Sadism or not ? McGonagall and her punishments

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 186738

> > 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. 

a_svirn:
Well, it is quite simple for me to assume that McGonagall is being her usual irritable self. No need to devise some fanfictional Hogwarts dress-code here. 


 
> 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. 

a_svirn:
It sounds like you reserve the right for teachers to insult and ridicule students who *do* something wrong. 

> 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.

a_svirn:
Eh, what doesn't exist, dress-code in real life English Schools? I never pretended anything of the sort. We are discussing imaginary Hogwarts however. And that's not the point anyway. The point is, you are the one who accuses Parvati of violating some hairstyle regulations. The narrator does not do it; McGonagall herself does not do it. You do, so it is up to you to prove it.

> Shaun:
> 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. 

a_svirn:
Seems to me, you refer to the burden of proof, because you can't find any except in your real life experience. Which is not at all canon. And therefore not at all proof. 

> 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.

a_svirn:
What do you mean by "acceptable"? If you are saying that McGonagall was within her rights to make Parvati remove the ornament in question, then I agree with you. Not because of some obscure hairpins rule of which there is no trace in the books, but because, as Pippin pointed out, she was acting in loco parentis. Still it was petty of her to act that way and insult Parvati. 


> 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. 

a_svirn:
That was way later in the fifth book, iirc. And by then Neville had started to change under Harry's tutelage. 

> Shaun:
You seem 
> to be assuming that she must be aware of Neville's password issues. Why do 
> you assume that?

a_svirn:
After more than two years teaching him how could she possibly have missed the fact that he has a very bad memory? And we know she does, she make a reference to it when he couldn't hand in his permission slip. 

"Please, Professor, I—I think I've lost
"Your grandmother sent yours to me directly, Longbottom," said Professor McGonagall. "She seemed to think it was safer. Well, that's all, you may leave."


> Shaun:
> 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.

a_svirn:
Seems to me her obvious dereliction of duty has the most direct impact on Neville's ability to deal with a difficult security challenge. 

> Shaun:
> 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. 

a_svirn:
Kind of hypocritical of her to punish a student for something she is also responsible. I am not saying that Neville had no responsibility whatsoever in this case. I am saying that McGonagall's failure to acknowledge *her* – in my view the most significant – share of the responsibility makes her rather harsh and humiliating punishment a classic example of scapegoating. 

> a_svirn:
> > Didn't know or didn't want to know? Or care?
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> I think it's quite likely she didn't know.

a_svirn:
Well, she should have. As a head of the house of a child with an obvious impairment it was her obligation to make reasonable adjustments for such a child. By the way, in real life schools in Britain it is unlawful to discriminate against children with disabilities, and, yes, not making reasonable adjustments counts as discrimination. Unfortunately, as I've already said, real life laws and rules do not always apply in Hogwarts. 
> 
> 
> 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.

a_svirn:
Not at all. You've given an example where McGonagall does nothing wrong, and Hermione abuses her trust. Whereis my point is that McGonagall does something wrong, namely, neglects her responsibilities. 

> 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.


a_svirn:
And not a single first-year student in more than a century was good enough on the broom to be considered safe? Not likely. Draco seemed perfectly safe while airborne. 


> 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.

a_svirn:
Where the presumption of innocence is concerned they do have exactly the same rights. Under the law children are innocent until they are proven guilty just like adults.