Sadism or not ? McGonagall and her punishments

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 186657

> Shaun:
> 
> Fair enough - but I do find Parvarti's behaviour objectionable. Hogwarts has 
> a school uniform. She's violating the rules concerning uniform, and so it's 
> entirely appropriate for a teacher to reprimand her for doing it. Now I come 
> from a cultural background where school uniforms are normal, I wore one from 
> the age of five to seventeen, and every school I've taught in has had a 
> uniform. I'm generally speaking in favour of uniforms - but only if they are 
> properly enforced. If they are not going to be enforced (and that means 
> students facing some sort of sanction if they break the rules) they become 
> pretty useless. If they are enforced, they are useful in many cases.
> 
> The fact is Professor McGonagall is responsible for ensuring the students in 
> her class follow the uniform rules. Parvarti was not. That's not appropriate 
> behaviour and it's entirely appropriate for a teacher to address it.

a_svirn:
But Parvati was wearing uniform, presumably. Otherwise McGonagall would have commented on that too. Parvati hadn't violated any rule or code by securing her hair with a clasp. Just because Hermione couldn't bother with taming her hair, doesn't mean that other girls in Hogwarts didn't wear bands, hairpins or clasps. Or boys for that matter – we know that Jordan, for instance, sported dreadlocks at some point. McGonagall is not reprimanding her for infringing the rules here, she's disparaging her taste. Petty thing to do, in my humble opinion. 

> a_svirn:
> > Choosing to write them down was his only resort. Neville had difficulties 
> > under
> > normal circumstances, in this instance, however, even students without any
> > learning disabilities were having trouble remembering those frequently 
> > changing,
> > crazy multisyllabic passwords. Neville had realistically no chance of 
> > pulling it of.
> > McGonagall, who, in my unprofessional view, had moral if not contractual
> > obligation to help him out (especially, since it was a security issue and 
> > there
> > was a very real danger out there) had done nothing. What was Neville to 
> > do?
> > He hit upon the only sensible option - wrote them down. And when 
> > McGonagall's
> > neglect backfired he was the one who got punished. Seems to me he *was*
> > punished for something he couldn't help. And for McGonagall's professional
> > shortcomings of course.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> The problem is that Neville didn't just write the passwords down. He wrote 
> them down and *then he lost them*. All right - he wasn't supposed to write 
> them down, but, yes, I can understand why he did that. I don't think he 
> should have done that, but I can understand that that might have seemed to 
> him a good idea and I could easily forgive that. But there's two more steps 
> in the process which I wouldn't forgive.

a_svirn:
Actually he didn't lose it: it was stolen from him. Poirot McGonagall is not. But never mind that. So you wouldn't forgive him for losing the list? Even if you knew full well that his memory disability was the reason of his losing it? And that *your own arrangement* put him into an untenable position? 

> Shaun:
> I'd also point out that Neville's grandmother seems to think he did 
> something wrong as well - she sends him a howler over the incident. It's not 
> just Professor McGongall who is angry at Neville - his legal guardian 
> agrees. And while Gran does seem a bit of a dragon to me, the fact that a 
> child's guardian endorses a punishment is fairly compelling in general 
> terms.

a_svirn:
Only in "general terms". You've just said, however, that she specifically is a bit of dragon. The same can be said of McGonagall. Just because two old dragons have a marriage of true minds, doesn't mean that punishing students for their disabilities is fine. I rather believe that Grans's attitude towards Neville goes a long way to explain his condition. 

 
> a_svirn:
> > Does basic behavioural theory teach that embarrassing students by
> > attracting a class's attention to their disabilities make them want to
> >  overcome said disabilities? I must say my own random observations
> > tend to point into the opposite direction. So do the Potter Books.
> > Neville did not excel either in Potions or Transfiguration. However,
> > with teachers who did not find it necessary to bully their students he
> > achieved adequate to excellent results. Those who are strong and able
> > enough might regard adverse stimuli as a challenge, but for those who
> > are already challenged? From what I've seen, usually such stimuli have
> > an adverse effect.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> First of all, Neville does achieves adequate results in Professor 
> McGonagall's class - he does get an Acceptable OWL. It's not his best 
> subject but he does do well enough to pass.

a_svirn:
But not enough to be admitted to her NEWT class, even though her requirements are considerably less stringent than Snape's. 

> Shaun:
> Now to answer your question - behavioural theory does support the idea that 
> embarassing a student about underperformance will lead to an improvement in 
> performance - provided one particular important criteria is met. The 
> student, in question, needs to be male. I believe Neville qualifies. 

a_svirn:
Yes, but does the male in question need to be a student with disabilities? Which is more to the point in this particular case.