. And have. Generally not in 
> criminal cases, but in civil cases, it's becoming accepted more and
more 
> that teachers do have a specific and particular duty of care in such 
> cases, and Snape could be well and truly screwed if he came up in
such a 
> case over this incident. Most cases, by the way, don't reach court -
but 
> a few have in Australia, Canada, the US, and the UK.

Just to be clear, would a court consider this the equivalent of
assault, or of dereliction of care?  Just checking.

I do not consider something having been the basis of successful
lawsuits, to be remotely an attractive argument for its justice.  If
Snape really would have been screwed over this incident, he would have
been just that:  screwed.  And I would read about it in the paper and
shout:  "For the love of god, can we not do something about the
whittling away of liberty, and infantilization of the public, fostered
by these frivolous lawsuits?"
 
> Criminal law is a different matter - but that's fine with me, because I 
> don't think in most cases, criminal law should be involved in such 
> cases.

Whew.

> 
> Moody's actions, OTOH, do verge on being a criminal assault. That's 
> borderline under British Muggle law of the period though (where a 
> teacher in a private school could make ready use of the reasonable 
> chastisement defence)

Reasonable chastisement?  Weasel physiology being what it is, I
suppose internal injuries may have not been critical, but I don't
think assult gets much clearer than repeatedly flinging a tiny person
against a stone wall.  But I don't think we disagree about Moody, so
it's not so much fun to talk about...

Sydney, enjoying the free doughnuts here in jury duty but really
thinking she should get back to work...