Sadism or not ? McGonagall and her punishments

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 186746

> Steve replies:
> >
> > Magpie makes good points here. I understand the "spirit" vs "letter"
> > of the law distinctions shaun is mentioning, but I don't think they
> > actually apply in this specific case of McG allowing Harry to have
> > a really high quality broom in his first year.  I think Magpie is
> > right on the mark thinking McGonagall's main motivation is for
> > Harry being on the team with the best broom available so that
> > McGonagall's "home" Quidditch team has a better chance of winning.
> > Of course, it also provides JKR w/ major plot lines for Harry playing
> > Quidditch, although perhaps she could have just accomplished that
> > by not writing there being a "no first years having brooms" rule.
> > I imagine you mean Harry flying home to care for his sick grandmother
> > as opposed to his strict grandmother however? :)
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> I certainly agree that Professor McGonagall wants Harry on the team for 
> reasons that aren't entirely about Harry (and are probably more about 
> Gryffindor prestige than anything else) but the thing is, that wouldn't be 
> an issue if Harry wasn't very good. <snip>
> 

> Is anyone prepared to argue that Harry would, overall, be better off if he'd 
> hadn't been allowed to play Quidditch in First Year? If so, I'd be 
> fascinated to hear why, personally.

a_svirn:
So would I. No one said anything about Harry's being better off without Quidditch. We were discussing McGonagall's less than sterling record where rule enforcement is concerned. 

> 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.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> I'm not devising anything 'fanfictional' at all. I'm just arguing for the 
> possibility, maybe even the likelihood, that a school in Britain can 
> reasonably be assumed to have similar characteristics to schools in Britain 
> and assuming that it doesn't to make an argument work is something I find 
> rather hard to understand.

a_svirn:
It does have *some* similar characteristics. And some other characteristics that British schools don't have. However, "possibility", and even "likelihood" is a waaay too long way from "proof". 

> 
> a_svirn:
> > It sounds like you reserve the right for teachers to insult
> > and ridicule students who *do* something wrong.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> I believe it is acceptable *in certain circumstances* for a teacher to 
> verbally reprimand a student for doing something wrong in a way that the 
> student will find unpleasant. I don't, personally, feel that Professor 
> McGonagall insulted Parvarti (describing something a child is wearing as 
> ridiculous is not the same as calling the child ridiculous) <snip>

a_svirn:
I am sure any child would appreciate the distinction. 

> 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.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> I have provided a significant no less than twenty five quotes from the books 
> during this discussion - including, for example, every single reference to 
> Hermione's hair that I could find in approximately 2,5000 pages of the 
> novels, after somebody else - not me - thought it might have relevance. In 
> addition to this, I've quoted over one and a half thousand words from other 
> sources to back up many of my positions.
> 
> I am *not* relying solely on my real life experiences.
> 
> I'd like to see you provide some evidence from somewhere for your assertions 
> simply because you have made some assertions that I believe are incorrect. 
> Most notably, the statement you made that schools outside of somewhere like 
> North Korea would not regulate something like hair clips.
> 
> Where's the canon argument in that?


a_svirn:
Huh. It wasn't an "assertion" of anything, Shaun. It amazes me that you could possibly take a phrase like "what is it, North Korea?" as a definitive statement about all boarding schools in the Free World.  Talk about generalisations. I accept that most British schools have uniforms, some of them regulate hairstyles, and sometimes those regulations include things like hairpins or hairclasps. How widespread are those hairclip regulations is another matter. I doubt there is a survey on hairpins as part of uniforms, but I'd be willing to bet that if we were to go to edubase or some other public database and sample randomly say, ten schools out of every county there wouldn't be many schools out there with strict hairpins regulations. 

My reference to North Korea that you chose to interpret literally was about Hogwarts in general and its dress-code in particular not being as totalitarian as you seem to suggest. As for real life British boarding schools, it is a well known fact that people who attended them sometimes compared them with totalitarian states. Take George Orwell, for instance. Or Esmond Rommilly. Hogwarts, however, does not seem nearly as bad as Orwell's St. Cyprian's, or Rommilly's Wellington. 

> Shaun: 
> You haven't based your arguments solely on canon, either - and I don't think 
> that there's any reason you should have to, because I certainly do - but in 
> my view, it's reasonable in that case for you to be asked to provide some 
> sort of evidence to support your non-canonical conclusions.
> 
> Your assumption that this rule could not exist, is every bit as much as an 
> assumption as mine that this rule probably does exist.

a_svirn:
I do not "assume" that "the rule could not exist", I simply state that there is no evidence of its existence in the books. There is, on the other hand an ample body of evidence that Hogwarts students indulge in all kinds of hairstyles that would not pass the muster of some of the real life British schools. Moreover, we have in fact the evidence that Hogwarts uniform requirements do not include hair regulations. In the letter Harry receives in his first year (and that's a general sort of letter that every student receives regardless of gender, presumably) the uniform requirements outlined as follows:

"HOGWARTS SCHOOL of WITCHCRAFT and WIZARDRY
 
UNIFORM
 
First-year students will require:
 
1. Three sets of plain work robes (black)
2. One plain pointed hat (black) for day wear
3. One pair of protective gloves (dragon hide or similar)
4. One winter cloak (black, silver fastenings)
 
Please note that all pupils' clothes should carry name tags"

As you can see, there is nothing there about hairstyles. A good thing too, or Harry would have been forever in trouble for his hereditary messy hair. 

> a_svirn:
> > That was way later in the fifth book, iirc. And by then Neville had 
> > started
> > to change under Harry's tutelage.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> Harry's teaching of Neville has a lot of positive effects for him, but 
> there's no reason to suppose it's dealing with his memory issues at all.

a_svirn:
It's dealing with confidence issues to which McGonagall is referring here. 

> 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.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> Because her classes don't rely heavily on auditory memory. She teaches in a 
> much more visual and kinaesthetic way. Neville's problems do not seem to 
> impact him heavily when it comes to visual or kinaesthetic memory - and it's 
> auditory memory that is tied up with remembering words.

a_svirn:
I don't see how you can convincingly claim that memorising lots of spells, most of them in another language even, does not involve auditory memory. Not that Neville's memory problems are exclusively auditory. 

 
> a_svirn:
> > "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:
> 
> Nothing there refers to memory - she could just as easily believe the 
> concern is Neville's carelessness, rather than his memory. Also "She seemed 
> to think it was safer." The way that is phrased is reporting Augusta 
> Longbottom's opinion, rather than Professor McGonagall's. 

a_svirn:
Well, Mrs. Longbottom had informed McGonagall of her concerns. She said presumably that it is not *safe* to trust Neville's memory, otherwise she would have given him the form as other parents or guardians did. McGonagall chose to ignore it, and ended up compromising her students' safety. 


> 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.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> Hypocritical or not, it's still her job to discpline him. A very common 
> experience of schoolboys throughout the centuries is the hypocrisy of being 
> punished for smoking by a teacher who gets through forty a day.
> 
> If I have a student who hasn't done his homework, how does it help him if I 
> let him off scot free because I know I'm behind in my marking? 

a_svirn:
Your example does not illustrate the argument, because your being behind in your marking has nothing to do with that student's not doing his or her homework. Whereas McGonagall's arrangement had a very direct impact on the Neville's password fiasco.

 
> 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:
> 
> There is a law in Britain that makes it unlawful for schools to discriminate 
> against the disabled, yes. It's the Special Educational Needs and Disability 
> Act of 2001 - I'm very familiar with it as it happens. Prior to that law 
> being passed there was no such law in the UK, so such a law didn't apply in 
> Britain at the time of Goblet of Fire.

a_svirn:
My point exactly. Real life rules and laws do not apply in Hogwarts. 

> Shaun:
> More importantly, though, speaking as a qualified special education teacher, 
> I don't believe that Professor McGonagall's treatment of Neville even comes 
> close to violating the law even as it applies now/
> 
> The law makes it unlawful for a school to discriminate against disable 
> students by treating them less favourably than others. The default 
> assumption in the law is that disabled students should be treated *in the 
> same way* as non-disabled students. You seem to be arguing that Neville 
> should be given special treatment. That is only required by the law in a 
> situation where the child might otherwise be substantially disadvantaged.

a_svirn:
And I am arguing that it is exactly the situation, because Neville *was* substantially disadvantaged by Sir Cadogan's passwords. 

> Shaun:
> Now, yes, I agree that a Head of House *does* have an obligation (whether 
> the law says they do or not) to make reasonable adjustments for a child with 
> an obvious impediment. I've said that already. The problem with that is, I 
> can't see any evidence that Neville's impediment is obvious to Professor 
> McGonagall.
> 
> He's passing in her classes.

a_svirn:
Barely. And Neville is constantly shown in the books as a walking disaster. If  his problems weren't obvious to her, it is because she chose to interpret them as laziness or carelessness. Which is not very well done of her. 

 
> 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.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> Perfectly safe, yes. But Harry is not just perfectly safe, he's 
> exceptionally talented.

a_svirn:
But your offered justification for bending the rule in question was that Harry was safe.


> 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.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> We're not talking about a criminal case when it comes to Parvarti, though. 
> We're talking about a case of school discipline - which does not require a 
> presumption of innocence in law.

a_svirn:
You were the one who brought it. 

> Shaun:
 The allegations being made against 
> Professor McGonagall however do rise to the standard that in the real world, 
> courts and lawyers would probably be getting involved.

a_svirn:
What allegations? That she is being petty? I don't think it is a matter for lawyers either.