Sadism or not ? McGonagall and her punishments

[mesmer44]

No: HPFGUIDX 186716

"a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> > Shaun:
> > 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 - 
> 
> a_svirn:
> I fail entirely to see how it is my burden. Neither narrator, nor McGonagall herself says anything about any rules Parvati allegedly violated. Nowhere in the books are hairstyle regulations mentioned. You are the one who makes this claim, and the only thing you've come up with by way of supporting it is your own real life experience. Which, of course, cannot be convincingly cited as "proof" of anything Hogwarts-related. Sorry, but that burden is all yours. 
>
Steve replies:
     I fail entirely to see why it isn't your burden. You are the one insisting that McG is to blame for scolding a student. That puts the blame squarely on McG and away from Parvati. At least Shaun has come up w/ credible and believable and logical real life school rules for his credible and logical reasons for giving McG reasonable doubt for having a reasonable rationale for scolding Parvati.  What are you basing your insistance that Parvati is innocent on? As far as I can tell, it's simply your subjective wish for her to be so and your subjective wish for McG to be blamed for something wrong. And unless you have tangible proof that Pavarti was not breaking a school rule or not acting inappropriately during a very special public occasion like meeting the students of another school in a formal environment, then the burden of proof for your assertion is on you, as a reasonable person is going to believe that a teacher like McG is acting with some justification and not out of spite or for some other selfish reason.  We live in a society where if you are going to accuse someone of doing wrong, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the wrong was done.  You haven't done so and with all due respect, whether you fail to see that or not, it doesn't change the fact that you haven't done so. 
 
> > Shaun:
> > 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.
> 
> a_svirn:
> "Assumption" being the operative word here. Your assumption seems to be that if she does it then it's OK, because she is a teacher. Neither my real-life experience, nor my knowledge about Hogwarts teachers en masse and McGonagall in particular leads me to assume anything of the sort. 
> 
> 
Steve replies:

And your "assumption" is that if McGonagall reprimands Pavarti w/o sufficient justification, and because there is some ambiguity or confusion or question about exactly what rule (if any) is being broken, then NO such rule must exist and it's not ok for McG to scold Pavarti for some unknown personal assumption that you have made. Shaun has provided several real life examples of rules for such behavior as existing and has made reasonable assumptions based on those rules. And Shaun has rightly stated that whether or not a rule actually exists at Hogwarts about hair ornaments or whatever, that it's also a matter of Pavarti's decorum and behavior at a public event that is involved here. McG wants the students to look like responsible, well behaved, and appropriately groomed students so as to present a respectible representation to the visiting students and staff of Hogwarts. 

 McGonagall is seen throughout the books as being strict but fair. That's how I see her and I would be shocked if a majority of readers saw her otherwise. If you don't want to see her that way, ok fine, ok good. But coming from a another teacher and educator, until you actually prove otherwise, I'm going to believe McG meant well and was well within her rights to do what she did.  And to be perfectly honest, it's good for students to have adults, parents and teachers give them feedback on what they think is appropriate behavior. As an adolescent counselor, it's been my experience that teens are a lot more resilient than you seem to be giving them credit for here.  If a boy that Parvati liked scolded her, it would be something different entirely than having McG do it.

> > Shaun:
> > This isn't a criminal trial, but in law, a person is considered innocent 
> > unless proven guilty. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Someone should have explained it to McGonagall – she's rather an off-with-his-head type. 
>

Steve replies:  No one needed to explain it to McGonagall.  Where in canon does another teacher or superior scold her for doing anything harmful to a student?  Other than Umbridge, who's at least borderline psychotic, I can't remember another teacher 2nd guessing McGonagall about anything? And her being an "off-with-his-head type is your perception or misperception IMNSVHO. Where in canon does anyone ever say she is an off with his head type?