Sadism or not ? McGonagall and her punishments

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 186782

 Magpie:
> > This isn't about children not understanding that sometimes
> > rules should be bent in order to make things fair. This is
> > about this particular situation *not* being a case of rules
> > "bent" to make anything fair and any kid could see that.
> > The kids have to deal with that since they have no say in
> > the situation, but I don't think they'd also agree to call
> > it that as well.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> I don't see why not.
> 
> What is it about this situation that is inherently unfair? An exceptionally 
> good flyer is being given a chance to play Quidditch.
> 
> If we had a case where another first-year student had shown equal potential 
> and had been denied that chance, then, yes, the kids would undoubtedly find 
> it unfair.

Magpie:
That one first year gets to not only have a broom at school but the school buys him a spectacular one, while every other first year is not allowed to have a broom at school until second year and everybody else in the school has to bring their own or use school brooms, obviously. How does that make anything fair? Nobody in canon even suggests it's fair.

"If he shows potential" is something you've added retroactively as if that could be part of the rule to begin with and move the goalposts. Like if Draco Malfoy had been allowed a broom at school because his dad was on the school board and explained to them how good he was because he practiced at home it would only be unfair if there was some other kid with a parent on the school board who practiced at home. The rule says nothing about flying skill, nor does anybody else get brooms when they show they have skill. Even if they have the skill, they wouldn't recreate Harry's situation—that relied on McGonagall's personal desire to have Harry playing for her team as Seeker on a Nimbus 2000 immediately. 

 
> Magpie:
> > Substitute situations that are about being fair or general
> > ideas like "zero tolerance" are not relevant. Harry's being
> > given a broom by the school has nothing to do with a zero
> > tolerance policy on anything. I'm not sure why you listed
> > all these examples of school policies being enforced in a
> > ridiculous way (girl suspended for having a nail file) as
> > if their being unfair makes Harry's situation fair.
> 
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> The reason I mentioned them is quite simple. Because they illustrate what 
> happens in schools if we decide that being fair means treating every case as 
> if it's exactly the same without considering individual differences in those 
> cases. It doesn't lead to things being fairer. It leads to profound 
> unfairness. You get fairness when there is flexibility in how rules are 
> enforced.
> 
> I can see how somebody could reasonably argue that this particular case is 
> not one that leads to a fair result. I don't agree, but I can see why - 
> there's always room in particular cases for disagreement on where the line 
> between fair and unfair lies. My point is though that being flexible is not 
> always a bad thing. Being inflexible is.

Magpie:
Nobody's disagreeing with that. We've always been reasonably arguing that this particular case is not one that leads to a fair result. And that McGonagall's flexibility in this case shows her to not always care about being fair or following the rules if she personally gets something out of it. 

> Magpie:
> > There are no other cases that we know of that are identical to Harry's
> > since Harry's special treament is referred to a lot. Lots of kids have
> > the potential to play internationally someday. According to JKR Ginny
> > Weasley does play professionally and the rule isn't waived for her.
> > Nor is Harry's alleged professional potential ever shown to be a
> > motivation for anybody.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> Harry doesn't just have potential. He shows it. That means the school is 
> aware of it. You can't blame a teacher for not nurturing unusual potential 
> they don't know about. But if they become aware of it, things change.

Magpie:
I can if that's what you're using to defend special treatment and gifts of luxury items for one student as just making things "fair." Not that I concede that this is the reason McGonagall buys Harry a broom or waives the rule anyway. She openly says her goal is the Quidditch cup and not Harry's personal development.

> Magpie:
> > Yeah, I noticed Harry never loses anything, really, as long
> > as he's conscious. But canonically, McGonagall doesn't really
> > care one way or the other how Harry nurtures his brilliant
> > talent. She just wants a Seeker for Gryffindor--and she wants
> > him playing on the best broom. Once she gets that, whether
> > Harry reaches his full potential as a professional player
> > is no concern of hers.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> Isn't it? It's Professor McGonagall's job to give Harry career advice in 
> fifth year. He doesn't tell her he wasnts to be a professional Quidditch 
> player. He tells her he wants to be an Auror. So she tells him what he needs 
> to do. In fact:
> 
> "'Potter,' she said in ringing tones, 'I will assist you to become an Auror 
> if it's the last thing I do! If I have to coach you nightly I will make sure 
> you receive the required results!'"
> 
> Now, admittedly, a lot of that is just her taking umbrage at Umbridge. But 
> the fact remains, when Harry discusses his future plans, she advises him on 
> the ones he tells her about. I assume she'd do that whatever he had come up 
> with.

Magpie:
Yes, it is her taking umbrage at Umbridge—another example of her offering special help to Harry for her own reasons and not because she's specifically nurturing of him as a war orphan. However, you still can't use Harry's not saying anything about Quidditch in his career chat to prove that McGonagall has done anything to train Harry to play Quidditch professionally. Had he said he wanted to play Quidditch sure she would have had to say something in return—perhaps say she'll recommend him for team captain the next year or something or suggest academic classes that might come in handy like Potions to make muscle ache ointments. But that's nothing like what you're trying to claim to defend her behavior in PS. There she plainly states she wants Harry to play Seeker for Gryffindor to win and gets Harry the best broom to do it. Nobody ever says anything about caring if Harry plays Quidditch professionally and nobody ever making an effort in that direction. All the evidence that this is anyone's goal is made up outside of canon and inserted in scenes that didn't happen. Harry himself seems completely unaware that McGonagall ever thought about him playing professionally. Once she breaks Snape's winning streak she loses interest.

 
> Magpie:
> > McGonagall does not let Harry break the rule because he's so good his
> > talent must be nurtured and she doesn't buy him a top of the line broom
> > because she's acting as his parent. She lets him play and buys him the
> > broom so that her team can have a Seeker riding on the best broom.
> > This is the reason given in canon. There is no evidence of McGonagall
> > or anyone else at the school feeling a personal responsibility to
> > nurture Harry's personal gifts as a flier. Nor is there any examples
> > of McGonagall acting as a parent in this kind of elaborately generous way.
> > Or really any way. She's not acting as a parent here, she's acting as
> > the house mistress and so "owner" of the Gryffindor team. Thank
> > goodness she isn't claiming to be acting on a sacred trust to look
> > after Harry as a war orphan by buying him the broom and letting him
> > play--the blatant benefits to herself and notable lack of motherly
> > feelings elsewhere would suggest some cynicism.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> A teacher in a position of being in loco parentis is *always* acting as a 
> parent. That's what the term means.
> 
> And you're assuming that Professor McGonagall doesn't have these 
> motivations. As a teacher, I'd assume she does. She knew and taught his 
> parents. She was there watching over the place he was going to be taken, the 
> day his parents died - years before she ever became his teacher or his Head 
> of House. Professor McGonagall is not a demonstrative mother-type figure 
> like Molly Weasley - but, yeah, I think she does feel a particular 
> responsibility for Harry.

Magpie:
My assumptions come from her behavior not just my own life. You're not just claiming here that McGonagall feels responsibility for Harry, which I agree with, you're claiming that it's that personal, motherly feeling that leads her to buy him a broom and nurture his flying at Quidditch. Which I reject since an entirely different motivation is given in canon. In canon she says she wants him to win for Gryffindor and never does anything to nurture his flying ability for its own sake. She's not acting in loco parentis when she buys the broom, she's acting in loco headmistress of a house with a Seeker-less Quidditch team. That's the canonical explanation for her behavior there. 

And btw, the fact that her actions could be said to be beneficial to Harry does not make them fair. I think it's beneficial to Draco Malfoy that Slughorn cuts him dead, but that doesn't make Slughorn anything like fair when he does it. (Not that I think Harry's having to wait until second year to play on the team or have his own broom at school would have been detrimental to Harry. Any number of kids could have gotten similar benefits out of the same treatment.) 
 
> Magpie:
> > So since legitimate scholarship programs exist a teacher
> > getting the "no first years may have their own brooms at
> > school" and buying him a top of the line model must be
> > totally like a scholarship program? I don't think so.
> > Any example of favoritism, bias, prejudice or unequal
> > dealings with students could be justified that way.
> 
> Shaun:
> As for buying Harry a broom, I recently bought one my students a laptop 
> computer. As it happens, he's not one of my favourite students. Not even 
> close. What he is is a student who can benefit from having a computer in a 
> way none of my other students could and who had nobody else who'd ever be 
> willing to buy him one. I've also bought a pair of glasses for a student in 
> the last year or so.

Magpie:
Great. But it seems like you're projecting your motives onto McGonagall and acting like that makes them just as much canon as the explanation she actually gives, which is that she wants Gryffindor to win. She says nothing about Harry benefiting from a broom more than any other student—nor is there any reason to believe he would. And he certainly doesn't have to go without unless he can find somebody willing to buy him one, since he can afford his own broom. 

This strong need for him to play lasts until Snape's streak is broken--or until the plot doesn't need her to swoop in any more. So there's any number of times when McGonagall might have been personally upset by Harry's broom situation but isn't. 

Personally, if I were going for the student who could have benefitted from somebody buying him something it'd been Ron who spends a whole year with a broken wand. Not Harry, who has school brooms at his disposal. Nobody even considers getting Ron a wand that actually works. 

> Magpie:
> > No, he isn't. The fact the professional players come from
> > Hogwarts does not mean they are being trained to be
> > professionals at Hogwarts. They're not being trained at
> > all. They don't even have Quidditch coaches.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> No, because they coach themselves - but Quidditch is a major part of the 
> life of the school, and, that's the opportunity that gives them the chance 
> to be professionals in the future. It is the school providing that.

Magpie:
They coach themselves, exactly. The school's providing them a pitch doesn't add up to the school training them at anything. You don't need to play at Hogwarts to have a chance to play professionally in the future. The set up the school has towards Quidditch once again supports McGonagall's motivation as stated in canon rather than the motivation you're assigning her: Quidditch is an arena for house rivalry. A contrast to, say, Potions where they don't just give the kids access to an ingredients cupboard, cauldrons and an empty room and let them teach themselves. 

 
> Magpie:
> > I said when he was at the same age. Meaning when Harry is
> > 17 there is no indication that he's reached Viktor's level.
> > Even if he wasn't saving the world he wouldn't be playing
> > International Quidditch. He recognizes when he sees the
> > professionals that they play at a much higher level than
> > his team does at Hogwarts. Of course he could still become
> > a professional player, just as Ginny and Oliver do. They'd
> > just have to start seriously training after they left that
> > school.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> No, Harry doesn't show the same potential at 17 as Viktor - but considering 
> Harry only got to play in less than half the matches he normally should have 
> while he was at Hogwarts, that doesn't really tell us much (Harry plays in 
> nine matches while at school. 

Magpie:
A few more matches would make much difference, given Harry's description of the difference between Viktor and everyone in his league. Harry may always win, but he's not leaving everyone in the dust as if he's Viktor (who himself gets no matches for a year) flying like he did at the QWC. Even if Harry had played in every match he would only be that: a kid who practices with his team and plays in matches at school. Occasionally he plays pick up games at the Weasley's. He cares about it when there's a game against another house and otherwise is happy to follow professional teams. He never acts like a kid training to be a professional and he's never treated as one. That's not to say he couldn't have done that after Hogwarts since he has the talent, but that doesn't retroactively make McGonagall's actions in PS the first step in her personal nurturing of his talent. 

 Alla:
> > This example was however brought up to counter your
> > argument about Professor McGonagall never doing
> > something against the rules, no?
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> I don't think so, because I haven't made that argument. I've argued that I 
> can't remember her ever breaking a rule which is different.

Magpie:
Because when she breaks a rule it doesn't count?

-m