Snape's abuse (Re: Would an "O" for Harry vindicate Snape?)

[John Kearns]

No: HPFGUIDX 131525

> Amanda:
> Okay, I have to make a point here. Let me say right now that I am 
> NOT defending Snape's nastiness. But you are equating "abusive" 
> with "illegal"--and they are not the same (just as "ethical" 
> and "legal" are often two very very different things).

John K:
Good post, Amanda.  This is certainly true.  Confusing legality with 
ethics often gets people in trouble, as it just has me ;).  I guess 
what I was trying to point out was, these behaviors are *seen* as 
abusive by some, hence the laws.  I see Snape's treatment of 
students as abusive, but perhaps (probably?) this is only because 
I've been trained to do so.  I know very little about practices in 
schools in other parts of the world, so my experience is limited.  
Would this be considered abuse elsewhere?

> Amanda:
> Just because the current American school system is paranoid in the 
> extreme about holding students accountable for their actions and 
> punishing them in any way, does not therefore make it true that 
> trying to control a student's behavior or hold him accountable for 
> his mistakes is therefore abusive. Snape is doing both of these. I 
> think his methods can be very nasty; but I fully believe that he 
> is entitled to the goal of control and discipline.  It sounds like 
> you don't believe either the methods, *or* the ends, are justified.

John K:
I think I can see where you're coming from.  It's a difficult 
situation, to be sure, which I think is why our school system has 
chosen to draw the line at the most definable place (teachers can do 
*nothing*).  Of course this is one extreme, just as 'teachers can do 
*anything*' would be the other.  Snape falls somewhere in the 
middle.  So is it okay?  One big thing still sticks out at me: 
threatening Harry with the Veritaserum.  Yes, he believes Harry has 
broken into his office.  But I can't imagine many parents being 
happy with their child being threatened with a controlled substance 
that would put the child in a completely indefensable position.

> Amanda:
> And I think children should be exposed to someone like Snape. The 
> sooner they learn that life isn't fair; that some people are mean 
> for no reason; that sometimes the mean ones are on your side even 
> if they're not nice; and that the nice people aren't always your 
> friends--the better. It's called reality. Most school systems and 
> theories seem to set out to protect children from reality, rather 
> than give them a chance to learn to deal with it.

This is clearly Dumbledore's perspective, as well as Rowling's.  And 
I agree with it... to an extent.  I certainly cringe every time I 
pass one of our new plastic playgrounds with no moveable parts - if 
our kids never get injured, how are they to learn what can hurt them 
in reality?  Will a swing really kill them?  Or a splinter?  This is 
much the same issue.  

I am not a parent yet, so it is difficult for me to fully understand 
the perspective.  Certainly most American parents, right or wrong, 
would have screamed *foul* at Snape long ago.  I still feel it's 
inappropriate for the school's second biggest bully to be a teacher, 
whether the teacher feels justified or not.  There must be a line 
somewhere, and I feel, as Harry does, that Snape *sometimes* crosses 
it.  But, perhaps that's my pansy American self speaking again (and 
I don't mean that sarcastically... I'm not fond of my culture or 
what it's done to me).

So, Snape shouldn't be fired.  But I do think Dumbledore should be 
keeping a close eye.  After all, if we're going to draw the line in 
the gray area, it necessarily falls to the headmaster to enforce 
it.  Probably he is, and we just haven't seen it.  He certainly 
contains Snape's anti-Harry outbursts in mixed company, ignores 
Snape's requests for Harry's expulsion, and (Harry thinks) perhaps 
prevents Snape from failing him first year.

Maybe our headmaster does know what he's doing, after all. :)

John K