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

Fri May 22 07:48:37 UTC 2009

No: HPFGUIDX 186709

a_svirn:

> Actually yes, I do. The school I used to attend until I was fourteen was
> like that. We had to wear uniforms, and yes, hair bands' and bows colour
> was regulated - brown for everyday wear and white for formal occasions.
> However, shape and style where up to us, and as for the stuff like
> hairpins, clips clasps etc. they were definitely not regulated. Not
> even as far as the colour was concerned. We had teachers like McGonagall
> or Snape who would scold students publicly for the state of their nails
> or less than pristine handkerchiefs, but even they would see nothing
> untoward in butterfly-shaped clips. Which is why I never in my life
> wore bands and always wore hairpins or hairclips. And I never once got
> in trouble because of it.

Shaun:

Sure - so that's how your school worked. It's not how all schools worked. 
Your school didn't care about hairpins, clips, and clasps. Nothing wrong 
with that. But the thing is, quite a few schools do.

I've now cited the hair regulations for approximately 15 different schools. 
Just briefly, I'm going to quote a few relevant sections from those:

"Ribbons, scrunchies, plain hair clips or headbands may be worn and must be 
in our school colours (Dark green / gold)."

Note - 'plain hair clips'.

"Plain colour hair accessories to suit the school uniform... No fashion 
accessories."

"Hair must always be tied back using a plain navy hair accessory."

"Hair accessories should be black."

"Hair jewellery, apart from plain navy or black bands or clasps to hold hair 
back, is not permitted."

"Hair accessories should be discreet and either black or blend with the hair 
colour."

"Hair accessories, (ribbons, hair bands, etc.) should be navy blue in 
Winter, white in Summer; or for scrunchies, School dress material may be 
used."

These are real regulations from real schools. Not all schools, but these are 
a range of fairly typical schools. Your school didn't bother with this type 
of regulation - that's fine. But plenty of schools do.

And the fact that Professor McGonagall chooses to reprimand a student on a 
formal occasion for having something inappropriate in her hair, suggests 
that Hogwarts does have such rules. Does it prove it? No, it doesn't. But if 
people are going to base a case for attacking a teacher as having done 
something inappropriate, then in my view the burden of evidence should be on 
them to prove it wasn't something the teacher was allowed to do under the 
school rules - people seem to be making an assumption that such a rule could 
not possibly exists, and therefore it must have been inappropriate. To me, 
it seems quite a long stretch to assume Hogwarts doesn't have a rule that is 
quite typical of uniformed schools.

And when I see people claiming that such rules would only exist in 
totalitarian societies like North Korea and that only teachers like Umbridge 
would bother regulating such matters as hair clips - well, I know from 
experience and from research that that simply is not the case. Plenty of 
schools *do* regulate these things. If people are basing their opinion of 
what McGonagall would and wouldn't do on what they believe to be normal 
practices in schools in non-totalitarian regimes, then personally I would 
expect them to modify their position somewhat, when it's clearly 
demonstrated that entirely normal schools in Britain and some other Western 
democracies do, in fact, regulate such matters.

I can certainly understand a person thinking their own school experiences 
are fairly typical of what goes on in schools and what is normally expected 
in a school, and what can reasonably be expected to be part of a school's 
rules. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, it's perfectly normal.

The point I would make here though is that there are at least hundreds of 
schools - if not thousands and millions of children in Britain who attend 
schools that *do* regulate what kids are allowed to have in their hair - and 
it is *just* as valid for those students to think that the normal 
'non-magic-related' rules of Hogwarts are going to be similar to the rules 
at their school.

It's every bit as valid for somebody to believe that Hogwarts does regulate 
such matters as hair clips because lots of schools do, as it is for somebody 
to believe that Hogwarts does not regulate such matters as hair clips 
because lots of schools don't.

Thousands of children will have read that passage and probably just assumed 
that Professor McGonagall is imposing a school rule - because many schools 
have that kind of rule.

We're not being expected to assume that Hogwarts has an unusual school rule 
to assume that Professor McGonagall is doing something she's perfectly 
correct to do. If such rules were only found in totalitarian regimes like 
North Korea, then, yes, it would be fairly odd to ask anybody to assume 
without incontrovertible evidence that Hogwarts has such a rule. But given 
that this is not a rule found only in totalitarian regimes like North Korea, 
but is in fact a rule found in modern schools all over Britain, I think it 
becomes odd to assume that Hogwarts wouldn't have such a rule without 
incontrovertible evidence that it does.

The position that Professor McGonagall is doing something inappropriate in 
this case is founded upon an assumption that she could not possibly be 
enforcing a rule. The position that she might be acting entirely 
appropriately on the other hand is merely founded upon an assumption that 
maybe Hogwarts has a rule that is quite typical and exists in many schools.

This isn't a criminal trial, but in law, a person is considered innocent 
unless proven guilty. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to prove 
somebody did the wrong thing, not with those who would defend their actions.

To claim that Professor McGonagall did the wrong thing in this case, I think 
it's need to be proven that no such rule could possibly exist at Hogwarts. 
In the absence of such proof, I believe a teacher deserves the benefit of 
the doubt.

a_svirn:
> You are right, my bad. However Neville in this scene doesn't know
> for sure if he's lost it. He might be hoping to find it in the
> dormitory. He might still be hoping to find it two days after.

Shaun:

I could understand Neville not immediately reporting the loss of the 
passwords. It's not unreasonable for him to want to look for them first. But 
two days is way too long. There's a mass murderer on the loose who has 
already tried to get into the Tower once.

a_svirn:
> So do I. However, "normal" is an operative word here. You yourself
> diagnosed Neville with learning disability. That would make him
> not quite as normal as the rest of Gryffindors. Is it reasonable
> to expect a boy with extremely bad memory not to misplace a key
> when he misplaces everything else? I am not sure. But this
> situation is even worse than that. Sir Cadogan's passwords are
> described as "ridiculously complicated" and he moreover "changed
> them at least twice a day". Even if it is reasonable to expect
> a thirteen year old boy with notoriously bad memory not to
> loose his key, it would be absolutely unreasonable to expect
> him to memorise complicated code combinations which are changed
> at least twice a day.

Shaun:

To an extent, I agree with you. It is not entirely reasonable to expect a 
child with CAPD (and I really do think that's what Neville most likely has, 
and most of the other alternatives would actually be less likely to cause 
him problems in this particular case) to remember complicated passwords that 
change regularly. That's why I've said on a number of occasions now that I 
can understand why Neville felt the need to write the passwords down and 
that particular situation doesn't worry me too much. But it's only the first 
of three steps in the chain that lead to the problem.

It is reasonable to expect him to maintain tight control of the list. Yes, 
he might find that somewhat more difficult than most people - but just 
because something is difficult, doesn't excuse not doing it. Your assumption 
seems to me to be that just because a child finds something difficult, it's 
reasonable for them not to do it. It's not.

I actually have a mild case of an APD myself - slightly different from the 
CAPD I think Neville has, and nowhere near as serious as the level Neville 
seems to have. This makes it difficult for me to be in a crowded room full 
of people talking. I'm very uncomfortable in such situations. But I have to 
deal with them every single day in the real world. When I was at school, 
should they have let me stay in a room by myself all the time, just because 
it was harder for me than it is for 'normal' people to be out there? No. 
That's not the right approach. When a disability makes things harder for 
you, you have to learn to do them anyway. Neville's problems don't mean he 
shouldn't be expected to do what is normally expected of other students.

My APD also means I am fairly incapable of doing anything musical. Music to 
me apparently sounds like random noise does to other people (I say 
apparently, because I have no real reference for what music is meant to 
sound like). Nonetheless I was expected to - and I did - get through nine 
years of music lessons at school with pretty adequate marks. I even managed 
to do well enough in music classes during my teaching degree that, on paper, 
I'm a qualified music teacher. I *completely* bombed out of the attempt that 
was made to teach me a music instrument because that was genuinely beyond 
what I'm capable of. But despite my disability, I could still manage to do 
the majority of what was expected of any other student in this regard. Was 
it harder for me? Yeah, it was. I used to go out and vomit after some of my 
music lessons because from my perspective I'd just spent fifty minutes in a 
room full of the most hideous din imaginable. But I got through it.

Just because a child has a disability, doesn't mean you stop expecting them 
to do what they are capable of doing. A child with the characteristics we've 
seen described in Neville will find a lot of things harder than average - 
and there might occasionally be something that is completely unreasonable 
for him to be expected to do - but most of the time, even though it's 
harder, it's not impossible.

Should Professor McGonagall have put some strategy in place for Neville to 
help him in a situation where the passwords are constantly changing?

*If* she is aware of the fact that Neville has a difficulty with the 
passwords, then, yes, I would think it was reasonable to expect her to do 
something. But do we know that Professor McGonagall is aware of this problem 
that Neville has? Do we know that Professor McGonagall knows Neville has a 
problem with the passwords? If we do, then, yes, I think it's reasonable to 
expect her to have taken some steps once the situation regarding passwords 
became even more difficult. But if she didn't know, that's another matter.

This isn't a classroom situation - it's generally reasonable to expect a 
teacher to pick up that a student has problems in their classroom. But just 
a random problem that occurs outside of their sight. That's different. Has 
anybody told Professor McGonagall about Neville's problems with the 
passwords? Has Neville?

In 'Order of the Phoenix', Professor McGonagall talks to the class about 
their O.W.L.s:

"'You cannot pass an O.W.L.,' said Professor McGonagall grimly, 'without 
serious application, practice, and study. I see no reason why anybody in 
this class should not achieve an O.W.L. in Transfiguration as long as they 
put in the work.' Neville made a sad little disbelieving noise. 'Yes, you 
too, Longbottom,' said Professor McGonagall. 'There's nothing wrong with 
your work except lack of confidence."

Professor McGonagall has noticed Neville has problems in her class. She's 
identified what she believes to be the cause - lack of confidence. Not lack 
of memory.

Yes, Neville does have memory problems - we know that. But are they his 
biggest problems? Neville obviously has a memory that *does* work in many 
cases. He's not constantly forgetting people's names. He manages to navigate 
the rather complicated architecture of the castle, so he has spatial memory. 
He can remember things he's read in books about Herbology - his memory isn't 
perfect, but a lot of it is working properly. He just has a few deficient 
areas. (this all fits the pattern of CAPD). He manages to deal with his 
memory issues most of the time, in most cases - and reasonably well at that. 
Professor McGonagall may quite reasonably not know that he has a problem 
with the passwords unless somebody has told her.

If they have, then, yes, it's reasonable to expect her to have done 
something in this case. And if she didn't, then, yes, she shares part of the 
blame for the consequences. But even in that situation, it's only part of 
the blame.

She might be viewed as being responsible for Neville feeling he had no 
choice but to write a list. But she's not responsible for the fact that he 
is careless with it. And he's not responsible for his failure to report it's 
loss.

When Professor McGonagall arranged for Hermione to be given a Time Turner - 
if Hermione had then chosen to use that Time Turner to rob Honeydukes, would 
you be claiming Professor McGonagall bore all the responsibility for that 
and Hermione none at all? Somehow I doubt it. Even though you could 
certainly claim that if she'd done things differently, the crime could never 
have happened.

> > Shaun:
> > 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.
>
> a_svirn:
> Which exactly what happened with Neville.

Shaun:

I do not believe it is. In my professional judgement as a qualified special 
education teacher with experience in the field, it is not unreasonable to 
expect a 13 year old child displaying the characteristics of LD that Neville 
Longbottom displays to take a reasonable degree of care with a list of 
passwords (equivalent to a house key) and to report the loss of that list if 
he does lose it. That's not an unreasonable expectation given the degree of 
impairment he displays (relatively moderate) and the list of competencies he 
has developed (generally within normal expectations for a child his age).

> 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.
>
> a_svirn:
> Yes, Hogwarts attitude towards the rights of parents does seem somewhat
> medieval, especially when it comes to muggle parents.

Shaun:

Just a note - just because the doctrine of 'in loco parentis' dates back to 
the middle ages, it doesn't mean it's not a modern doctrine as well. It 
still applies in British Common Law and is still considered relevant today. 
It still partly governs what teachers are expected to do in Muggle schools 
all over Britain (and the concept is retained in the Childrens Act of 1989). 
It's an old concept in origin, but it's still a modern concept in practice.

Shaun:

> > Have we ever seen Professor McGonagall require a student to do something 
> > we
> > know to be contrary to the rules of the school? For the life of me, I 
> > can't
> > think of a single case.

> a_svirn:
> Yes, we have - when she made Harry a seeker in his first year. And that's 
> a
> far more important rule than appropriateness of large ornamental 
> butterflies.

Shaun:

Yes, it is - but, no, Professor McGonagall did not act contrary to the rules 
of the school.

"I shall speak to Professor Dumbledore and see if we can't bend the 
first-year rule."

She asks the Headmaster for permission to bend (not break) a rule. She 
doesn't ignore it. She doesn't break it. And she does what she does only 
with the permission of the Headmaster. Generally speaking, somebody in most 
schools can exempt students from particular rules (my Headmaster did it for 
me, which caused a great deal of trouble at one point!), that's not the same 
as breaking them.

There actually doesn't seem to be a rule against a first year being on the 
Quidditch team - there does seem to be a rule about brooms and first years, 
but it really does seem as if an exemption was made in this case rather than 
a rule being broken.

"'Yes, yes, that's right,' said Professor Flitwick, beaming at Harry. 
'Professor McGonagall told me all about the special circumstances, Potter. 
And what model is it?'"

A special circumstance exemption is not the same as breaking a rule. My 
school had rules about no earrings - but one boy who was a professional 
actor and who needed to have his ears pierced for a role was allowed an 
exemption (I found this out when I told him off for it - he's now one of 
Australia's leading actors). I was, for a brief period, exempted from the 
normal rule that required people to attend after school sports training on 
the ground that I lived so far from the school that staying late meant I had 
no way of getting home as the buses finished too early. The rules weren't 
changed - they just allowed exemptions in particular circumstances.

Alla:

> Well, sure there is a case of canon which we interpret
> differently - you argue that this is the reference to the
> school having regulations about the hairstyles and I am
> saying that this is professor McGonagall attacking
> student's taste. I was asking for the additional canon evidence.

Shaun:

Well, then, can I have your additional canon evidence that Professor 
McGonagall goes around attacking student's taste?

Seriously, I think this statement should be more than enough given what else 
we know of Professor McGonagall - she doesn't have a history of expecting 
students to do things that are inconsistent within the rules. Why assume she 
has at this point, rather than assume she'd made a request that is 
consistent with the rules of the school?

Alla:

> This is a very good example, one of those which is very high
> on my Snape as sadist list by the way. So, how does Ron
> saying that helped Harry? Ron did not say it to Snape's face,
> didn't he? I completely agreed with him simply because to me
> having a rule when student is  reading a book outside enjoying
> weather with his friends is absurd, it makes no sense. I would
> imagine teachers encouraging the boys to read. But many people
> still said that oh no, Ron does not know, of course there is
> such a rule. As to why Parvati would not protest, even if
> there is no such rule to me the answer is very simple - she
> would not want to get harsher punishment. Same way as fifty
> points for the House became fifty points each when somebody
> opened their mouth. Of course we do not know if it was supposed
> to be fifty points for the house, but in my opinion it was.

Shaun:

Ron saying it didn't help Harry - I'm just pointing out that when a student 
feels a teacher is not acting within the rules, they say so. Parvarti 
didn't - so why would we assume Professor McGonagall's instruction was out 
of line?

I do take your point about the 'fifty points from Gryffindor' situation, but 
in that case, Harry, Hermione, and Neville had unambiguously broken the 
rules. They had no right to protest that they hadn't done anything wrong. 
But Professor McGonagall does seem willing to listen to an explanation that 
is within the rules - Harry successfully convinces her (even though she is 
angry at the time) not to take points away from Ron and himself after their 
arrival at school by car in Chamber of Secrets, on a mere technicality. I 
find it hard to see any reason for Parvarti to be worried if she's in the 
right. I don't believe Professor McGonagall would undermine herself in front 
of her entire assembled house (and with the entire school nearby and all of 
her colleagues), by punishing a student outside of the rules.

> Alla:
> "His hair was lank and greasy and was flopping onto the table,
> his hooked nose barely half an inch from the surface of the
> parchment as he scribbled" - p.641, OOP

Shaun:

I'd agree that would imply Snape's hair while at school was long, if not for 
the fact that his nose is 'barely half an inch from the surface of the 
parchment'

> "He was very good-looking; his dark hair fell into his eyes with a
> sort of casual elegance neither Kames, nor Harry could ever have
> achieved" - p.642, OOP
>
> I think hair flopping onto the table means that it was long enough,
> I cannot be hundred percent sure of course that Sirius' hair are
> that long however his hair certainly goes against another rule
> that you quoted - it is in his face and nobody is saying anything.

Shaun:

That's fringe length which is totally different. My school had rules on 
length of hair, but didn't worry about fringes at all, for example. Yes, 
some of the examples I've cited may refer to such things, but as I've said, 
those quotes are intended to show the wide range of different school rules 
that can affect hair, not to be a definitive list of what rules must apply 
in any individual school.

Incidentally, I am sure, we are told at some point, that Sirius had short 
hair when he was younger... I can't find it right now - I think it is when 
Harry is looking at a photo of him as a younger man.

Shaun:

> > The only regulation I'm fairly certain Hogwarts has is the only one 
> > we've
> > seen enforced - that there are limitations on what type of ornamentation
> > students can wear in their hair.
>
> Alla:
>
> So the one she is scolding her about is the only regulation they  have?

Shaun:

That's not what I said. I said that this is the only regulation I'm fairly 
certain of. There could well be a dozen others for all I know - but while 
I'm prepared to be fairly certain that a rule that I've seen enforced by a 
teacher exists, I'm not going to assume that a dozen other rules might not 
exist.

What matters isn't if Hogwarts has twenty five pages of rules on hair. What 
matters is whether McGonagalls *one* statement concerned *one* rule or not.

I can't see why people who assume that a teacher imposing compliance on a 
student is doing so in contravention of the rules, rather than in compliance 
of them.

> Magpie:
> Nobody said she was always wearing something odd, we said that she was
> obviously allowed to wear little ornaments like her necklace and earrings
> --which are no more elaborate than Parvati wearing a hairclip.

Shaun:

I don't believe that is obvious. The evidence in the text is that 
occasionally, Luna is seen wearing something ornamental - that does not 
prove that Hogwarts has no rules against ornamentation.

Ron is occasionally seen to swear in the text - does that prove that 
Hogwarts students are allowed to swear?

Personally, I'm inclined to the view that Hogwarts probably does allow 
students to wear some ornamentation during the course of normal school life 
and I would assume that what Luna is seen wearing is probably within the 
rules. I don't see any more reason to assume Luna is an incorrigible rule 
breaker than I see to assume that Professor McGonagall imposing standards of 
dress that aren't within the rules. But the thing is, I also see no reason 
to assume that just because we see Luna occasionally wearing some sort of 
ornamentation that this somehow demonstrates Hogwarts could not possibly 
have rules on hair ornaments, either in general, or on certain formal 
occasions.

There are real schools that allow girls to wear earrings - but not fashion 
hair clips. There are real schools that allow students to wear necklaces or 
pendants, but not particular types of hair ornamentation.

There are real schools that allow students a certain degree of freedom as to 
what they wear on a normal school day - but clamp down with stricter rules 
on special occasions.

Have a read of the following:

"But even now building extensions hide the Rigg block and creep towards the 
south wing. The school is stretching itself and boys and staff alike see 
progress almost daily. Bonhomie, smiles and restlessness. In-school dress is 
most often a grey jumper with black and red cuffs and neck, no coat. It is a 
free-movement dress; it is a free-movement community."

That's the first part of a paragraph from a book about certain Australian 
schools. That paragraph is specifically part of a one and a half page of 
description of the school I attended from the age of 14. And it's an 
accurate description.

But if I'd walked into the Great Hall (we did have one, though it was 
nowhere near as cool as Hogwarts) for a school assembly wearing my 'grey 
jumper with black and red cuffs and neck' rather than my blazer, I'd have 
earned a detention within about ten seconds. Because formal assemblies were 
subject to different rules from those we were expected to follow at normal 
times.

At the point where Professor McGonagall tells Parvarti to take the butterfly 
out of her hair, Gryffindor and the school in general are assembled for a 
special event - to greet visitors to the school. It is one of the only times 
in all the books where we are told the students are wearing their cloaks and 
hats, not just the robes they seem to wear all the time. I think it's more 
than reasonable to assume that this is a time when the rules on appearance 
must just be stricter than they are everyday. I really don't think that's an 
unreasonable supposition and I think it's a supposition that's borne out by 
Professor McGonagall's actions and Parvarti's response

Magpie:

> You seem to be interpreting the scene by saying that if McGonagall
> told Parvati to take out her hair clip therefore there must be a
> rule against them that McGonagall is just following objectively.

Shaun:

Correct. That's my assumption. I don't see any reason to assume a fair 
teacher has suddenly become unfair simply because she's done something we 
haven't seen her do before. It's far simpler to assume that she's doing 
something she's perfectly within her rights to do.

Magpie:

> I see the scene as showing McGonagall's personal aversion. The
> hair regulations at whatever schools you have studied are not canon,

Shaun:

Nor is the idea that Hogwarts wouldn't have such rules. But as I've said 
above, I'm not sure there's any canon that Hogwarts has rules that says 
students can't swear. But I doubt anybody seriously thinks students are 
allowed to go around telling teachers to... well, you can guess.

"It was lucky, perhaps, that both Harry and Ron started shouting at Snape at 
the same time; lucky their voices echoed so much in the stone corridor, for 
in the confused din, it was impossible for them to hear exactly what they 
were calling him. He got the gist, however."

OK - anybody seriously want to argue that Snape was unjustified in punishing 
the two boys on that occasion because there's nothing in canon that says 
it's against the school rules to call teachers names? Somehow I doubt it. 
Why? Because most people would accept that Hogwarts probably does have such 
rules because they intended schools with such rules.

Well - most English kids attend schools which have rules about hair.

Magpie:
> I don't see why the fact that she doesn't always get described
> as wearing odd things negates what anybody's said. Luna's shown
> casually wearing ornamentation in class that's no less elaborate
> than a hair pin shaped like a butterfly so why would we think
> that was against the rules? We know it's not a formal school
> occasion. It's a reason for us to see that at least in everyday
> wear, this is fine. Hermione's bushy hair is also fine even on
> a formal occasion.

Shaun:

No, but apparently it somehow negates what I've said and I don't see why 
that is happening either.

Plenty of schools have rules that allow some ornamentation to some parts of 
the body without it being open slather that everything else is allowed. The 
fact that a student might be allowed to wear a necklace or a set of earrings 
tells us precisely nothing about whether or not they are allowed to wear 
large butterfly pins in their hair.

I've gone to considerable trouble to show that schools can have widely 
different rules on these points, and that there are some schools where they 
seem to allow some forms of ornamentation and not allow others. Can I prove 
that these means Hogwarts has particular rules like these - no, I can't. But 
the fact that schools with rules like those do exist is pretty clear 
evidence that the fact we see an example of one thing being allowed at 
Hogwarts is not proof that something else is automatically allowed.

Magpie:
> My point in reading the scene has nothing to do with rules
> at Hogwarts or other boarding schools. I'm just talking about
> how McGonagall is characterized. You say that you can't
> remember her ever breaking the rules. She is shown letting her
> personal desires to interfere with the rules, most blatantly
> when she swoops in after watching Harry flying around against
> the rules in his first flying lesson and instead of giving him
> detention she eagerly breaks another rule to get him on her
> Quidditch team. And lets him have a broom as a first year.
> One of the first times we get to know McGonagall we see her
> putting her desire to win at Quidditch above the rules even
> if it's unfair to other first years.

Shaun:

These are not examples of Professor McGonagall breaking any rules. Let's 
break this down.

(1) Professor McGonagall does not punish Harry for flying around against the 
rules in his first flying lesson.

There's no law that says teachers *have* to punish students *every* time 
they break a rule. In fact, very, very few teachers punish every single 
rules violation - you should only punish if it's going to serve some 
purpose. Yes, Harry's broken a rule - and Professor McGonagall would be 
completely within her rights if she chose to punish him for that. She's just 
as much within her rights to choose not to punish him. Deciding not to 
punish a student is not breaking any rule at all.

There's also the added consideration that if any punishment is going to be 
handed out to Harry for what he did there, strictly speaking, it probably 
should come from Madam Hooch. It's not inappropriate for a House Mistress to 
discipline a student for misbehaving in another teacher's class by any 
means, but if you have a decent level of respect for your colleagues, it's 
not something you'd do lightly. Personally, I think Professor McGonagall is 
at fault in this case, simply because her response has probably actually 
made it fairly difficult for Madam Hooch if she wants to punish Harry. But 
that's a matter of her being too lenient, not being too strict, on this 
occasion.

(2) There doesn't actually seem to be any rule preventing first years from 
playing Quidditch - it's just been a very long time since any first year was 
chosen for a team, and so it's become standard practice. The first-year rule 
seems to be about owning a broom at school. So there's no rules violation at 
just choosing Harry to be seeker.

(3) Yes, there is a rule about first-years and brooms - but Professor 
McGonagall asks Professor Dumbledore - the Headmaster and her boss - if that 
rule can be bent on this occasion. There is a big difference between bending 
a rule or allowing for a special-circumstances exemption and breaking it.

Is it unfair to Harry to have a broom when other first-years aren't allowed 
to? Yes, I think it is. But it's not breaking the rules.

Magpie:
> I think she's consistently shown as more like Hermione -
> she in general thinks rules should be followed, but will
> break them when something more important to her comes up
> (whether something ethical like standing against Umbridge
> or something personal). More importantly for this discussion,
> which was originally about the feelings she's acting on,
> she has been known to let her emotions effect how she's
> punishing people. She makes personal remarks about Neville.
> She's angry and afraid about someone getting into the Tower
> and gives him a particularly humiliating punishment in
> response to it, not really caring if the constantly
> changing passwords probably insured that Neville wasn't
> even the only person writing them down.

Shaun:

But he was the one who lost them (from everybody's perspective at the time) 
and didn't report their loss. Besides if twenty people break the rules and 
you're unlucky enough to be the only one caught, that doesn't mean it's 
wrong that you're punished.

I believe there are occasions where Professor McGonagall is willing to be 
more lenient than the rules allow for. I believe there are occasions where 
she's willing to bend the rules. I don't believe there's any evidence that 
she breaks them.

I also agree that there are occasions when Professor McGonagall's emotions 
affect how she punishes people. *But* that's not necessarily a bad thing. It 
*is* if it means that the person in question winds up being more severely 
punished than they deserve to be. But one does not necessarily follow the 
other.

Do you believe teachers should be totally emotionless beings who never let 
their emotions impact the way they deal with their students? I don't believe 
that personally, but I can understand why somebody might believe that was 
appropriate.

Let me just quote from the Order of the Phoenix:

"Professor McGonagall sat down behind her desk, frowning at Harry. Then she 
said, 'Have a biscuit, Potter.'

'Have - what?'

'Have a biscuit,' she repeated impatiently, indicating a tartan tin lying on 
top of one of the piles of papers on her desk. 'And sit down.'

There had been a previous occasion when Harry, expecting to be caned by 
Professor McGonagall, had instead been appointed by her to the Gryffindor 
Quidditch team. He sank into a chair opposite her and helped himself to a 
Ginger Newt, feeling just as confused and wrong-footed as he had done on 
that occasion.

Professor McGonagall set down Professor Umbridge's note and looked very 
seriously at Harry.

'Potter, you need to be careful.'

Harry swallowed his mouthful of Ginger Newt and stared at her. Her tone of 
voice was not at all what he was used to; it was not brisk, crisp, and 
stern; it was low and anxious and somehow much more human than usual."

It seems to me pretty clear in that quote, that Professor McGonagall is 
allowing her emotions to affect positively the way she is treating Harry. Is 
that wrong?

As I said, I can understand some people might believe that it is wrong. I'd 
disagree though. I think part of being a good teacher - and I think this is 
especially true in a boarding school environment - is being willing to 
develop an emotional connection to your students and being willing to let 
them know about it.

It can become wrong - if it means you, in the heat of anger, punish a 
student more severely than is reasonable, that's wrong. It's also wrong if 
you allow emotion to stop you from punishing a student in a case where that 
is what the student needs (although that's probably a rarer situation). But 
there's nothing wrong with allowing your pride in a student to show in 
appropriate cases and appropriate ways - and it's no more wrong to allow 
anger to show in appropriate cases and appropriate ways.

In some ways, I was a bit like Neville at school. I was... sensitive to 
criticism, I was easily scared by teachers. I was made that way by a year of 
total hell at 12 in a school that was totally wrong for me. I came out of 
that year with what I now know to have been a mild case of post-traumatic 
stress disorder and it showed. I cried easily. I was easily hurt. I was a 
natural target for bullies - always had been - but now it affected me worse.

When I was fifteen, my English teacher - she was one of the best teachers I 
ever had. She was a fairly rare female teacher at my school, and she was a 
very gifted teacher. I loved her classes. I liked her a lot - and she liked 
me. Now, as I just said, I was bullied a fair bit at school - at the school 
from hell, I was bullied constantly but at this school, it was much rarer. 
Still happened though, and it hurt me. One of the things I really liked 
about this school is that unlike any other school I'd been at, bullying was 
taken very seriously, and bullies were seriously punished when caught. It 
made me feel safer.

One day in English class, another boy had to get up to make a presentation 
in front of the class, something I found very easy to do. He didn't. He 
stammered, he stuttered - and for some reason, I don't know why and I hate 
to admit it, I laughed at him and made some sort of snide comment.

My teacher - this teacher I liked and who liked me - she tore me apart. 
Publically and savagely in front of my entire class. She yelled at me, yes. 
She berated me for being mean and cruel. I was terrified. Our teachers could 
cane - I'd have much rather had a caning. She was pretty brutal in what she 
said.

The thing is, I deserved it. And I'm very glad she did it. Because I never, 
ever came close to doing anything like that again at school.

Was she wrong to do it? Some people would say she was. But the fact was I 
had done something horrible, it had upset her, and she let me know it. If 
she'd hidden her feelings, it wouldn't have had anywhere near the impact it 
did on me. I wish she'd been able to find a different way of doing it 
because it was horribly unpleasant, but I'm not sure she could have.

My point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with a teacher letting 
their students know that they are angry. There is something wrong if, in 
their anger, they do something they shouldn't have. As I've said in a 
previous message, I think Neville's punishment - loss of Hogsmeade visits 
*and* a Detention - is somewhat excessive. I also think the apparent 
escalation of '50 points' for three students to '50 points each' seen in 
Philosopher's Stone could be viewed as excessive punishment. I can easily 
believe that Professor McGonagall may in certain circumstances punish a 
student more severely than she otherwise would and that may come from anger. 
And I won't defend that if that's happened.

*But* it's different from the issues I've been arguing about here. In the 
case of Parvarti's butterfly, Pavarti wasn't punished at all. In the case of 
Neville, even if his imposed punishment was excessive, he'd still done 
something seriously wrong. I don't believe Professor McGonagall unfairly 
punishes students. If she hands out a punishment, it's because the student 
did something to deserve it.

And if she does punish more severely than is *necessary*, on occasion, I 
haven't seen an example where she's punished more severely than is 
justifiable. The distinction is a real one. There is a serious difference 
between a punishment that is more severe than it might have been, and a 
punishment that is totally disproportionate to the offence. The former is 
much more defensible than the latter.

Magpie:
> And in the scene with Parvati, she snaps about her having
> a "ridiculous" thing in her hair when she's nervously
> awaiting teachers with whom she has a rivalry (just as
> she has a rivalry in Quidditch). She doesn't tell her
> to take out the clip because it's not regulation, she
> snaps that it's ridiculous-looking as well.

Shaun:

If I tell a student to stop swearing, I don't generally feel the need to 
remind him it's against the rules. He knows it's against the rules. That 
doesn't need to be said. I *might* mention the rules if I believe there's a 
reason why he might not know about that particular rule, but generally 
speaking I wouldn't mention that at all. I assume students know the rules.

Magpie:
> I took from the scene that she's annoyed that a girl
> is wearing a clip that indicates she's not a serious
> student but a girl hoping a boy from another school
> will notice her. That will make her school look bad.
> But whether or not she's got an actual rule here that
> she's enforcing (which she doesn't say she does),
> her insult is showing her emotions about it, imo.

Shaun:

Yes, probably, you can say it's showing her emotion. I would get annoyed as 
well if one of my students chose to violate a rule for no good reason at a 
time we've assembled the entire school. Why shouldn't I be? They know the 
rule, and there's no good reason for them to break it. Teachers are not 
emotionless automatons - and it's not good for students if they act like 
they are.

Do you want kids taught by robots? I don't.

Carol:

> As for students with unusual hairstyles, Lee Jordan's dreadlocks
> have already been cited. Young Severus Snape, at the time he was
> attending Hogwarts and had McGonagall for Transfiguration
> (though admittedly she was not his HoH) had hair long enough to
> drag on his DADA OWL exam as he wrote. But the best example is
> probably Angelina Johnson (who normally wears her hair in long
> plaits like Parvati and a number or other girls) being taunted
> by Pansy Parkinson during Quidditch practice:
>
"Hey, Johnson, what's with that hairstyle, anyway? Why would anyone
> want to look like they've got worms coming out of their head?"
> (OoP chapter 14).

Shaun:

Check the next line.

"Angelina swept her long, braided hair out of her face and said calmly, 
'Spread out, then, and let's see what we can do...'"

Long, braided hair - her hairstyle is not described by the narrator as being 
anything unusual. This reads as if Pansy is just looking for an excuse to 
shout abuse. It no more shows that there's anything wrong with Angelina's 
hair, than screaming out "Four-Eyes!" would indicate something looked weird 
about a person wearing glasses. Kids will try and tease other kids about 
their appearance, even when there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Carol:
> Evidently, Hogwarts has no rules regarding hairstyles (or
> unnatural hair color--Tonks would have been in violation of
> the rules for her whole seven years!).

Shaun:

Even if Pansy's comment showed that Hogwarts had no rules about hairstyles 
at Quidditch matches, it wouldn't tell us anything about whether or not they 
have rules against large ornamental hair accessories on formal occasions.

And for Tonks, bubblegum pink is a natural hair colour. Seriously, I'm sure 
there are no rules against things a student can't help - I am under the 
impression Tonks normally has total control over her hair colour, so she 
might well have been expected to keep it a normal colour at school. But if 
she couldn't control it, I'd assume that's an exception. It's not a 
universal truth, but common sense does get applied to many schools rules 
where necessary.

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