The permanent problem with Slytherin House

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 99352

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" <kkearney at s...> 
wrote:
>  
> 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?  
> 

The classic liberal stance is that people should be judged on their 
*own merit.* In specific contexts, having more of a certain trait 
(say, intelligence in an academic context) makes you more valuable. 
Is it unfair to rank people at all? Maybe, but it's a lot fairer than 
ranking them on a scale that has no real connection to the specific 
field of endeavor. People who are more intelligent, *do better* in 
academia; people who have more courage, *do better* in the army 
(say). Darkness of skin, however, would be an arbitrary scale on 
which to rank people either in academia or in the army. 
 
So, to return to your argument, the point is not whether one can 
change a trait or not, but whether that trait is relevant to the 
specific field of endeavor. We don't really know whether brains or 
courage are more important to learning magic, but surely it's clear 
that ancestry is an arbitrary criterion in this context? This makes 
Slytherin discriminatory where Gryffindor and Ravenclaw are merely 
meritocratic. Definitely a very different order of "unfairness."


Naama