The permanent problem with Slytherin House

[corinthum]

No: HPFGUIDX 99337

Nora:

> The WW went into hiding way after the founding of Hogwarts, though, 
> remember.  

What evidence do you base this on?  I don't remember exactly where the
approximate dates for these two events are mentioned, but a quick
check of the Lexicon shows both events (founding of Hogwarts and the
Wizarding World's withdrawl from Muggles) to happen concurrently.  

Nora:

> And what is objectionable in the language used (although 
> this could be wrong) is that it establishes a kind of hierarchy 
> within wizards--if your ancestry is purer, you're a better student 
> for me.

Yes, and I never argued that this idea is a good one.  You asked for
an explanation other than "Slytherin was evil" to explain his
pureblood bias, and I offered one.


I wrote:

> > Gryffindor wanted only those "with brave deeds to their name".  Not
> > brave young witches and wizards, or those with the potential for
> > bravery, but those with brave deeds to their name.  I think this 
> > means one of two things.  One, the child has already proven his- 
> > or herself with a brave deed of some sort.  Unlikey, before the 
> > age of eleven. Which leaves a second possiblity: a brave deed has 
> > already been committed by someone of the same name, i.e. an 
> > ancestor of the young witch or wizard.  What's that?  Gryffindor 
> > wanted to choose pupils on the basis of their ancestry?  
> > Inconceivable!

And Nora contested:

> See below.  This is really trying to make the text say things more 
> than it does.

Well, that's your opinion.  I feel it is a perfectly valid
interpretation of the text.  If you want to argue it, offer me canon
refuting the idea.  Arguing these ideas is fun, but it becomes less so
when your debating oponent falls back on "I don't agree; therefore it
isn't so".

Me:

> > And then there's Ravenclaw, who wanted only those "whose 
> > intelligence is surest".  Hmm, can I twist this one to be ancestry-
> > related?  Of course.  Again, the line doesn't specify that the 
> > child be intelligent, but rather that intelligence is a strong 
> > possiblity, either now or in the future.  Now what would one use 
> > to determine whether or not a child had the potential to excel?  

Nora:

> I'm sorry, that's a tendentious reading. 

Well, of course it is.  Why else would I have written "can I twist
this one"?  :)

Nora:

> Reading "those who" 
> as "those who are going to have kids who..." is, well...a little 
> specious.  

That's not really what I said.  I was emphasizing the difference
between "those whose intelligence is surest" and "those who are most
intelligent".  The latter directly connects intelligence to the
student as an already-present trait, while the former is a bit more
ambiguous.  I was arguing that it could be interpreted to mean
intelligence has not yet been seen in abundant quantity in the
student, but other facts (e.g. family achievement) may point to
potential.  

(of course, it may just be easier to rhyme "surest" than
"intelligent", but where's the fun in that?)  

Nora:

> Intelligence is notoriously unpredictable in transmission 
> down generations, as well.  I don't really need to give examples.

Yes, I'll concede that point.  But children of overachievers are more
likely to be overachievers themselves, due to environment, than
children of those who place no value on education.

 
Nora:

> First of all, there's a major difference between the type of 
> discrimination that's going on with Ravenclaw/Gryffindor and 
> Slytherin.  Bravery and cleverness can pop up in any part of the 
> population.  Ancestry is determined at birth and cannot be altered.  
> That's NOT a distinction without a difference.  Choosing students 
> for qualities they possess that anyone could have is different than 
> picking people based on who their daddy is.

I strongly disagree.  Both Gryffindor and Ravenclaw chose a single
trait to decide whether or not a student should qualify to receive an
education.  Under Gryffindor's system, a brilliant, talented, but very
shy and timid young wizard would be excluded, due to this single
fault.  Likewise, a diligent, loyal, hard working young wizard who
happened to struggle when it came to tests and schoolwork would be
denied a chance to learn under Ravenclaw's restrictions.  How are
these exclusions any more fair than exclusion based on ancestry?  Not
everyone can be above average in intelligence or bravery, even if they
try their hardest.  Can a student change these faults any more than
one can change their parents?  


> But Slytherin House is an institutionalized bulwark of 
> this ideology.  It's oh-so-easy for kids to go into it, and because 
> there are no Muggleborn students in it, to never have to reconsider 
> some of their ideas.  The ideology of Slytherin House encodes these 
> values, and yes, I think they *are* distinguished in *kind* from 
> those of the other houses.  (That last comment was a cheerful joke 
> as well, natch.)

Do we have any direct evidence that there are no Muggleborns in
Slytherin?  I know it seems unlikely, but we know half-bloods have
been allowed in.  That's certainly against Slytherin's ideology; if
the Sorting Hat decided to break the rules a little, why not a lot?  

 
> I think the House system should go.  But I think Slytherin by its 
> foundational nature is pernicious in a way that the others aren't. 

I think the problem with Slytherin is more that it's a collection of
extremely ambitious people.  If offered an easy path to success, a
chance to join the Old Boys Club of the Wizarding World, simply by
embracing or pretending to embrace an ideology, most of these students
would leap at the chance (not all, mind you, but most).  I think if
the House system were disbanded, and the overly ambitious dispersed
among students who were not always trying to get ahead at any cost,
then many of the evils of Slytherin House would be greatly reduced. 
One of my favorite quotes: "Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups."  Especially if said stupid people are offered
a prime group of young students with an easy-to-exploit weakness.

-Corinth