Discriminatory admissions process (Re: OOP: Sorting hat's song)

[Milz]

No: HPFGUIDX 63602

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "darrin_burnett" 
<bard7696 at a...> wrote:
> Milz:
>  
> > > > The three had definite ideas on what kind of student Hogwarts 
> > > should admit.
> 
> 
> Darrin:
>  
> > > No, SLYTHERIN only wanted to admit purebloods. The rest were 
> > willing 
> > > to admit others, but then set categories for their houses.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> Milz:
> 
> > Yes, so you agree with me. They each had a definite idea of 
> > the "kind" of student they wanted in Hogwarts and had an 
> exclusionary  policies.
> > 
> 
> 
> Now Darrin again:
> 
> I don't agree with you at all and don't pretend I do. They each had 
a 
> definite idea of the kind of student they wanted IN THEIR HOUSE. 
> There was nothing about banning them from Hogwarts, which is what 
you 
> insinuate when you say they didn't want to "teach" these students.
> 
> Again, only Slytherin had the idea to ban students from Hogwarts 
all 
> together. He's the only one who uses the word "just" by the way.
> 

Read the time-line the Sorting Hat gave in it's song. First it says 
that The 4, were friends, that they decided to start a school. Then 
it goes onto where things went a little wrong (I've already quoted 
where The 3 all said "we" should teach ______ student. Then 
Hufflepuff says "I" will teach the lot. That to me sounds alot like 
an organizational meeting: they decided they wanted to teach, they 
decided they wanted to build, they had to decide who they wanted as 
students.

Again, I ask why does the Sorting Hat say later on "And only those of 
sharpest minds were taught by Ravenclaw". This implies she didn't 
teach anyone else...

> Darrin:
> 
> > > There is no evidence that Rowena Ravenclaw, for instance, 
wanted 
> to  kick Hufflepuff kids out of school. She just had certain 
> qualities she was looking for, not unlike a master seeking an 
> apprentice.
> > > 
> > > Rowena and Godric and Salazar grabbed the kids they wanted to 
> bear  their name and Helga took the rest. But there is no evidence 
> that  Godric and Rowena wanted to kick the Hufflepuff kids out of 
> > Hogwarts entirely.
> > > 
> > > Helga didn't set any standards. I suppose that does give her a 
> leg up morally, perhaps.
> > > 
> > > But it's still a long, and I believe inaccurate, leap from that 
> > > to "Gryff, Slyth and Ravenclaw wanted to kick them all out." 
> Slyth 
> > > probably wouldn't have had a problem with a pureblood 
Ravenclaw, 
> > for 
> > > instance.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> Milz:
> > I never said in my post The 3 "wanted to kick them all out": 
you're 
> > mis-quoting me. I said they had definite ideas about the kind of 
> > student Hogwarts should teach: Slytherin the "pure bloods", 
> > Gryffindor the "brave" and Ravenclaw the "intelligent".
> > 
> 
> Darrin:
> You said "they had definite ideas about the students they wanted AT 
> HOGWARTS." (emphasis mine)
> 
> That is saying they wanted only certain types of students at 
school. 
> I'm saying they wanted to pick certain qualities above others in 
> their houses.
> 
> 

There's a HUGE difference between "kicking out" and having definite 
ideas. The former implies these students had already been 
matriculated and were removed. I can have "definite ideas" about how 
I wish to decorate my house, but that doesn't mean I'll throw away 
every stick of furniture currently within.

> Milz:
> > I'm not going to reproduce the Sorting Hat song here. But Notice 
> the  pronoun The 3 use, "We". I interpret that as The 3 had ideas 
on 
> the type of student Hogwarts should admit. According to the Sorting 
> Hat,> that difference was settled because each founder set up their 
> own house and admitted their ideal kind of student.  UNTIL "several 
> > years" later, a power struggle came about and the 4 Founders 
began 
> > fighting among themselves. Quoting the Sorting Hat: 
>  
> 
> Darrin:
> 
> Well, that's convenient, not reproducing the middle part of the two 
> passages you quote. Here it is:
> 

As you can see, later in my post I did in fact reproduce parts of the 
the song. Parts I can see you are choosing to ignore.
 
> "Thus the Houses and their founders, retained friendships firm and 
> true."
> 
> That means the kids worked together, built friendships, and 
generally 
> found value in all their strenghts, in my interpretation.
>

No, this part of the song DOES NOT refer to any "kids". It referes to 
the Founders. And if you look further you will see that the Hat 
points out some kind of problem where everyone fought---for "rule".
Quoting the Hat: "The Houses that, like pillars four, had once held 
up our school, now turned upon each other and , divided, sought to 
rule."

While I have no doubt, Slytherin's issue was to make Hogwarts 
exclusively pure-blood, why doesn't the Hat say three turned upon 
one? Why does it say "now turned upon EACH OTHER" (emphasis mine)?
 
> All the houses picked their favorite types, they worked together 
for 
> a while, and then discord set in. And the established fact Binns 
> tells us in CoS sets forward who began rumbling about not letting 
> someone into school entirely.
> 

You just answered why  4 Houses were established rather than having 
one UNIFIED school: The 4 couldn't agree upon whom they wanted 
attending their school. Think about it, if they didn't have their 
own "student requirements", why set up 4 different Houses? Why would 
Ravenclaw "only" teach the "sharpest of mind", if she wanted an open 
admission process? Why would Gryffindor have the "bravest and the 
boldest" if he wanted open admissions?


> It was Salazar Slytherin. Godric, Helga and Rowena stayed because 
> they wanted Muggle-borns in Hogwarts. Salzar left.
> 

True, Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, wanted Muggle-borns and 
didn't use that as admissions criteria. HOWEVER, Gryffindor and 
Ravencalw only wanted certain students. And it was "resolved" by 
putting these choosen student into separate Houses.

> And considering that the Sorting Hat appears to contain the 
essences 
> of the four founders, it is telling that Muggle-borns like Hermione 
> and the Creeveys, near-squibs like Neville, minorities like Dean 
> Thomas and Angelina Johnson, and poverty-stricken folks like the 
> Weasleys are all in Gryff. Meanwhile, Hufflepuff has Muggle-borns 
> like Justin Finch-Fletchley and Ravenclaw has minorities such as 
Cho 
> Chang.
> 
> See any non-white, non-pureblood, non-rich faces in Slyth?
>

Okay, now you're using the Slytherin requirement to argue against 
Gryffindor's and Ravenclaw's exclusionary policies. So your argument 
here is moot. The fact that the Sorting Hat has the essences of The 4 
and sorts them accordingly means The 4 had definite ideas who should 
be in Hogwarts and their Houses. If Gryffindor wasn't exclusionary, 
why does the Hat only put brave children into his House? Muggle-borns 
and pure-bloods can be less than bold too. So can poor children and 
racial minorities. Same goes for Ravenclaw. Why are there only smart 
children in her House if she weren't exclusionary? Intelligence, or 
lack thereof, is not relegated to one racial group, Muggle-borns, 
pure bloods, the wealthy or the poor, either.

Furthermore, we don't know if there are "non-white" Slytherins 
because Rowling. If has yet to have a Slythering character wearing 
a "Black Power" t-shirt. (pardon the sarcasm). We don't know if there 
are "non-rich" Slythering characters because we don't know the 
financial situation of anyone except Draco Malfoy. And we don't know 
if there's a Slytherin who was intelligent enough to get into 
Ravenclaw House. Draco seems quite intelligent, in spite of his 
nastiness.
 
> Darrin: 
> >> Those kids all got their Hogwarts letters. The 
> > only "discrimination" 
> > > is in where they'd live once they got there. It was Slyth, and 
no 
> > one  else, who wanted to stop certain kids from getting those 
> letters.
> > >
> > 
> 
> 
> Milz:
> 
> > I have my doubts about that. The Sorting Hat specifically says in 
> > that Ravenclaw, Slytherin, and Gryffindor had an specific type of 
> > student in mind for Hogwarts. Quoting the Hat: 
> > 
> > "Together we will build and teach.....Said Slytherin,"We'll teach 
> > just those whose ancestry is purest. Said Ravenclaw, "We'll teach 
> > those whose intelligence is surest. Said Gryffindor. "We'll teach 
> all 
> > those with brave deeds to their name. Said Hufflepuff, "I'll 
teach 
> > the lot and treat them just the same."
> > 
>  That sure looks like The 3 wanted only specific children gracing 
the 
> > halls of Hogwarts to me and it was "solved" by the formation of 4 
> > distinct Houses.
> 
> Darrin:
> 
> Again... they wanted specific students in their houses, but seemed 
> perfectly happy to allow any magic student into school in the first 
> place. And what's with the denigrating of them solving their 
inherent 
> differences and desires? I don't care if they solved it by painting 
> themselves with peanut butter.
> 

Again, read the Sorting Hat song. If The 3 wanted open admissions, 
why the 4 Houses? Why the segregation?

> The end result, until Salazar the Genocidal Madman Racist Bastard 
> started mucking about, was harmony. Sigh... I haven't written that 
in 
> a while. Felt good.
>

I don't know. Again I ask, why 4 Houses if everyone got along decided 
who to admit and not admit?
 
> 
> Milz: 
>  > Quoting the Hat again:
> > 
> > "For instance, Slytherin took only pure-blood wizards...And only 
> > those of sharpest mind were taught by Ravenclaw.....while the 
> bravest  and the boldest went to daring Gryffindor....Good 
> Hufflepuff, she took the rest and taught them all she knew."
> > 
> > Why would Ravenclaw "only" teach the smart kids, if she didn't 
have 
> > an exclusionary vision of Hogwarts? Ditto for Gryffindor.
> 
> She had an exclusionary vision OF HER HOUSE. As did Gryff. A 
vision, 
> which, over the years, has obviously been adapted. (Something 
Salazar 
> couldn't do.) And again, looking at modern-day Hogwarts, I don't 
see 
> how anyone can say Gryffindor isn't diverse.
> 
> And considering this is the THIRD Sorting Hat song, and the other 
> songs used such phrases as: "By Gryffindor the bravest were prized 
> for beyond the rest." (GoF) which indicates that yeah, Gryff wanted 
> bravery, but not at the exclusion of others.
> 
> You're putting a lot of emphasis on a song that has already had 
three 
> versions. At one point, Salazar's love of purebloods was 
> called "ambition" with no mention of pureblood. Can you really 
write 
> the definitive history of the Founders from a song that the hat 
makes 
> up every year?
>

Again re-read the Sorting Hat song following the time-line provided 
by the Hat: The four get decide to start a school; the four decide to 
build a school; the logical progression in the planning stage is to 
then decide who gets admitted. When that fails, they begin their 4 
Houses.
 
> Slytherin left because he didn't want to teach muggle-borns, which 
> indicates that, like today, all the founders taught all the 
students. 
> Gryff nurtured the brave, Rowena the smart, Salazar the pureblood, 
> but they all seemed to have had a hand in the lessons taught.
> 

Not according to the Sorting Hat: "And ONLY (emphasis mine) those of 
sharpest mind were taught by RAVENCLAW (emphasis mine again)." As it 
is written, Ravenclaw only taught the smart kids and no one else. 
It's similar to me saying "I had a fruit salad of apples, berries and 
bananas, but I only ate the bananas". There's no way one can infer 
that I also ate the apples and berries, too.
 
> Milz:
> 
> > The one thing about elitist snobbery is that it doesn't 
> discriminate.
> > 
> 
> 
> And the one thing about calling someone an elitist snob is that 
you'd 
> better be damn sure of your facts before throwing that around.
> 
> Darrin

Believe me, I am:-)