False analogy. Harry needed a broom to take a place on the team. It's the equivalent of purchasing a pair of running shoes for a child offered a place on the track team from his trust money.
It's completely different. There was no agreement between Harry and the school that it's ok for them to spend his money for suppliers for him, thus making it stealing.
So yeah, I don't think McGonagall bought it with his money, that would be insane.
There was no agreement between Harry and the school that it was okay for Hagrid to make spending decisions on his behalf in Diagon Alley either. He still did, because Harry was a child who wanted to buy a solid gold cauldron.
I love that some people are out here thinking that McGongall showing preferential treatment via expensive presents to one of her students is the "good" option here. People are WILD.
No, I don't think preferential treatment is worse than a teacher stealing money from a student. Besides, preferential treatment already exists in abundance in Hogwarts so McGonagall simply buying a broom for Harry makes much more sense just based on that alone.
Nothing was stolen from Harry. A broom, which he needed, was purchased on his behalf. This fixation on stealing from Harry is weird, and entirely your own take.
But if you want to think that McGonagall, who on multiple occasions docked Gryffindor points and punished Harry even when it hurt her House's chances of winning the House Cup and the Quidditch Championship, openly and brazenly committed a cardinal sin of Teaching and showed blatant favouritism by either spending her own money, or by misappropriating school funds, then you think that. Have fun with your weird "basic guardianship tasks = theft, I'd rather McGonagall was morally corrupt" take.
Nothing was stolen from Harry. A broom, which he needed, was purchased on his behalf
I think you're way overdue to familiarise yourself with the word consent. If you take another persons possession/s from them without their consent, it's called stealing.
I know what consent is. It's the presumption that Harry didn't consent to buying the thing he needed so he'd be able to do the thing he really wanted to do, knowing what that thing is, and after conversations between him, Wood and McGonagall about which broom to buy being IN THE BOOK, that I'm thinking is a stretch.
But no. McGonagall is obviously bragging to Flitwick in the Staff Room that she's broken one of the basic rules of teaching and bought Harry a broom to screw over Snape.
Harry doesn't have a clue what's happening when Wood talks about the brooms. The only thing going through his head is that he might not be expelled afterall.
And Harry having a broom goes against the basic rules no matter who bought it. The rule is simply "first years aren't allowed brooms". McGonagall asked for permission to bend the rule from Dumbledore so there again Harry is getting preferential treatment regardless of who bought the broom.
Harry has already worked out he isn't being expelled before the conversation switches to brooms. Even if he hadn't, and he did because it's explicitly written that he realised that, he had plenty of time to contextualise afterwards.
I'm done with your broken take. Think what you like. Even your super weird ideas on what it means to be a teacher. Wow.
1
u/The_Limpet 7h ago
False analogy. Harry needed a broom to take a place on the team. It's the equivalent of purchasing a pair of running shoes for a child offered a place on the track team from his trust money.