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

[Milz]

No: HPFGUIDX 64052

>Andromeda wrote in message #63649:
>"To me, the four Founders seem to parallel the old educational 
>arguments of heterogeneous vs. homogenous grouping.
>
>I don't know that these methods are necessarily discriminatory; 
>there are some educators who feel students learn better when grouped 
>according to ability, while others do not agree."
>
>But I don't feel it invariably makes the proponents elitist snobs."

The homogenous grouping, connotes the "separate but equal" argument, 
which, in the United States was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme 
Court in 1954 (Brown V. Board of Education).
 
As for elitism, it depends upon what you personally consider as 
elitism. I'm of the opinion that separating children into groups 
based upon race, ability and intelligence, promotes an elitist caste-
system.

Tim wrote  in message #63684
:
>Notice, too, that there were no Slytherins in D.A. Does this mean 
>that until we get a Slytherin on Dumbledore's side, Hogwarts will 
>never be truly united to stand against Voldermort??"
>
Based upon what the Sorting Hat says "we must unite inside her, or 
we'll crumble from within." That indicates to me that the Houses must 
unite in order to save Hogwarts from Voldemort.

Darrin wrote in response to Tim in message #63694:
>Assuming Snape is a Slytherin, there is one, apparently. But, the 
>current crop of Slyths don't have anyone who is ready to jump 
>sides... so far.
>
>And as I said in another post, I'd like to see what happens the 
first 
>time a Slyth shows up for D.A. class. I hope there aren't knee-jerk 
>cries of "discrimination!" and "unfair!" when Harry and the rest are 
>suspicious of that kid. 
>
Of course Harry will be suspicious of that child, because Harry has 
been conditioned like everyone else in the UK Wizarding world 
that "all dark wizards came were in  Slytherin". The House system 
encouraged and perpetuated these stereotypes. In effect it 
contributes to a "self-fulfilling prophecy". The members of Slytherin 
are  expected to be cunning and wiley, so they are.

It would be very sad if Harry were to base his rejection of a "good" 
Slytherin based soley upon the fact he is a Slytherin. But it won't 
be surprizing, seeing how segregated Hogwarts is. 
  
>Harry would be a complete idiot to blindly accept a Slytherin into 
>that class. The Slyth will have to prove loyalty, just as Snape did.
>

Equally Harry would be foolish to allow his prejudices and other pre-
conceived ideas blind him in his decision-making. We know that 
Malfoy's gang (Parkinson, Goyle, Crabb, and at times, Millicent 
Bulstrode) are awful bullies with prejudices. But we don't know at 
this time if there are any Slytherins who are loyal to Dumbledore. 

Luna Lovegood in OoP served as "don't judge a book by its cover" 
lesson. The initial impression of her was a "weird", eccentric, goof-
ball. But in the end, Luna proved not only to be loyal, but she also 
risked her life alongside Harry, Hermione, Ginny and Neville. Let's 
hope Harry has learned this lessson well. 
 
>As for the question of Snape being the Good Slytherin. I'm not sure 
>what the hell Snape is (part of what makes him interesting.)
>
>As I've said before, there are still enough signs out there that 
>would make it possible for Snape to betray Dumbledore. For now, he 
>seems on the right side.

Don't pass out in shock, Darrin, but I agree with you here
.ummm 
Darrin? Darrin
wake up
.err, someone get the smelling salts please. 
(lol) :-)


Darrin wrote in message #63676
also:
>Just a couple of points here because I believe it is not accurate to 
>pick apart every word on a song that was created to rhyme AND has 
had 
>three versions, all using different words with different meanings. 
>

On the contrary, I don't mind going through the all the songs line by 
line. IIRC, around the time GoF was released, Rowling said in an 
interview the Hat will play a significant role. I've looked at the 
two other Hat songs(SS/PS, GoF).  The Hat gives more information 
every time it sings. In SS/PS, it gave a nice short song, briefly 
introducing the House system. The next time in GoF, the Hat gives 
more detail about the Founders, their philosophies and how the Hat 
came into being. In OoP, the Hat gives more information about the 
Founders' philosophy and chronicles the schism.  

Furthermore, I think the Hat parallels Dumbledore's actions 
concerning Harry. The previous two songs shields the students by 
giving them "only enough information". In the most recent song, the 
Hat levels with them just as Dumbledore eventually does with Harry.

By the way, I'm not letting Hufflepuff completely off the hook 
either. The Hat song in GoF quotes her as wanting the hard-workers 
for admission (but then, if Gryffindor wanted the brave, Slytherin 
the cunning pure-bloods and Ravenclaw the intelligent ones, what's 
left? Kneazles?)

>But, I wanted to dive0 into the racism undercurrent issue.

Me:
> > 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?
> >
> 

>Milz: 
>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.
> 

>Me: 
>Ummm, which is what I said. Gryffindor has a mix of family trees, 
>races, skill levels and intelligence levels, all linked because they 
>prize courage and display courage or have the potential to display 
>courage. Someone that would turn tail and run from a fight is not 
>Gryff's kind of student and he doesn't want them bearing his name.

The fact is there are different kinds of discrimination and bigotry. 
There's racial discrimination, sex discrimination, socioeconomic 
discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination, etc.  

For the sake of an example, let's the same exercise I did in my 
Sociology 101 class. Let's exchange the word "bravery" and it's 
connotations with the word "Caucasian". So your above sentence can be 
re-written, "Someone that isn't Caucasian is not Gryff's kind of 
student and he doesn't want them bearing his name." (uh-oh)   Or 
let's play with the OoP Sorting Hat song a little bit. Again 
replacing the connotations of "brave" with "Caucasian": " Said 
Gryffindor, "We'll teach all Caucasians". (uh-oh) Here's how the GoF 
Sorting Hat song would read "By Gryffindor, the Caucasians were 
prized far beyond the rest". (d'oh) If that doesn't sound 
discriminatory or exclusionary, I don't know WHAT does. Yet, by your 
estimation, it's not exclusionary or discriminatory to want "brave " 
children
but replace one single word describing a characteristic for 
the other word describing a characteristic and we have Gryffindor 
looking like the spokesman for the Aryan Nation.

>But you haven't proven Godric didn't want those kids taught at all. 

Here's what the Hat sings about Gryffindor in GoF:
" Now each of these four founders
Formed their own House, for each
Did value different virtues
In ones they had to teach.
By Gryffindor, the bravest were
Prized far beyond the rest;"

"In the ones they HAD (emphasis mine) to teach." It doesn't seem like 
Gryffindor didn't want to teach anyone except 
those "bravest "children who were "prized far beyond the rest", imho. 
Again, I ask, why was the House system set up, if the Founders did 
not have preferences and wanted a diverse school? Why segregate these 
young, impressionable children?
Again, I ask why would the Hat in OoP quote Hufflepuff as saying 
she "will teach the lot and treat them just the same."? It implies 
that the other 3 didn't want to teach everyone and wouldn't treat 
them equally.

>Only Slytherin wanted to ban certain kids outright.

No doubt, Slytherin was a problem. But I'll go back to the part of 
the song where The 3 are suggesting who they want as students in 
Hogwarts:
 
"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." 
These differences caused little strife 
When first they came to light, 
For each of the four founders had 
A house in which they might 
Take only those they wanted, so, 

Going back to the original message, why the use of the "we" pronoun? 
Sure you can argue The 3 were using that pronoun inclusively and were 
making universal remarks. If that's so, why did Hufflepuff say "I"? 
If Hufflepuff had said "we will teach the lot and treat them the 
same", it implies The 3 were just saying qualities they wanted in the 
entire student body. But she didn't, did she? Once again, why 
WOULD  Hufflepuff say SHE would "teach the lot, and treat them just 
the same", if she thought The 3 would teach and treat everyone 
equally?   

If The 3 didn't want to exclude certain children from Hogwarts, it 
makes NO sense for Hufflepuff to say she'll take the lot and treat 
them the same". Likewise, it makes NO sense for there to be 4 Houses 
if all Four Founders wanted a diverse, non-segregated student 
population.

Furthermore, the Slytherin vs. the Rest information isn't in any of 
the Sorting Hat songs. It's from Professor Binns in CoS. Binns 
quotes "reliable historical sources". Yet the Sorting Hat is an 
eyewitness to the events, having been Gryffindor's hat. Who to 
believe, Binns quoting "historial reliable sources" or the Sorting 
Hat, an eyewitness? Hmmmmm
..

Here's what the Hat sings in GoF about the separate Houses:

" Now each of these four founders
Formed their own House, for each
Did value different virtues
In ones they had to teach."

So the Hat says they formed their own House because they valued 
different virtues in the students they had to teach. It doesn't say 
they formed different Houses to serve as mentors to their chosen 
children or to nutured these chosen children. It says "in ones they 
HAD to teach".

>And when he [Slytherin] 
>started making those noises, he hit the road and when he left, the 
>dissension stopped. Sounds like Salazar was the problem.

Not exactly, the Hat says the fighting ceased but the discord 
continued and the Houses were never united as they once were:

" And NEVER (emphasis mine) since the founders four 
Were whittled down to three 
Have the Houses been united "

 Plainly the Hat is correct, considering the intra-House tensions and 
rivalry we read in the books. Ron hopes he's not in Hufflepuff. 
Hagrid says people think the Hufflepuffs are "duffers".  Again, 
stereotypes perpetuated and encouraged by the segregationist policies 
of the Founders and their Sorting Hat.

However, let's say Slytherin caused the trouble in hopes of gaining 
power by preying on the other Founders and planting seeds of dissent 
and fear.  I could very well, imagine Slytherin telling 
Ravenclaw, "you know as well, as I do that Godric only wants brave 
children here. If he gets his way, intelligent witches and wizards 
would never be admitted. Look how he took 100 points away for the 
Blanchard girl the other week. For what? Because she forgot to close 
the door to the Owlery? My dear, dear, Rowena, how many times has 
Godric done that himself?" 

Preying on prejudices and fears has always been used as a form of 
intimidation. But then, this only works if one HAS prejudices, 
doesn't it? 

>And exactly how should the houses be reunited? Only when the essence 
>of Salazar agrees that his kids should be mingling with Muggle-borns 
>is it going to happen. Or what should the others do, welcome 
>Salazar's creed of only pureblood to reunite the houses? Sure, and 
>install Lucius Malfoy as Headmaster while you're at it.

To quote Dumbledore in CoS "It's our choices, Harry, that show us 
what we truly are, far more than our abilities." In short, the 
reunification has to start with the children presently at Hogwarts. 

The Hat will segregate the incoming students: that's its job. But 
these children can CHOOSE with whom they associate and formulate 
their own beliefs. These children have to rise above generations of 
in-bred hatred and prejudice. They have to rise above the House 
system which is only keeping them segregated. Will it be easy? No. 
Will it be impossible? No.  
 
People can change, imo. The US Senator, Robert Byrd, was a KKK member 
as a young man in West Virginia. Today he is a Civil Rights 
advocate.  It's possible and I think it would be socially 
irresponsible of J.K. Rowling to not entertain that.

Milz:
>> 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). 

>She's taken pains to put minorities in Ravenclaw and Gryffindor, 
>hasn't she? And why is it that the most prominent Slytherin and his 
>parents are an Aryan wet dream? 
>
>I think there is a subtle message being sent there and I think that 
>is why we have no minorities in Slytherin, whose entire creed is one 
>of "pure blood" and "mud blood." 
>
>Does that mean Salazar cared for the color of his kids' skin? 
>Probably not. It has been argued that Salazar himself was a Moor.
>
>But the images of Slytherin and the Death Eater culture (which is 
>heavily influenced by former Slyths) all contribute to racist images.
>

Way back when HPFGU had just returned to YahooGroups from 
Egroups.com, we discussed a minor difference between the UK edition 
and US edition of SS/PS. Apparently, the US edition described Dean 
Thomas as a "tall black boy". This was not included in the UK book. 
Most of us wondered why Scholastic (or Rowling or both) beleived it 
necessary to include that in the US edition, but not the UK book. 
IIRC, someone wrote that Rowling, initially, didn't want to assign 
racial characteristics to her characters, but eventually did.

By all accounts, Rowling abhors bigotry. Yes, no Slytherin is given a 
racial or ethnic group designation---to date. Perhaps this is done on 
purpose. Rowling knows her audience includes children. Why should she 
risk assigning a racial quality to a Slytherin character knowing that 
a young reader might internalize that and apply it in the real world? 
I think Rowling is doing the socially responsible thing by keeping 
her Slytherin characters "grey" and allowing the reader to form 
his/her own vision of the ethnic/racial makeup of the Slytherin 
students.

>The Death Eaters and their hoods are spitting images of the Ku Klux 
>Klan and the term "mud race" is used by the KKK to describe any non-
>white. The term "muggle-lover" is a direct correlation to the "n----
r-
>lover" epithet thrown about in the South in the 1960s. I think the 
>undercurrent, though not verbalized, is actually pretty easily 
>spotted.

On the other hand,  the term "muggle-lover" is a direct correlation 
to the "Jew-lover" epithet of  NAZI Germany.  The Dark Mark is a 
correlation to the NAZI swastika or the Soviet Hammer and Sickle or 
the Rising Sun of Imperial Japan. Interesting historical factoid:  
Hitler's elite SS were tatooed in their armpits as a means of 
identification, similar to Dark Mark on the Death Eaters forearms. 
And the Death Eaters, well, they are reminiscent of almost all 
totalitarian secret police from the Cheka to the Iraqi Republican 
Guard.

In fact, some of the Death Eater propaganda is reminicent of 
the "Asia for the Asiatics" slogan of Imperial Japan during the 
Second World War. Or the "NINA" signs [No Irish Need Apply] that 
graced the shop windows of Boston in the early 20th century. Or the 
rabid anti-Catholicism faced by Al Smith in the 1920s during his run 
for US President or the same bigotry faced by John Kennedy in the 
60s.  

The slaughter of Muggles and magicals reminds me of the Cawnpore 
massacre, the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China, the more recent 
ethnic massacres in Rwanda and the Ivory Coast, the rape of Nanking, 
or countless other bloody massacres in the history of the world. 

Voldemort trying to kill baby Harry is reminicent of King Herod in 
the New Testament slaughtering the male children of Judea, potential 
King of the Jews and rivals of Herod.  

Rowling borrows extensively from mythology, folklore and real life so 
these similarities are expected. 

>My guess is that the long-awaited "good Slytherin kid" that has been 
>discussed here is going to be the first kid to openly disagree with 
>all that garbage and stand up to Draco's creed.

>But like I said in those countless good Slyth kid discussions, if 
>he's not in canon, he doesn't exist. When JKR writes him, then he 
>exists. Right now, the Slyths follow the Creed of Purelbood and I 
>don't see where any of them have diverted from that path.... yet.

Very true, if it isn't part of the cannon, like the OoP Sorting Hat 
song, then it doesn't exist.

>So, or course, I'll pardon the sarcasm and let people who want to 
>discuss the issue without sarcasm have at it.

Well, since you're pardoning my sarcasm, I'll pardon yours and call 
it even.

~Milz