Sadism or not ? McGonagall and her punishments

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 186748

Shaun:

She pushes through the change because he is that good. Yes, she wants him on
the team - but she wants him on the team because he's a truly exceptional
player. The two things go together. And, yes, she gets him a broom.
Normally, I'd object to that - except for one *very* important special
factor in Harry's case. In loco parentis - Professor McGonagall is in place
of his parents, and for an orphan, that carries special responsibilities,
both morally and legally. There's a big difference between being ILP for a
child who has parents, and having that role for a child who doesn't. And
when you look at the situation Harry is in...

<SNIP>

Alla:

This example was however brought up to counter your argument about Professor McGonagall never doing something against the rules, no?

I have no problem whatsoever with what she did for all the reasons you described – that she is in loco parentis for the orphan whose parents died at war that he is indeed that exceptionally good. I also think that Dumbledore better be ready to at least do something like that for Harry that brings him some joy after he put him through ten years of sufferings (those are my reasons of course, I am not saying that you argued all of them). And I will say more – even if not some but many kids had problems with it, I do not think I would really care. I indeed think that since Harry is that good Professor Dumbledore owes him that little. I am talking here about very specific Harry's case, where Headmaster interfered with his home situation and to me that mean that he took upon himself some very special obligations towards Harry.

And of course my reason would be also that to counter Snape's hate even a little bit, Harry needed this a lot. I mean if McGonagall treated him as Snape treats Draco all the time and would have ordered somebody else to do his spells for Harry for example, as poor Ron had to cut things for Draco, yeah, I would think it is a different story. She however has no problems taking fifty points from Harry when she feels he is truly guilty, so I still think her treatment of her students is significantly less favorable as a whole than Snape's treating of his.

So, absolutely, have no problem with what Minerva did, in fact am very happy with what she did.

HOWEVER, however, I fail to see how anything that you argued or what I just wrote negates the reason why this example was originally brought up – it DOES show us that when it suits her McGonagall is very willing to go against the rules and no, I do not think it matters much whether she wants to bend rule or break it. As Magpie said, we are not devising imaginary teacher's rulebook and hold McGonagall in violation of it.

I mean, even you agree that she wants him on this team, right? Of course because he is truly exceptional and to me it is good enough, but it is still teacher going to the fullest extent to make sure rule is bended or broken for Harry.

Thus to me this shows that if she would be scolding Parvati for the rule that does not exist, that will not be the first time for her going against the rules.

But of course in any event she was acting in loco parentis, but to me it does not absolve her of charge of being petty.

Shaun:

The point is Alla, that I'm not arguing here about a rule that generally
applies in British *boarding* schools. Yes, I do think Hogwarts fits that
model quite well, but in this case, the rule I am discussing is not one that
is confined to boarding schools. In talking about British schools in this
particular case, I'm not talking about the relatively small number of
boarding schools.

It's a rule that is familiar to British children in *most* schools. It is an
absolutely typical and normal rule. It is so typical and normal that I
believe most British children who read the passage in question is likely to
assume that Professor McGonagall *is* enforcing a rule - whether they go to
an elite boarding school like Eton or Harrow - or if they just go to the
local comprehensive down the road.


Alla:

And I am arguing that not all rules in British Boarding schools or just British Schools are automatically applied in Hogwarts. I argue that there are things that are specific to Hogwarts only, and I also argue that there are things that ANY child in the world would understand and empathize with. Rule about hair could be typical for a lot of British schools, it does not mean to me that it IS the rule in Hogwarts.

A_svirn:
<SNIP>
"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 <SNIP>


Alla:

OOOO, this is what I call stellar canon evidence. And in fact I would say that if Hogwarts regulates their students' hair in a any way, shape or form, to me it would make a perfect sense to mention it here for the exact reason you described. I would think that it would have a great comic effect for Harry to worry about how he will deal with his hair while in school, to show him being extra nervous or something. However she mentions nothing of the sort.
So yeah, this is a forbidden " me too" part of the post.