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

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 186725

> Magpie:
> I see that obviously the school could have some rules that aren't
> strictly enforced, or maybe what Luna's doing doesn't break them.
> But since this is fiction the simplest way of looking at it seems
> more useful. Ron doesn't swear to his teachers, and I think the way
> they're expected to speak to teachers is shown in the reactions of
> teachers. Luna's shown casually wearing funky earrings and things
> to class with no reaction and I took it as a sign that that's okay.

Shaun:

I agree that the simplest way of looking at things seems most useful. And I 
agree it's quite likely that Hogwarts has no rules about, say, earrings 
given that Luna wears them to class without apparently being told not to.

But if that's the case, then it's just as true and just as simple to assume 
that Hogwarts does have rules about what students can wear in their hair, 
given that Parvarti is told not to, when she does so.

I think that what students are allowed to wear in their hair is shown in the 
reaction of a teacher.

Magpie:

> But regardless, that's still not the point of what I see in the
> McGonagall scene. It's that McGonagall does have a pattern of
> letting her personal feelings effect the way she disciplines
> people (just as Hermione does). I don't think the GoF scene is
> about McGonagall enforcing a dress code according to any theory of
> teaching, but about showing McGonagall being nervous about making
> a good impression and snapping at Parvati in irritation for looking
> like a flirt. Whether there's an actual dress code is irrelevent.
> Whether she has the right to tell her what to wear matters less
> than how she chooses to do it in this moment imo, if we're talking
> about what's going on with McGonagall and Parvati here.

Shaun:

Sure - that's your point and I understand it and I agree with you to a great 
extent. Even if I'm right and Professor McGonagall is enforcing a valid 
rule, I do agree that her choice of words shows that she also has a personal 
feeling about that particular hair ornament. But the thing is, different 
people are discussing this with different points in mind, I think. Not every 
body has the same focus as you do, and because we've got multiple focuses 
going on here, sometime a point somebody make may illustrate their point 
without referring to the one intended by the person they are responding to.


Yes, I think Professor McGonagall has a personal dislike of that particular 
hairclip. *But* unless there is a rule that actually says it shouldn't be 
worn, I  don't believe she'd tell her to remove it.

I don't like seeing kids wearing baseball caps - but I'd only ever tell a 
student to take one off if I a rule behind me that authorised me to do so 
(and in many schools here I would). I really hate seeing eleven year old 
girls smothered in makeup - but unless there's a rule against it, I'd 
tolerate it. Would I tell them they look ridiculous? That would depend on my 
relationship with them as a teacher.

Magpie:
> Which is a perfectly fine reading imo, unless it removes the
> character moment for McGonagall. If the whole point of that
> moment is to tell us that Hogwarts has a formal dress code
> they use when greeting visitors which disallows hairclips
> (as I said, I'm pretty sure GoF has them wearing hats more
> casually) and McGonagall is just enforcing the rule, then I
> disagree with that reading. Whether or not McGonagall has
> a dress code to back her up seems completely unimportant
> to me. As a teacher she seems to have the authority to to
> give all sorts of random orders to students. Having the
> authority doesn't mean she can't be taking out her nervousness
> on a student by being insulting. I've never made any case
> for McGonagall being out of line because she has no right
> to say what she's saying here based on Hogwarts rules. I'm
> arguing that the moment isn't in there to tell us about
> Hogwarts dress code one way or the other.

Shaun:

*If* the whole point of that particular passage is to give us a 'character 
moment' for McGonagall, then, yes, you might be right. But who says that is 
the point of the passage? Only the author could know for sure (and that is 
if she remembers exactly why she wrote a particular paragraph nearly nearly 
a decade ago). When I read that passage, I didn't read it as providing a 
'character moment' for Professor McGonagall.

Now my reading of it isn't necessarily the one that JKR had in mind either. 
I'd never try and claim it is. But I will just outline what I got out of it, 
and why I think it's just as valid a potential interpretation as the idea 
that it provides a character moment for Professor Minerva McGonagall.

Bear in mind, who the audience of the Harry Potter books really is - they 
are children's books, first and foremost (I know they are not *just* 
children's books - JKR always hoped they'd have a wider appeal - but I am 
saying first and foremost). More specifically, they are British children's 
books (and, yes, they proved to have a much wider appeal of that). 
Therefore, personally, I think it is valid to consider this passage in the 
context of what a British child would get out of it.

Most British children attend schools that have uniforms. Most schools that 
have uniforms set at least some rules with regards to student's hair. Most 
British children would read that passage and assume that a teacher is 
enforcing such a rule - especially when it's a teacher with a reputation for 
strictness. Most British children would be aware that teachers tend to 
become stricter about enforcing rules concerning uniform and appearance when 
a a major event in the life of the school is about to take place.

This is especially reinforced by the fact that in the previous four lines of 
the text, we have had reference to both the students cloaks and to their 
hats - two items of uniform that, even if they are worn more often than we 
are told, are very rarely explicitly mentioned. In the space of four lines, 
both are mentioned and it's in the very next line the matter of the 
butterfly comes up.

To me, the way I read those paragraphs is that they emphasise that the 
Hogwarts students have been turned out in full kit, the whole school 
assembled, to make the best possible impression on their guests.

I don't read them as being intended to provide a McGonagall moment - I read 
them as being intended to emphasise to the reader the special nature of what 
is about to happen in the life of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and 
Wizardry - and to emphasise it in a way that a great many of the books 
readers have direct experience of.

Now, to an extent, I read it that way because it's the experience I am 
drawing on myself. When I was 13, I started at a new school - my Hogwarts (I 
say that with some sincerity - one of the first things that appealed to me 
when I first read Philosopher's Stone was that in Harry's reaction to 
Hogwarts, I felt so strongly my own reaction to my school back then - it 
quite literally saved my life to go there, and gave me the first truly happy 
school experience of my life). One thing I had to get used to at this school 
was the fact that it did take uniform a lot more seriously than the school 
I'd ever been too before, and I vividly remember the almost physical impact 
I felt the first time I ever put on my blazer (at the junior school where I 
went at 13, we didn't wear the blazer with summer uniform, except for very 
formal occasions (it became much more routine the following year) so the 
first time I wore it was to a religious service for the entire assembled 
school at St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne, and it was incredibly 
powerful to suddenly myself suddenly standing in a sea of 2000 other boys 
wearing it. Other memories - of my tutor chasing me with a comb at the age 
of 17 because of a special event that was about to happen - also come to 
mind.

Now, that's my experience - and it informs my reading of the text, and that 
passage, and I'm not saying it has anything at all necessarily to do with 
what JKR intended to convey when she wrote that passage.

But it seems to me to be a passage that talks about uniform and appearence, 
quite explicitly. No, I don't think it's there to tell us about the 'dress 
code.' But I do think it's very likely that it's intended to use that 'dress 
code' and concepts that are quite familiar to many British children reading 
the book (the requirement to be in good order on special occasions at 
school) to emphasises that is not a normal day at Hogwarts.

Go back four or five pages to where Professor McGonagall tells Neville not 
to reveal he can't cast a simple switching spell on someone from Durmstrang. 
That one, I agree shows how tense she is as its primary purpose. But I don't 
see it in this paragrap.

You are correct, by the way, the Goblet of Fire does show a student wearing 
a hat in class (Parvarti in a Charms class), but that doesn't mean they are 
still not a special item of clothing. At my school, our blazers only 
*needed* to be worn under particular conditions (as outer wear if you were 
wearing a jumper outside the gates, at assemblies and other formal 
occasions) but many of us wore them more often in winter. We *could* wear 
them as a choice most of the time. We *had* to wear them for formal events. 
Hogwarts hats and cloaks seem similar to me - they are part of the full 
formal uniform, not required but permitted on other occasions.

Magpie:
> It seems like you're arguing technicalities about rules when I'm
> talking about what it's showing about the character. When I said
> it was McGonagall "breaking the rules" I wasn't trying to claim
> that she was breaking rules imposed on *her* by not punishing
> Harry. I was pointing out that obviously McGonagall does not think
> it's so important that she enforce the no brooms for freshman or
> no flying while the teacher is away or no first years playing
> Quidditch rules when she gets something out of it. I think that's
> what everyone meant when they brought it up. I'm not creating an
> imaginary teacher's handbook and finding McGonagall in violation of it.

Shaun:

I am arguing technicalities about rules, yes, because such things matter to 
the points I am trying to make. They may not matter at all to the points you 
are trying to make. But in my view, when you're talking about the character 
of a 'strict' teacher, the rules that that teacher is functioning in are not 
just technicalities, but are highly important.

You use the term 'freshman' in this paragraph, and I think that illustrates 
part of the reason why I am focusing on this. It's an American term applied 
in American education. It's a cultural construct that would very possibly be 
relevant in any discussion of a school story set in the United States and 
which Americans would understand far more instinctively without any need for 
it to be debated or discussed in comparison to those of us from other 
educational cultures.


Well, for readers coming from a British perspective (and though I'm 
Australian, the education system I grew up in was heavily influenced by that 
of England, and I'm also extremely well read on British education), matters 
relating to uniforms are just as much a cultural construct that are very 
possibly relevant to any discussion of a school story set in Britain) and 
which we would tend to understand far more instinctively than Americans 
would. I actually take a keen interest in American education (although I 
don't understand it anywhere near as well as either Australian or British) 
and have followed quite a few debates about school uniform in American 
education. I actually find them quite amusing *because* of the significant 
disconnects between how Americans seem to see this issue, and the attitudes 
I am used to.

As for Professor McGonagall not thinking some rules are particularly 
important, I agree - there are rules she is clearly willing to bend at 
times.

And my reading of this long discussion is that there are some people posting 
here who *do* think McGonagall was doing something she shouldn't have with 
regards to Parvarti and are using this incident to criticise her, not just 
discuss what it tells us about her character. And that's fine - but I 
disagree with them, and I'm saying why I do.

Magpie:
> Wow. If I was a kid in that school who said McGonagall broke the no brooms
> for first years rule for Harry and some teacher told me that no, she only
> bent the rules, I'd just take that as proof that the teachers weren't fair
> and I shouldn't expect them to be.

Shaun:

Whereas I, as somebody who as a boy attended a school with some very strict 
rules, and who saw some of them bent on occasion and had the reasons 
explained as to why it happened, see this as, in fact, teachers acting 
fairly, and dealing with the reality that a rule that works in 99% of cases, 
doesn't necessarily work in 100% of cases.

We had a rule against wearing earrings - one boy in the entire school was 
allowed to break it - because for him - and only for him - not allowing him 
an exemption would have put a potentially lucrative future career at risk. 
He was - and remains - a professional actor. There was a rule that required 
all students to stay at school until 5.30pm training for sport twice a week. 
I was, for a time, the only student in close to a century to be exempted 
from that rule - because I was the only day boy who lived more than two 
hours away from the school in an area where public transport ended at 7pm. 
There might have been some people who thought these exemptions were unfair - 
but most people understood there were reasons behind them.

Magpie:
> It's not necessarily a bad thing, but I thought this thread was
> originally about what McGonagall humiliating Neville and insulting
> Parvati because she found that emotionally satisfying--just as
> Snape does when he humiliates and insults students.

Shaun:

That seemed to be one of the points being made yes - and I disagree with it. 
I don't believe Professor McGonagall humiliated Neville or insults Parvarti 
because she finds it emotionally satisfying. I think what she does to 
Neville is intended as discipline - she's angry, she has a reason to be 
angry, and she sees no reason why the student responsible for her anger 
should be spared it. She wants to correct their behaviour. I also don't 
particularly feel she insults Parvarti - not if she is enforcing a valid 
rule - a student who has broken a rule deserves to be made to feel bad about 
it - though I agree she does let her personal view show.

Magpie:
> I agree. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with McGonagall
> or Snape showing their students how they feel. But I don't think
> McGonagall's moments of taking her anger out on students are
> always positive or for the student's benefit. In your case, you
> actually did something mean to another person. Neville's losing
> the passwords understandably made her angry, but I don't think her
> continued humiliation punishment did him or anyone any good. And I
> don't see what her snapping at Parvati did for her. In the case
> with Neville she was afraid due to danger so there'd be a reason for
> her to want to shake sense into Neville, much as your teacher would see
> a reason to shake sense into you about being cruel to others. Her anger
> at Parvati seems just catty and personal and momentary.

Shaun:

I agree that Professor McGonagall's anger probably did more harm to Neville 
than good. But that is because Neville is a somewhat special case - he's 
unusually sensitive to such things. I would *not* condone Professor 
McGonagall deliberately and knowingly directing a statement of the type she 
delivered at Neville, to him, if she had known he was the one who was 
responsible. The problem is that she didn't know it was him.

It could have been any one of seventy students (on the size numbers for the 
school and House I find most persuasive) - and sixty nine of those students 
aren't Neville Longbottom.

Her response and her anger is very likely a good response for the majority 
of the students in front of her. Unfortunately, in this case, the poor bunny 
who is responsible isn't one of them - and she doesn't know it.

The trouble is you can't base how you teach (and by 'teach' in this case, I 
mean the whole kit and kaboodle of being a teacher) on aiming at the lowest 
common denominator. Sixty nine other students don't deserve to have the way 
their teacher relates to them decided by Neville Longbottom. There's a time 
for an individualised approach - but it's not when you have seventy students 
in front of them, one of whom has put everybody else at risk, and you don't 
know which one is which.

With Parvarti, though, it's much more straightforward. Assuming that 
Professor McGonagall is enforcing a genuine rule, making a 14 year old girl 
who is deliberately and knowingly breaking that rule out of a desire to 
elevate herself above her peers (to make herself appear more cool or 
prettier or whatever the aim is - I've never been a teenage girl!) feel 
embarassed and silly is a pretty effective way to deal with the situation.

I'm also really not sure what to make of the idea that Professor McGonagall 
engaged in 'continued humiliation' punishment of Neville. As I've said a 
couple of times, I think his punishment was more severe than it needed to 
be - detention and loss of Hogsmeade visits - one of those would have been 
enough in my view. But I've no argument whatsoever with him not being given 
the passwords again - it's just too dangerous for him to be trusted with 
them in that situation.

Magpie:
> No, she was insulted. McGonagall was focused on how she wanted
> her students to come across, got angry that Parvati was the
> flirty girl she always was trying to make a different sort of
> impression, and snapped at her that she looked ridiculous.
> Just as Snape doesn't punish Hermione in the "I see no
> difference" scene, he just insults her.

Shaun:

Totally different situation in my view. Hermione had done *nothing* wrong in 
that scene. Quite the contrary in fact, she had tried to prevent Harry doing 
something he shouldn't. In no way, could his comment be seen as justified by 
anything.

>> 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:
> Do you feel the need to make a personal comment about him in general
> that's got nothing to do with swearing? If so, are you doing that to
> objectively enforce the rules or do you just find the kid irritating
> and want him to know that?

Shaun:

First of all, Professor McGonagall's comment does have something to do with 
Parvarti's rule breaking (if it is a rule, of course). She's commenting on 
the object that is being used to break the rules. She doesn't call Parvarti 
ridiculous - she calls the butterfly ridiculous. It's not quite the same 
thing.

But would I make a personal comment about a student while disciplining him 
for swearing? Yes, on occasion, I would.

"Simon, you're disgusting. I never want to hear you say something like that 
again."

Would I be doing it to objectively enforce the rules or because I find him 
irritating? A little from column a, and a little from column b. As I've 
said, I don't see anything wrong with a teacher letting their feelings show 
while disciplining a student - as long as it doesn't lead to the student 
being punished more severely than they deserve.

Magpie:
> The automoton idea is a strawman--neither of us expects the teachers
> to do that.

Shaun:

You don't and I don't - but I think some people do. They want Professor 
McGonagall to have not shown any sign of anger or irritation or any emotion 
at all in disciplining Neville and Parvarti. Or, to be fair, they probably 
don't want her to show *negative* emotion - I doubt anybody seriously thinks 
teachers shouldn't show warmth and kindness and things like that.

That's quite a common position - a lot of people seem to think (and more 
important seem to think that there's some sort of 'rule' or 'evidence' or 
'theory' or 'policy') that teachers should always be nice and kind and 
fluffy and comfortable - and never say anything negative, never raise their 
voices, never reprimand a child, never do anything that might upset a 
child... it's a Mary Poppins idea.

"If you want this choice position
Have a cheery disposition
Rosy cheeks, no warts,
Play games, all sorts.
You must be kind, you must be witty
Very sweet and fairly pretty
Take us on outings, give us treats
Sing songs, bring sweets
Never be cross or cruel
Never feed us castor oil, or gruel
Love as a son and daughter
And never smell of barley water
If you won't scold and dominate us
We will never give you cause to hate us
We won't hide your spectacles so you can't see
Put toads in your bed, or pepper in your tea"

A lot of people - that's their image of what a teacher should be nowadays. 
It's all very nice. But it's not really all that good an idea. The evidence 
is, substantially, that it doesn't work for kids. It's not in their best 
interests at all.

Nor should all teachers be at the other extreme. But the point is - and it's 
a real problem in modern education - too many people seem to think that it's 
never acceptable for a teacher to show any feeling towards a child that the 
child doesn't like. That you should never raise your voice. That you should 
never scold, never reprimand, and certainly never ever be angry.

There is nothing wrong with a teacher being angry at a child who has done 
something to deserve it. There is nothing wrong with a teacher reprimanding 
a child who deserves it, even if it's done in a way that the child finds a 
bit embarassing. A teacher is not automatically doing something wrong when 
they do these things.

Being emotional is part of being a teacher. Kids need to know that you 
actually care about them, and that you care about what they do. And that 
means they need to know when they've disappointed you or angered you, just 
as much as they need to know when they've made you proud, or made you happy.

The balance is going to be different for different teachers. That's more a 
matter of style than anything else.

Magpie:
> The thread was not, as I understood it, ever really
> supposed to be about whether Hogwarts had rules about
> hair clips

Shaun:

Ah! But for some of us, that may actually be an interesting question that is 
well worth discussing. OK, maybe not, but I for one do find trying to fit 
Hogwarts into the context of real schools very interesting.

Magpie:

>, a fact that doesn't exist one way or the other. I thought
> it started with a_svirn pointing out that there seemed to
> be different judgments made on Snape and McGonagall when
> they behaved in similar ways, based on the idea that Snape
> was a sadist at heart, so when he humiliated or insulted
> students or enforced the rules according to his desires
> it was a sign of his inner sadism and unfairness, while
> McGonagall was a good person so when she did these things
> it wasn't a sign of inner sadism or unfairness like Snape's.

Shaun:

Yes, but the point is whether or not they are actually enforcing genuine 
rules - or just engaging in their own whims - is highly relevant to that.

To an extent, I will often defend Professor Snape - sometimes when nobody 
else will - because as I've said, I had some teachers very like him who I 
regard as very good teachers, very effective ones. But I think there is a 
very real difference between Snape and McGonagall.

I don't think Snape is a sadist, personally (and, for the record, yes, I did 
have at least one teacher who was) but he definitely allows his feelings to 
overwhelm what he *should* be doing as a teacher sometimes, especially when 
it comes to Harry. I've never seen a clear cut case of Professor McGonagall 
doing that - and when the cases other people point out seem to me to be ones 
that can easily be explained by simply assuming normal school rules, 
commonplace in many schools, apply at Hogwarts, then I think it's highly 
relevant to point this out.

If you want to talk about defending the indefensible - or coming close to 
it - I could even make a reasonable case in my own mind at least for 
defending Umbridge's quill. Objectively speaking, used in moderation, I 
doubt it was any worse than the canings I received at school. Of course, she 
used it to an extent that could not be described as in moderation, and she 
used it on an innocent boy (which she may not have known) even after it 
clearly wasn't working (which she should have known), but the point is, 
rules do matter in deciding whether or not a teacher acted inappropriately. 
In the real world, I would *never* defend a teacher who hit a kid in a 
school where it wasn't allowed - yet, personally, I believe corporal 
punishment should be legal. For that matter, even though as I've made it 
quite clear above, I believe it is both appropriate and in the best 
interests of children for teachers to show their anger at times, I would 
report in an instant any teacher who yelled at a child in a school where 
that wasn't allowed. It isn't as simple as whether or not something is legal 
or illegal (just because something is legal doesn't automatically mean it's 
justifiable - but if it's illegal, it can't be justified at all. So the 
rules do matter.)


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.

Shaun:

Sorry - but this is simply isn't the case. My own real life experience is 
self-evidently not the only thing I've come up with. Quite the contrary. 
I've posted about one and a thousand words of regulations from real schools, 
clearly showing that the type of rule I am talking about is quite common in 
British schools.

You don't have to accept that as proof of anything, but, please don't try 
and pretend it doesn't exist.

My point in doing that is I am simply arguing that there is a good chance 
that Hogwarts has a rule that is common in British schools, just as it is 
obvious to anyone who is familiar with such schools that Hogwarts shares a 
great many of their characteristics. And more importantly that assuming such 
a rule does not exist as a reason for claiming a teacher has done the wrong 
thing seems to me to be drawing rather a long bow.

It is clear that earlier in this discussion, you were under the mistaken 
impression that such a rule isn't one that a school in Britain could 
possibly reasonably have. You said this:

"Approved sort of hair clasp?! What is it, North Korea? I don't believe even 
Umbridge could be bothered to regulate hair clasps."

Your position seems to me to have been based - in part, not in total - on a 
mistaken idea about what schools outside of totalitarian regimes could 
possibly be bothered to regulate.

Even after it has been clearly demonstrated that there are schools in 
Britain that *do* bother to regulate such matters - you do not seem to have 
modified your position at all.

This is why I refer to the burden of proof. It seems to me that your 
position isn't based on 'proof' at all. It's based on the way you think 
Hogwarts should be run, and it doesn't matter what evidence somebody else 
shows you, you won't modify your position.

OK, that's fine. We're talking about a work of fiction here, and a person's 
individual interpretation of a work of fiction is their own business (I find 
certain types of fanfic to be the clearest proof of that) but if you want to 
convince anybody else, then the burden of proof lies with you. If you don't 
care if anyone agrees with you or not - OK.

I choose to believe that Hogwarts must function as a real school, but the 
day to day realities of a real school aren't what JKR's readers want to read 
about (well, OK - I wouldn't mind, but I don't think most people find such 
matters as interesting as I do). But it needs to be consistent in order to 
seem real. And, in my views, Hogwarts does seem consistent enough to be 
real.

And that is because it is modelled on a particular real world *and* literary 
model of schools and, except in those cases where JKR has needed to change 
things in order to make a *magical* school servicing a *magical* community, 
she has stuck to that model. It is the model of the British boarding school, 
as it really exists in British history, and also as it exists in literally 
hundreds of school stories written throughout (mostly) the 19th and 20th 
century.

These are her model - and I think it's reasonable to assume in any case 
where we don't know otherwise - that Hogwarts is in general conformity with 
that model.

Two relevant facts about that model.

(1) Most of the schools that fit that model have uniforms.

(2) Most of the schools that fit that model set at least some rules on hair.

Do we know Hogwarts does this? No, but the model - both in the real world 
and literary model - means that the default assumption that it does have 
such rules is significantly more likely than a default assumption that it 
does not.

So when we see a teacher tell a student to fix something that the teacher 
feels is wrong about their hair, it is more likely than not that the teacher 
is enforcing a rule, than that the teacher is just doing something they have 
no right to do.

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.

Shaun:

No, my assumption is not that it's OK because she is a teacher. My 
assumption is that it's OK because we see a teacher taking an action that 
would normally be completely acceptable under the rules of a great many 
schools in the country in which the school that that teacher is situated and 
we have no reason whatsoever to think that this school is an exception to 
that rule.

This is further reinforced in my mind by the fact that it's being done by a 
teacher who is described as strict but is normally presented as fair, and 
indeed as being a teacher who has proven willing to publically reprimand a 
colleague (Moody/Crouch in the case of the bouncing ferret) for acting 
outside the accepted disciplinary practices of the school, and further by 
the fact that she does it in public in clear view of her own colleagues and 
a large number of students.

It is true, that all things being equal, I tend to assume a teacher is more 
likely to be acting appropriately than a student. It's not always the case, 
but in general, I do believe that is a more likely assumption. But in this 
case, it's happening publically, it's a perfectly reasonable thing in line 
with real world practice to assume is allowed, the student doesn't protest, 
the teacher has a reputation, she's Deputy Headmistress of the school, so 
even if there wasn't a rule against hair ornaments to begin with, she 
probably could have had one introduced, if she thinks such matters are 
important (as apparently she does) - well, yes, all that adds up to me 
believing fairly strongly, it's probably allowed - but that more 
significantly basing an opinion on the certainty that it couldn't be is 
tenuous at best.

a_svirn:
> Meaning, to some extant it is still reasonable? Could you give one example
> of its relative reasonableness?

Shaun:

Sure.

CAPD doesn't always manifest in exactly the same way. There's a set of about 
eight common characteristics, and if a child has three or more of them, and 
it's obviously negatively impacting their school performance then it can be 
'diagnosed'.

Neville definitely has three of the CAPD characteristics (the three most 
common and indicative ones). There's one he definitely doesn't seem to have 
and one I don't think he has, which leaves three which I can't assess from 
what we know from the books. This illustrates how it doesn't always manifest 
in the same way.

Because it doesn't manifest itself in the same way, not all CAPD children 
will have a problem with something like a password. There are also 
strategies that they can be taught, or in some cases, learn by themselves, 
that allow them to learn passwords (a lot of schools are increasingly 
requiring students to use passwords in computer related activities, so this 
is a real world problem). Neville *could* conceivably learn how to deal with 
this problem, so while it is not entirely reasonable to expect him to, not 
is it completely unreasonable to say that he's incapable of doing this.

The fact that he can remember a term like 'mimbulus mimbletonia' because it 
has meaning to him, illustrates this. Neville shouldn't just be told the 
word 'oddsbodikins' - he needs to know what it means.

a_svirn:
> No, it is not my assumption at all. Neville certainly shares some
> responsibility for the whole password fiasco, but not the whole of it,
> and not even the most of it. My *concern* is that while the entire
> situation is of McGonagall's own making, the only one who's got blamed
> for the whole thing is Neville. This is a classic case of scapegoating:
> when a person of authority abjures any responsibility for her own
> neglect and carelessness and lays the blame squarely on the victim of
> the said neglect.

Shaun:

First of all, I really don't think you've even come close to demonstrating 
that this "entire situation is of McGonagall's own making." Professor 
McGonagall was not responsible for putting Sir Cadogan in place as the 
guardian of Gryffindor Tower - Professor Dumbledore was - and there was no 
other choice. No other painting was willing to take on the role. Secondly, 
as far as I can see, we've got no evidence that Professor McGonagall was 
aware that Neville had problems remembering passwords - he does adequately 
in her class and she feels his main problem is lack of confidence. You seem 
to be assuming that she must be aware of Neville's password issues. Why do 
you assume that?

Let me make something clear here - even in the Muggle world where, in many 
places, most teachers are university trained specifically in education, most 
teachers are not qualified to identify most learning disabilities. And 
that's especially true of teachers at the secondary level. It is reasonable 
to expect a teacher to be aware of issues that arise in their own 
classroom - but the subject Professor McGonagall teaches isn't one that is 
all that likely to show off Neville's memory problems. Kids often manage to 
hide these problems from teachers as well. A teacher should not 
automatically be faulted for not picking them up.

And besides that - I have to say that even taking the broadest possible view 
I can see as possibly justified of Professor McGonagall's "failures" in this 
case - even if we assume she was aware of Neville's problem and did 
*nothing* to deal with it (which would, in my view, be a serious dereliction 
of duty of care by his Head of House), I'd still place the bulk of the blame 
on Neville - for not reporting the loss of the passwords in a timely 
fashion. McGonagall's "failure" if it does exist is in not helping Neville 
to find an alternative way of dealing with the problem. That doesn't have 
any impact on his failure to report the loss of the passwords.

And also - even if Professor McGonagall shares a lot of the responsibility 
for what went wrong in this case, unfortunately, she is the person 
responsible for disciplining Neville. If he deserves to be punished, then he 
deserves to be punished - even if the person who finds themselves in the 
position of having to do it isn't in the best position of moral authority to 
be dealing with this particular breach. I was horribly bullied at the school 
from hell - and the main reason that happened is because teachers stood back 
and let it happen - but while I'd *love* to have seen those teachers pay for 
that, the bullies should still have been punished as well. For their own 
good, and for mine.


Neville is responsible for the things he did, that he could have done 
differently. There's no reason he shouldn't be held accountable for those 
things, even if it's possible somebody else should be held accountable for 
their failures as well.

a_svirn:
> She'd have to suffer from a serious case of a memory loss
> herself, not to be aware of the potencial problem.

Shaun:

Why?

I've mentioned that I have a form of APD. For me, one of the main ways its 
manifests itself is in a near total inability to handle music. My first 
housemaster at school taught me Mathematics and Computer Science - subjects 
I did well in. My second housemaster taught me Religious Education - 
something that again, I did quite well in. My tutor (the teacher most 
responsible for my welfare) taught me English - which again, I did well in.

None of them had any real idea of how awful I was in music, nor any real 
idea of why I was having those problems. They didn't see them as teachers.

Professor McGonagall sees Neville in Transfiguration class. A class in which 
he passes. She sees his difficulties as a lack of confidence.

Teachers aren't omniscient. They can't know about problems they don't see, 
or that nobody tells them about.

a_svirn:
> Didn't know or didn't want to know? Or care?

Shaun:

I think it's quite likely she didn't know.


Shaun:
> > 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.

a_svirn:
> So do I. What does it have to do with anything?

Shaun:

Because your position seems to be that because McGonagall might have done 
something that made it possible for Neville to do the wrong thing, that's 
she becomes primarily responsible for him doing the wrong thing. Well, the 
example I've given is one I see as an equivalent situation.

You wouldn't excuse Hermione - so why do you seek to excuse Neville?

If it is simply because he has problems, then that is not in his best 
interests and it's not fair on him or anyone else. If, however, you do see 
the situations as totally different - and maybe you do, and I've just missed 
the reasons - that's another matter entirely.

But even if a teacher does something that enables misbehaviour or allows a 
chance at misbehaviour, it's still the child who decides to do the wrong 
thing.

a_svirn:
> No one says it is. I wasn't talking about Neville's not taking
> proper care of the list. I was saying that Sir Cadogan's passwords
> were beyond his capabilities. As for the list, it was stolen from him
> - can happen to anyone. Point is, McGonagall wilfully ignored and
> callously ridiculed his disability, and when her tactics backfired
> she punished the victim of her bullying - Neville.

Shaun:

Well, I *am* talking about Neville not taking care of the list and much more 
importantly, not reporting it's loss. You seem to me to want to give him a 
free pass on that. I don't believe that's justified.

I don't believe Neville deserves to be punished for writing the passwords 
down. I don't believe he deserves to be punished for their loss (especially 
as they were stolen, but even if he'd lost them, that's a fairly minor 
thing, and I do believe if he'd been taken proper care, he'd have noticed 
the loss earlier). I do believe that the fact that even after he was aware 
that he didn't have a clue where the list had gone that with over two days 
of time available for him to do so, he failed to report the loss, thus 
exposing himself and all his friends to the potential depradations of a 
maniac mass murderer who'd already tried to break in once, that he deserved 
to be punished for that.

I also don't see any proof at all that Professor McGonagall was aware of the 
problem, nor do I see why she should be held responsible for the situation 
of Sir Cadogan's passwords in preference to Professor Dumbledore who is the 
one who made Sir Cadogan the temporary guardian of Gryffindor Tower. If 
anybody is to blame for the password situation, I'd blame Dumbledore over 
McGonagall.

a_svirn:
> So what is the fundamental difference between "breaking" and "bending"?
> If it is a student who does it, then it is breaking, and when it is a
> teacher who does the breaking it is actually "bending"?


Shaun:

No, that's not it.

The difference comes from, in my view, the difference the 'letter of the 
law' and the 'spirit of the law'.

We don't know the precise reasons behind the ban on first years having 
brooms. Not for certain. So it's hard to know for certain what the 'spirit 
of the law' is. But it's my guess that it's a safety rule. Hogwarts does not 
want students flying around on brooms who cannot do so safely. We know from 
Professor Hooch's first lesson that most first year students can't even make 
a broom jump to their hand.

They don't seem to have flying lessons after first year, so presumably 
students learn to fly in that first year.

The most likely reason for the rule does seem to be safety. Protecting 
students is the 'spirit of the law'.

Harry, however, can fly brilliantly, naturally. He's as safe as any other 
student on a broom. Allowing him to have one doesn't violate the spirit of 
the law.

Most schools allow sensible exemptions from rules. They understand that even 
a rule that is right in 99% of cases, might be wrong in 1%. Is it wrong for 
exceptions to be made? I don't think so - and I don't think teachers should 
be judged harshly if they do.

> Alla:
>
> I  cannot speak for a_svirn but I am basing my insistence
> of McGonagall being wrong here on a very simple reason that
> hairstyle regulations are just not mentioned in the book.
> Not once. Shaun could have cited the examples from hundred
> real life schools but they are not Hogwarts. It is to me as
> simple as that. They are not Hogwarts. Is Hogwarts based in
> some ways or in many ways on British boarding school system?
> Of course it is, nobody is denying that. But to say that
> just because some rules exist in real life schools it is a
> strong support for something existing in Hogwarts, well,
>  even if there is some real life basis for something in the
> books in general, it is still not canon.

Shaun:

The point I would make here is that the rules I'm describing are not unusual 
rules. They are typical and normal rules. Most British schoolchildren 
reading the Harry Potter books are going to schools which have uniform rules 
and most of those have rules that concern what is and isn't acceptable with 
regards to hair. Those rules differ from school to school in detail - but 
most British kids are used to the idea that schools can and do impose rules 
on hair of some sort.

This means that a British schoolchild reading that paragraph in Goblet of 
Fire is in all probability going to assume that Professor McGonagall is 
acting under colour of authority and is imposing a rule of a type they 
recognise.

Arguments that are based around the idea that Professor McGonagall is, in 
that paragraph, doing something she shouldn't be doing are based around an 
assumption that JKR would write a sentence into that book that the main 
target audience of the book are intended to interpret in a way that is 
totally at odds with most of their own experiences - and that she doesn't 
bother to point out to the children that Hogwarts rule on this is different 
from the norm.

She has no reason to write that sentence to suggest that McGonagall is doing 
something wrong - because the target audience would not read it that way. To 
me, the sensible assumption is that she wrote the sentence, knowing that the 
children reading the book would assume Professor McGonagall is enforcing a 
rule familiar to them.

A rule they know their own teachers are most likely to enforce on special 
occasions. So therefore, this signals that this is a special occasion. And 
coupled with the fact that in the previous four lines, she's already 
emphasised that they are turned out in full school uniform (mentioning the 
cloaks and hats that she usually ignores), that simply reinforces the same 
basic point.

Alla:

> Hogwarts had werewolf teacher at some point in time, does that
> mean that we have werewolf teachers in British public schools?

Shaun:

It would have explained Mr O'Reilly at my school...

Shaun:

> British public schools do not have Quidditch, do they not? And
> the list of examples that I can give of the things existing in
> Hogwarts and not in any British public school can go on and on.

No, but they do have Rugby and Football (soccer) and the children would 
understand the fanaticism associated with Quidditch because they are used to 
similar fanaticism associated with real sports at school - and especially at 
traditional boarding schools ("Play up, play up, and play the game!") JKR 
routinely draws on children's experience of their schools so they understand 
Hogwarts. When she 'perverts' that understanding, she explains in quite a 
lot of detail that she's doing it.

When we first discover that detentions at Hogwarts aren't like the typical 
detentions at a Muggle school, Hagrid explicitly explains the difference (to 
Draco) .

Alla:
> We were treated to quite a few ridiculous degrees by Dolores
> Dear in OOP. Granted, OOP is the book I know the worst, but if
> somebody can tell me that one of those degrees regulates hairstyles
> I will be very surprised.

Shaun:

I wouldn't be!

Alla:

> Let's take the example that Shaun brought up before? Remember Snape
> confiscating a book from Harry? When Harry was reading while sitting
> with his friends outside. Would you consider even for one second
> that Hogwarts has a rule **against reading books in the company
> of your two friends outside**. Whether or not Ron would have said
> anything, I did not need him to.
>
> I thought this was absurd. No rule like that was mentioned before
> or ever after when Hermione was reading books in different places.

Shaun:

School rules don't always make a whole lot of sense. Especially in 
traditional schools. At my school, there was a particular staircase which 
you were not allowed to step on if a person from a higher form was already 
walking on it. We tried to figure out why the rule existed - best we could 
come up with was that it was some very odd way of limiting how many people 
were on the stairs at a time. On at least one occasion I was late to a class 
because I just couldn't get down that staircase.

Monty Python make fun of these types of things in one of their skits in The 
Meaning of Life - and remember the joke is only really funny because so many 
people watching can relate to it:

"Humphrey: All right, settle down. Settle down... Now, before I begin the 
lesson, will those of you who are playing in the match this afternoon move 
your clothes down onto the lower peg immediately after lunch, before you 
write your letter home, if you're not getting your hair cut, unless you've 
got a younger brother who is going out this weekend as the guest of another 
boy, in which case, collect his note before lunch, put it in your letter 
after you've had your hair cut, and make sure he moves your clothes down 
onto the lower peg for you. Now...
Wymer: Sir?
Humphrey: Yes, Wymer?
Wymer: My younger brother's going out with Dibble this weekend, sir, but I'm 
not having my hair cut today, sir. So, do I move my clothes down, or...
Humphrey: I do wish you'd listen, Wymer. It's perfectly simple. If you're 
not getting your hair cut, you don't have to move your brother's clothes 
down to the lower peg. You simply collect his note before lunch, after 
you've done your scripture prep, when you've written your letter home, 
before rest, move your own clothes onto the lower peg, greet the visitors, 
and report to Mr. Viney that you've had your chit signed."

a_svirn:
> I do not accuse McGonagall of some sort of criminal offence,
> only of being petty. But if we are expected to uphold the sacred
> "innocent until guilty" principle, then those who accuse Parvati
> of violating an imaginary dress-code must prove their case.
> No one in the book accused her of breaking any rules; there is
> not a single mention of any hair-related regulations, instead
> there are tons of mentions of unusual styles and ornaments that
> Hogwarts students sport. The presumption of innocence does not
> concern teachers exclusively, you know. Students have the same
> rights under the law. If not always under the school rules.

Shaun:

Well... no, they don't, actually. Not in most places. Not in most times. 
Schoolchildren very often have far less rights than adults do.

At the time 'Goblet of Fire' is set, according to British law in place at 
the time, Professor McGonagall would have been legally perfectly within her 
rights to beat Parvarti or any other student with a stick. And teachers are 
still not held to any type of standard which even approaches 'innocent until 
proven guilty'.

As for these 'tones of mentions of unusual styles and ornaments that 
Hogwarts students sport', please feel free to cite them. I've spent 
considerable time going through the books over the last few days and with 
the possible exception of Lee's dreadlocks, I can't find a single mention of 
a hairstyle that would be considered unacceptable in the schools I'm most 
familiar with, even though all of them have rules concerning hair, and many 
have rules concerning what girls are allowed to have in their hair.

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