[HPforGrownups] Re: Sadism or not ? McGonagall and her punishments

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 186692

> a_svirn:
> And Gryffindor colours are red and gold. I can totally see Parvati wearing 
> an
> ornamental butterfly in her House colours, which would be considered too 
> gaudy
> by St. Hilda's standards. Not that we have any reason to believe that 
> Hogwats
> regulations are anywhere near as strict as St: Hilda's: otherwise Luna 
> would
> have spent her entire time in Hogwarts in detention. McGonagall in this 
> scene
> reprimands Parvati for her taste, which is a personal attack and therefore
> inappropriate.


Shaun:

First of all, just a question - do you have any real life experience of 
school uniforms? I ask because to me, a lot of what I am saying is coming 
first and

foremost from a perspective of over twenty years experiences of such things 
as a child and as an adult. I attended seven different schools as a child, 
all of

which had uniforms, and as a teacher I've taught in seven schools, all of 
which have uniforms (in Australia, while they are not quite universal, most 
schools

do have them). These schools have had a range of different types of 
uniforms, and a range of how seriously they enforced them.

Of the five co-educational schools I attended as a child (ie, schools with 
girls in them) and of the seven I've taught in, all but one of those schools 
set

rules about what girls were and were not allowed to have in their hair. St 
Hilda's standard which I have quoted is not an unusually strict standard. 
It'sa

reasonably typical one. I am not arguing for Hogwarts having unusual school 
uniform rules. I'm arguing that it probably has fairly normal ones.

No uniformed school I am aware of that sets rules or has expectations 
concerning girls hair would regard a large ornamental butterfly as an 
acceptable hair

ornament on a formal occasion.

As for Luna - some people seem to be under the impression that Luna is 
always wearing something odd. Reading through the books, I don't think that 
is the

case. We are told she is wearing her radish earrings (actually they are 
dirgible plums, IIRC) on precisely one occasion that I can find. We are told 
that she

is wearing a butterbeer cork necklace on only one occasion that I can find. 
We are told she is wearing a set of Spectrespecs on only one occasion I can 
find.

And that's it. There's no real reason I can find to suppose that Luna 
constantly goes around wearing odd things. She does so sometimes, but on 
none of the

three occasions that are mentioned is it an unusually formal school 
occasion, as it on the occasion we see Parvarti reprimanded. I'd also point 
out that

Professor McGonagall does not give Parvarti a detention for wearing the 
butterfly, she merely tells her to remove it, so there's no reason to think 
Luna

would ever wind up in detention even if she does wear weird stuff 
sometimes - more likely she'd just be told to take it off.


a_svirn:
> Yes, that would be bad form indeed. But we don't know if Neville noticed
> that his list had gone missing, and McGonagall did not bother to find out.
>  As for not taking the proper care of it, I'd say that leaving it in the
> dormitory was actually pretty sensible. He had no reason to suspect his
> house-mates, did he? And knowing his propensity for loosing things he
> didn't trust himself enough to carry it on his person.


Shaun:

Actually we do know that Neville noticed that his list had gone missing. The 
text tells us he did - on Thursday evening as Harry returns to the Tower 
after

having his Firebolt returned, Neville is pleading with Sir Cadogan to let 
him in without the password because he has lost his list - he doesn't know 
where

it's gone. He doesn't know what he's done with it. It's not until over two 
days after this that Professor McGonagall finds out that he made the list 
and lost

it - so he knew it had happened.

As for not taking proper care of it - he has no idea where it's gone. If 
he'd been taking proper care of the list, he would have either realised he'd 
lost it

earlier, or when he realised he didn't have it on him on returning to the 
Tower, would be assuming it's still sitting on his bedside table (which is 
where

Crookshanks stole it from). He's not saying to Sir Cadogan - "I left the 
list in my room." He says he doesn't have any idea where it is.

a_svirn:
> You didn't address in your response the other side of the issue, though.
> How about the fact that McGonagall's own arrangements put Neville in the
> loose-loose situation, and when he predictably enough lost, he was the
> only one who was punished? Didn't McGonagall as a responsible adult bear
> a greater responsibility for what had occurred?

Shaun:

I didn't address that point because I'm not sure why you think McGonagall's 
arrangements are at fault here. After the Fat Lady was damaged, Sir Cadogan 
took

on the role of Gryffindor Tower's guardian but that was not Professor 
McGonagall's decision. Professor Dumbledore tells Percy that he has arranged 
a

temporary guardian for Gryffindor Tower - Professor McGonagall didn't make 
the choice (and, though I can't immediately find the reference, I seem to 
recall

Sir Cadogan was chosen because nobody else would do it, so it wasn't much of 
a choice).

As for the idea that adults should bear a greater responsibility than 
children when things go wrong, that's not a simple issue - because if adults 
don't give

children responsibility for things, the child will not develop the skills 
they need to become functioning adults themselves. As a teacher you need to 
give

children the chance to be responsible. You need to give them the chance to 
make mistakes. It'd be much easier and much more comfortable a lot of the 
time if

you didn't do it - if you kept the kids wrapped up in cotton wool and 
protected them from everything. But if you do that, you're not doing them 
any good in

the long run.

You have to find a balance between giving kids the chance to learn 
responsibility, and not putting too much on them. I don't believe the 
expectations being

placed on Neville in this case are unreasonable.

In a sense, the list of passwords to Gryffindor Tower could be viewed as 
being equivalent to a house key. Losing them could be considered equivalent 
to

losing your front door key.

Is it reasonable to expect a 13 year old boy to have a house key given that 
it's a normal expectation that he will be passing through that door on a 
regular

basis? I believe it is. Is it reasonable to expect a 13 year old boy to take 
good care of that house key to the extent that even if he forgets to carry 
it

occasionally, he has least some idea where he last left it? I believe it is. 
And is it reasonable to expect him to tell you if he loses his house key? I

believe it is.

And I believe it is even if that boy does have memory issues. That might 
make the second of those two expectations somewhat more difficult for him, 
but it

shouldn't impact the first or the third to any significant degree.

And in a sense, it's even more important you do this with kids who have 
learning difficulties. If you allow a child's learning difficulties to stop 
you

letting them do things they should be capable of, then you're not doing the 
child a service. You're actually doing them a great disservice. There are 
limits

- no child with a learning difficulty should ever be knowingly be placed in 
a situation which their LD actually prevents them from doing. But placing 
them in

a situation where they are expected to do what other children their age do 
when you know they are capable of it, even if they find it harder, is 
generally a

good thing.

Yes, you have to make some allowances for them, some accomodations. But the 
idea is to give the child only those accomodations that they actually need, 
and

not give them accomodations to the level that you start to retard their 
development of skills they are capable of.

If I was Neville's teacher in place of McGonagall, I probably wouldn't fault 
him at all for writing the passwords down (although I'd also be teaching him

strategies - which I know as a four year trained teacher who took special 
education as one of my 'majors' - that generally work for CAPD students to 
deal

with memory problems). And if he lost the passwords and came to me and told 
me he'd lost them - then I would be understanding about it at that time. But 
to

find out only when the loss of the passwords has put other students at risk 
as well as himself, despite the fact that two days have passed... yes, I'd 
be

angry and my response would probably not be that disimilar to McGonagall's.

Especially seeing that I'd probably be on the point of near terror myself - 
a mass murderer has managed to infiltrate the place where seventy children 
I'm

personally responsible for *sleep*. It's bordering on my worst nightmare.

(Incidentally, while I don't fault Professor McGonagall for what she did at 
the time, I do think the punishments she imposed on Neville were somewhat

excessive. A detention and banning him from going to Hogsmeade - he didn't 
need both of those. One would have been enough, especially as I am sure that

Neville was also personally devastated by the realisation his carelessness 
had put his friends at risk).

a_svirn:
> We know enough to conclude that he performed better in the classless
> where he wasn't constantly reprimanded. We haven't seen a single
> Astronomy lesson, but as for Divination, Trelawney definitely bullied
> him, and very elaborately so.

Shaun:

I don't believe Trelawney did bully Neville. She used him as a focus for her 
teaching, which I think she did inappropriately, but I don't see any 
bullying of

Neville in her classes. She bullied Hermione in my view, but not Neville. 
And while I agree we don't know anything of what happens in Astronomy, do 
you

believe Hagrid bullied Neville in Care of Magical Creatures? Do you believe 
Professor Binn bullied Neville in History of Magic? That doesn't seem to me 
to be

in line with their personalities at all (or complete lack of personality in 
the case of Professor Binns).

a_svirn:
> Well, I guess I disagree with Sax on this one. An admittedly
> superficial research on internet revealed that his point of
> view is not all that widely accepted and is in fact often
> described as "controversial". Moreover, McGonagall behaviour can
> arguably be qualified as "disability discrimination".


Shaun:

You're perfectly entitled to disagree with Sax on this point or any other. 
My point in mentioning him though is that his views are a completely valid 
set of

views for a competent teacher to hold - not all teachers agree with him, by 
any means, but there's no reason all teachers should. No theorist has the 
only

answers. The approaches he advocates are a valid part of mainstream teaching 
and a teacher can be a good teacher following his views.

Sax's views are somewhat controversial in the United States - but they're 
not really controversial anywhere else, and the main reason they've become

controversial in the US is because he's telling American educators that a 
large part of the reason why America is falling behind most other 
industrialised

nations in secondary level education (despite being a world leader at 
primary level) is because America has embraced educational methods that 
don't work very

well for adolescent students. His views are not particularly controversial 
in either Australia or the UK, for example, where significant numbers of 
schools

have never stopped using the methods that he advocates and where they are 
considered a valid part of mainstream education.

And speaking as a special education specialist, I really cannot see how 
Professor McGonagall's behaviour could ever be described as a form of 
disability

discrimination. It is not discriminatory to expect a LD student to reach 
normal standards when his results indicate that he can reach normal 
standards.

I feel very sorry for Neville. He has a problem that makes education harder 
for him and that's very unfair. But there's two basic ways a teacher can 
deal

with that. The 'pink slipper' 'fluffy blanket' approach "dere, dere, 
diddums, we'll make things easy for you at school, and we won't worry about 
your

future." or the 'climbing boot' 'crash helmet' approach "I know it's rough, 
kid. I know it's tough, kid. But you have to learn to work even harder than

everybody else so you have the chance to do whatever you want to try when 
you grow up."

Neville Longbottom. Hero the Battle of the Department of Mysteries. Hero of 
the Battle of Hogwarts. Neville Longbottom, Auror. Professor Neville 
Longbottom

of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry?

Do you think that Neville Longbottom would have preferred to have his 
teachers tell him "We know this is hard for you, so we're going to let you 
take it

easy?"

I don't.


> Pippin:
> Luna is a Ravenclaw and her appearance is therefore Flitwick's
> responsibility. If he chooses to be lax that does not mean that
> McGonagall has to be lax also. I agree that McGonagall's
> irritation shows she is tense about the situation, and she may
> normally be inclined to let minor lapses pass. But she is acting
> 'in loco parentis' and you'd better believe that parents have the
> right to educate  their childrens' taste and to demand a certain
> standard of appearance on formal occasions.

Shaun:

The point about being 'in loco parentis' is well made - and it does make a 
difference in some situations. To an extent, a teacher *does* have some 
responsibility to try and impose standards of acceptable behaviour on 
students and a teacher in a boarding school where they see the kids for far 
more of the year than their parents do has something of an increased 
responsibility in this regard.

But personally, I'm inclined to the view that McGonagall is taking action 
here because Parvarti is not observing an understood rule about what is and 
isn't acceptable attire and ornamentation under the rules of the school, 
rather than basing her decision on a personal view.

Pippin:
> *We* may know that stress makes memory problems worse, and therefore
> being aggressive with Neville is exactly the wrong thing to do. But
> there's no canon that anyone in the wizarding world knows that.
> In the WW, the only known way to compensate for a learning problem is
> to try harder, and that's what Snape and McGonagall are trying to make
> Neville do.

Shaun:

Actually we don't know that stress makes memory problems worse. The research 
evidence is that, for boys at least, stress improves memory. Only up to a 
particular point - extreme stress is another matter. But a reasonable degree 
of stress has been pretty clearly shown to improve test performance for 
boys. In my view, Neville finds Snape's classes so stressful that he's 
definitely moving into the extreme stress situation there, but I've seen no 
evidence of that level of stress in McGonagall's classes.

Pippin:
> McGonagall may be doing it because she cares about her students, and
> Snape may be doing it because he cares about his exceptionally high
> pass rate, but in neither case, IMO, are they trying to make things
> worse, although unfortunately that's the result.

Again, in Professor McGonagall's class, I think the results are probably 
positive - Neville achieves an Adequate OWL which is broadly speaking in 
line with his marks in general.

a_svirn:
> I wasn't discussing teachers' rights (though I don't believe they
> are equal to those of parents); I was merely saying that McGonagall's
> behaviour in this scene is petty. Parents can be petty too. I'd say
> ridiculing a teenage daughter's taste in jewellery is not the best
> strategy to improve it.

Shaun:

Here we get into a really esoteric area - the legal basis of teaching. You 
may not agree that teachers' rights are equal to those of parents (and I 
absolutely believe that they shouldn't be) but unfortunately, perhaps for 
both of us, it's a long held principle of British common law that they are. 
The doctrine of 'in loco parentis' goes back literally to the middle ages 
and all indications are still very strong that it applies at Hogwarts (the 
only time we ever see a permission slip required of students is when they 
are going to be allowed to leave the grounds of the school to go into 
Hogsmeade, in other words, when they might arguably be stepping outside the 
authority of the school.

In a boarding school situation, the concept of in loco parentis is actually 
fairly critical. It's a doctrine that is intended to protect children more 
than anything else - by placing a duty on their teachers that they should 
act as a good parent would.

The thing is, even if a teacher doesn't agree that they should have equal 
rights to parents (and I, for one, think that's a rather questionable 
proposition) if as a teacher you find yourself in a situation where that is 
the legal basis for your authority to teach and sets the conditions on what 
you are supposed to do, you have to observe it. You can't not do it, just 
because you don't agree with it. You're not supposed to put personal beliefs 
above the law.

I also don't see where McGonagall is ridiculing Parvarti's taste in 
jewellery as opposed to merely enforcing an accepted standard of behaviour.

Steve:
> Good to hear from you again Shaun, we missed you smiling face,
> and your intelligent comments.

Shaun:

Thank you, Steve.

Steve:
> I'm going to make some broad comments on your post, but I don't
> believe they will be specific enough to quote you directly.
>
> First we need to get rid of this modern notion that everybody
> should feel good all the time. This is especially true of kids.
> You do kids a disservice if you convince them that life is like
> a Disney cartoon, where very thing is bright and happy. THAT
> does not prepare them for the real world. That is my opinion,
> does far more harm that good in the long run.

Shaun:

I agree entirely. I think a great deal of harm has been done to a great many 
students by these ideas over the past few decades and naturally enough, I'm 
not particularly in favour of them. Nor should schools go to the other 
extreme, which, unfortunately, did sometimes happen in the past. But it's 
possible to find a balance between the two extremes.

Steve:
> Next, to the idea of treating everyone the same. I put 'every
> one equal' as being one notch below 'zero tolerance'. To me
> 'zero tolerance' means zero brains, zero effort, zero
> responsibility. It is the worst policy ever, and is alway
> doomed to ultimate failure as one size fits all, means no
> size fits anyone. The list of colossal failure (and lawsuits)
> resulting from Zero Tolerance is unfathomable.


Shaun:

Yes, again, I agree entirely.


Steve:
> So, now let's look at McGonagall, while she is certainly strict,
> she seems completely fair. She will punish a Gryffindor just as
> quickly and easily as she will punish a Slytherin. Though, she
> does show a slight favoritism on rare occasion, usually
> involving Quiditch. But I don't see that as a problem.

Shaun:

The thing is there is nothing wrong with a bit of partisanship in a school - 
and in a school which has a House system and which has teachers associated 
with those Houses, you should expect there to be some degree of it during 
house competitions. Also, Professor McGonagall is the closest thing to a 
parent the Gryffindor kids have at the school, and there are occasional 
situations where it's appropriate for a teacher in that type of relationship 
to show a particular bit of favouritism towards their students. But only to 
the point that it's helping them, not harming them.

Snape's favouritism of Slytherin at times seems to involve excusing 
behaviour in them which shouldn't be excused. That's never appropriate. But 
it'd be no more appropriate if Professor McGonagall did it for Neville - and 
yet, some people seem to believe that that is what she should do in the case 
of the incident outside the Tower door.

Steve:
> I also don't see a problem with her punishment of Neville.
>
> Shaun suspects Neville might have a learning disability, but
> to me, he seems more like an ordinary kid who just happens to
> be more susceptible to stress.

Shaun:

I'd put my position more strongly than that. I don't suspect Neville might 
have a learning disability - I'm absolutely convinced he does. I'd go to the 
bank on that. I am only fairly certain though that it's CAPD - I wouldn't 
stand up in court and swear that it is CAPD, though I would be prepared to 
swear there's something there.

Incidentally, being more susceptible to stress *is* a learning disability in 
itself, and is a symptom of quite a few others. I think a lot of people feel 
LDs are rare or unusual - they're not. Quite a few of them are part of the 
normal spectrum of learning behaviour.

Steve:
> Kids in general can't remember anything. They don't remember
> not to slam the door, they don't remember to pick up their
> shoes, they don't remember to keep the bikes out of the drive
> way. That is just typical kid behavior and has far more to do
> with a lack of interest, a lack of attention, and a lack of
> forethought. BUT, those are the very things a kid needs to
> function in the real world. You don't do kids any favors by
> not demanding that they DO pay attention, that they DO take
> an interest in important things, and if they plan to live a
> long time, that they DO develop Forethought.

Shaun:

Neville's problem though seems to be worse than normal. That's why I say he 
has an LD. Something becomes an LD when it starts negatively impacting a 
child's ability to perform. Quite a few LDs are simply 'normal 
characteristics to an abnormal extent'. But even when this is the case, you 
are right - kids need to function in the real world and you don't do them 
any favours by excusing them from that when they are still capable of doing 
it, even if it's harder for them than normal.

An LD diagnosis is an explanation. It is *not* an excuse. There's a big 
difference.

Steve:
> In my opinion, given them flowers and gold stars is not going
> to help, you must demand it of them, and you must press that
> demand until they comply. And that is exactly what Snape does
> to Neville. He demands the Neville pay attention and think
> ahead.
>
> Certainly his methods make us feel sorry for Neville, who seems
> something of a sad clown to start with. But is alleviating the
> 'sorry' we feel helping us, or is it helping Neville? I think
> it has more to do with us than Neville.

Shaun:

I actually do think Snape's approach is wrong for Neville. But it's probably 
a good approach for virtually every other kid in the class (including Harry 
when we just talk about Snape's teaching - some of the other things he does 
with Harry are not good). I can certainly believe Snape is doing what he 
thinks is in Neville's interests though - I think he expects his methods to 
work because they normally do. I just don't think they are right for 
Neville.

Steve:
> Now Snape is not nice, but 'not nice' is a far cry from
> Sadistic. Snape is often mean and within a limited context,
> cruel. But teachers are not suppose to be your friends, they are
> not your buddy. There are there to demand and to make sure you
> achieve at a certain level, and if that means being your
> enemy to make it happen, so be it.
>
> So some extent that seems to be what Shaun is saying, the
> job at hand is far far more important than whether you like
> me as a teacher or as a person.
>
> Notice that Snape's student get good results, well above what
> we assume is average, in the qualifications tests. Every
> student hates him, but they learn potions and learn it well,
> because that is precisely what Snape demands.

Shaun:

I had a couple of *very* Snape like teachers at school. One of them in 
particular... he absolutely terrified me at times in a way not all that 
dissimilar to the way Neville is terrified of Snape. He was bitingly 
sarcastic, absolutely uncompromising, completely unsympathetic, and expected 
excellence.

I didn't appreciate him at the time. I probably hated him to be honest. I 
certainly feared him - and with good reason, he caned me a couple of times 
(for things I didn't think he should have).

It was only in my senior classes - when we finally got down to a different 
style of teaching (having eliminated everybody who couldn't meet his 
standards) that I came to understand the man a bit better. He loved his 
subject with a passion, and he wanted to pass that passion on to his best 
students - and that means he had to create those students.

In recent years, I've spoken to him a few times and on one of those 
occasions, I mentioned to him how much Severus Snape reminded me of him. I 
told him that I often thought about him when I was discussing Snape. I 
explained to him why I felt that way and asked him if he had any comment. He 
gave me the following statement and his permission to quote it.

"I am the best Classics Master in this country. I am an extremely effective 
teacher. What I am not is warm and cuddly. I don't know how to be. But I do 
know how to turn obnoxious adolescent boys into people capable of 
appreciating the combined culture of 25 centuries. Personally I think that's 
worth doing. If I can't do it without making a few boys cry. Tough. They'll 
thank me for it as adults. Or they'll hate me. Either way, they'll be better 
for it."

Somehow I think he and Snape would get on well together.

The thing is he's right. I don't hate him, now. I haven't since he was one 
of the few teachers I had who made the long trip to attend my father's 
funeral when he died just after the end of my second year at that school. He 
didn't offer a word of comfort. I'm really not sure he knew how to do things 
like that. But he came despite the fact I'd caused him nothing but... well, 
angst by failing to do what I could and should and was capable of, and 
despite the fact that he must have realised how much I hated him.

But I do thank him for what he gave me every single day. And, by Heavens, 
I'm glad he taught me.


Alla:
> Ok, first of all just wanted to acknowledge Shawn's correction that
> said accident does not happen at the ball. DUH, Alla. However, I
> totally agree with those that argue that canon does not really show
> us that Hogwarts's students hairstyles are subject to many rules if ANY 
> rules.

Shaun:

Here's where I think part of my disagreement with other people may come 
from. I assume that Hogwart's *does* set some sort of rules or standards 
with regards to student's hair. Why?

Because I have rarely encountered any school which has school uniform rules 
that doesn't. In fact, I don't think I have *ever* encountered a school 
which had uniform rules which didn't have some sort of rules to hair. I've 
seen a few that don't seem to try enforcing them at all, judging by their 
students, but to me, I would assume any school with a uniform had some sort 
of rules on hair unless evidence was provided that they didn't.

Alla:
> My disagreement here is not whether McGonagall had a right to
> discipline her in front of her friends. I dislike it, but really,
> I had seen Hogwarts teachers doing much worse things. My
> disagreement is whether she actually **did** something wrong and
> plenty of canon examples were given upthread to show that IMO it
> does not really look that Hogwarts girls have any regulations about
> their hair.

Shaun:

Personally I prefer in most cases that discipline be handled privately, but 
at the same time to be effective, reprimands need to be delivered as quickly 
after detection of the offence as possible - if you're going to give a kid a 
long and detailed telling off, you really should do it in private (except in 
exceptional circumstances), but a quick reprimand in public - well, there's 
often not really any other practical way to do it. Should Professor 
McGonagall have left her entire House, taken Parvarti off somewhere private 
and told her to remove the butterfly? Not really practical, more likely to 
embarass her in fact, I would think - and fairly pointless because when she 
came back sans butterfly, most people would know exactly what had happened.

And, as I've said, my default assumption is that a school that has uniforms 
will have rules on hair - and I've seen no examples that in my view show 
that isn't the case. The only time I've ever seen a reference in the text to 
something that 'surprised' me in terms of hair - something that didn't seem 
completely typical for a school with hair rules - is the reference to Lee's 
dreadlocks. A lot of schools here (though not all) would not regard that as 
acceptable - but I'm also aware that Australia doesn't have the same number 
of people living here of Carribean descent that the UK does, and so it's a 
minor point.

In simple terms, every description of the hair of Hogwarts students I can 
recall seems in line to me, with what is considered acceptable in a wide 
variety of schools I'm aware of that do set standards.

Alla:
> I mean one of the real life rules that Shawn quoted upthread stated
> something about the hair being tied back if they are more than shoulder
> length, I think.

Shaun:

Yes, but that's one schools rule - not necessarily a rule that every school 
that imposes standards has. Hogwarts could still have fairly strict 
standards on hair, even without that rule being in place.

Alla:
> Um, Hermione anyone? She does not bother to do anything with her hair
> before the Ball. And really, that's her choice, not that I am chastising
> her for that. But I would guess that if Hogwarts has any regulations about
> girls' hair, it would be a very obvious example for JKR to let us hear
> McGonagall to tell Hermione to do something about it. She does not and
> IMO that means that students are free to wear whatever hairstyles they 
> like.

Shaun:

Here's what we know about Hermione's hair from the books:

"lots of bushy brown hair." (PS/SS)

"her bushy brown hair flying behind her." (CoS)

"brushing her hair out of her eyes." (PoA)

"One, with very bushy brown hair and rather large front teeth" (GoF)

"But she didn't look like Hermione at all. She had done something with her 
hair; it was no longer bushy but sleek and shiny, and twisted up into an 
elegant knot at the back of her head." (GoF)

"her hair was coming down out of its elegant bun now," (GoF)

"Hermione's hair was bushy again; she confessed to Harry that she had used 
liberal amounts of Sleakeazy's Hair Potion on it for the ball, "but it's way 
too much bother to do every day," (GoF)

""I know things about Ludo Bagman that would make your hair curl... not that 
it needs it -" she added, eyeing Hermione's bushy hair." (GoF)

"I know things about Ludo Bagman that would make your hair curl." (GoF)

"She slowly ran her fingers through her hair." (GoF)

"She ran her fingers through her hair again, and then held her hand up to 
her mouth," (GoF)

"And Viktor pulled a beetle out of my hair after we'd had our conversation 
by the lake." (GoF)

"The door banged open. Hermione came tearing into the room, her cheeks 
flushed and her hair flying." (OotP)

"her bushy hair seemed to crackle with electricity." (OotP)

"her hair was full of bits of twig and leaves." (OotP)

"whose hair was going bushier and bushier in the fumes from her cauldron." 
(HBP)

"One tangled itself in Hermione's hair. (HBP)

"a mane of bushy brown hair whipping out of sight." (HBP)

"long mane of brown hair." (HBP)

(I haven't bothered about DH, because that is after she's left school).

Nothing described above seems to me to be at all unacceptable by the 
standards of most schools hair rules I've seen (except for the twigs and 
leaves). I don't see anything in descriptions of any student's hair that 
seems at odds with that. And I've spent a ridiculous amount of time looking 
for every reference to hair I can find.

Hogwarts does seem to allow girls to have long hair - besides Hermione, Cho, 
Luna, Ginny, Romilda Vane, and Penelope Clearwater, are all described at 
least once as having long hair (Luna and Cho tying it back on occasion). So 
do some Muggle schools, even those which set some rules on hair.

As I say, I see nothing in the text to suggest that they don't impose 
standards - and the fact that I can't see a single case of what most schools 
I know would consider unacceptable (JKR describes people's hair an awful 
lot!) suggests to me that they do, coupled with the fact that that is normal 
for schools for uniforms, and the fact that there is one occasion - the one 
we've been discussing - where a student is pulled up for an inappropriate 
hair ornament.

Alla:
> So, no, if there are no regulations, and Parvati did nothing wrong,
> I do not think McGonagall had any right to do so.

Shaun:

I believe there probably are regulations - but I don't think it can be 
proven absolutely one way or the other.

Alla:
> I understand that she was freaking out, however she IMO was chastising
> Parvati for not comforming to **her** taste and that I find obnoxious
> and wrong.

If Professor McGonagall was ineterested in imposing her own taste on her 
students, they'd all have buns.

"Lavender giggled harder than ever, with her hand pressed hard against her 
mouth to stifle the sound. Harry could see what was funny this time: 
Professor McGonagall, with her hair in a tight bun, looked as though she had 
never let her hair down in any sense." (GoF)

(And by the way - that's a metaphor that would make no sense unless the 
Wizarding World has a concept of acceptable and unacceptable hair for 
different situations - and as all of them went to Hogwarts... where did they 
learn that concept?)

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia