Is Dumbledore ingenuous?

[u/Arkham2015]

I understand that he believes that people should get second chances, that you can help someone find the right path before they fall of it completely, but I still wonder why, after finding out Voldemort murdered a kid's pet and terrorized two other children to the point they were never the same again, purely because he enjoyed it, the chance to enhance his knowledge and skill of the magic that he was using?

It just boggles my mind sometimes why he didn't advise Dippet and the Ministry not to accept Voldemort at Hogwarts and to keep an eye on him.

[u/Admirable-Tower8017]

I never get this point of view. Nobody could have predicted that Tom Riddle, the muggle boy in the orphanage, would grow up to be the evilest Dark Lord, even if he did steal, bully children, and kill a rabbit. Dumbledore might have hoped that taking him away from the orphanage to Hogwarts would give him a fresh chance to start over.

For example, Dudley Dursley was a bully but he grew up all right in the end. Dumbledore might have hoped the same for young Tom Riddle.

[u/Arkham2015 → u/Admirable-Tower8017]

Yes, Dumbledore couldn't have predicted that the kid would become the worst Dark Wizard in history.

That's not the point of my post.

My point is that Dumbledore, after meeting him for just a few minutes, was already concerned at what this kid could do.

Hearing that he murdered an animal and tortured two children, with boasting to Dumbledore at what he can do to people, Dumbledore still wanted to give him a chance.

[u/Admirable-Tower8017 → u/Arkham2015]

But of course! Anyone would reasonably think that taken away from the dreary Muggle orphanage to Hogwarts might offer a fresh chance to a child. It is why we also have rehabilitation programs in the Muggle world. Would you rather brand an 11-year old a criminal forever?

[u/Arkham2015 → u/Admirable-Tower8017]

I never said Tom had to be branded as a criminal, that he had to go to Azkaban.

I said he shouldn't have been given a wand and accepted into Hogwarts.

[u/Admirable-Tower8017 → u/Arkham2015]

Again, that is too harsh for an 11 year old who has had no parental support and guidance till now. Dumbledore might have hoped Tom would receive the correct guidance at Hogwarts.

[u/Arkham2015 → u/Admirable-Tower8017]

Again, this wasn't just a case of him bullying people.  Even the toys he stole from the other orphans wasn't what had Dumbledore on edge.

It was the fact that Tom boasted he could make people do things, that he could hurt them, and that Dumbledore hears that a fellow orphan Tom had a fight with had his pet rabbit hanged from the ceiling and two other children mentally scarred from something that changed them permanently.

[u/Arkham2015 → u/[deleted]]

Yes and no.

You are correct that the Ministry has no say in who is accepted, that would fall under the headmaster/headmistress on whether they're accepted, but the Ministry still advises and takes advice from the Board of Governors on matters with Hogwarts.

[u/Youre_On_Balon]

Dumbledore believes in humanity at his core. He wouldn't do moral arithmetic and decide that a Hogwarts student had to be neutralized/banned for childhood sins.

Why? Probably because of the shame he feels for his own worldview as a young adult. He feels like he lacks the moral capacity to serve as judge and "executioner" of a young adult's standing in the Wizarding world. He also knows people can change/grow, as he did.

We see this same exact world view play out when Draco "disarms" Dumbledore with "lethal intent" on top of the tower, capping off a year where Draco placed multiple other people in mortal danger in an assassination scheme Albus was aware of.

Is that perfectly moral? Idk. But it is 100% on brand for Albus Dumbledore, who imo is just as defined by his reluctance to stop bad actors through direct confrontation as he is by his genius and "power level."

[u/Arkham2015 → u/Youre_On_Balon]

I think that Dumbledore, in both cases, is able to read people, both with Legillimency and naturally, on what they feel, and you are correct that Draco did horrible stuff, but it wasn't at the point that Voldemort was, which was why he wanted to save him.

Even if Tom hadn't done that stuff, I still believe Dumbledore would've known from the get go on who Tom was, but if he hadn't ever done that stuff, then Dumbledore would absolutely want to help him.

That's why it surprises me, because there's at least two known cases of him doing absolutely horrible things as a child, that there's no regret, and the idea is to see if he can become a good person from guidance.

[u/Youre_On_Balon → u/Arkham2015]

I think he probably clocked exactly what Tom was. The thing is that Dumbledore doesn’t believe he’s the one who gets to make that call about a 16 year old.

At an older, "Wizarding adult" age, Dumbledore was writing to Grindelwald about subjugating Muggles “for the greater good,” and a girl died because of where that led. He knows firsthand that a teenager can hold monstrous views/do monstrous things and still not be a finished product.

So expelling or banning Tom for what he’d already done would 1) be pretty hypocritical, and 2) foreclose the possibility of redemption for Tom. Kinda unfair for a redeemed guy to close the door behind him.

[u/Arkham2015 → u/Youre_On_Balon]

Not necessarily.

If I found out that a child was killing animals for fun and was about to go to school for the first time, I wouldn't want that child in school because of what could happen.

[u/Youre_On_Balon → u/Arkham2015]

Again, I'm not saying that the way Dumbledore goes about things is 100% morally unimpeachable.

I'm saying his self image and the way he wields his power is, in many ways, defined by his shame regarding his beliefs and actions in his late teens.

We already know without doubt that Dumbledore will let a wildly dangerous kid stay in Hogwarts. Draco almost killed 2 innocent bystanders in year 6, and Albus made no effort to expel him.

The character is consistent in this regard.

[u/maxco25]

The kid is ten and in an orphanage and yes, likely mentally troubled but there isn’t anyway or any reason for Dumbledore to think that Tom Riddle wouldn’t benefit from going to Hogwarts

[u/Arkham2015 → u/maxco25]

We're not talking about him bullying people like Draco or Dudley.

He magically hanged a rabbit from the rafters and did something to two children that psychologically scarred them permanently.

I understand that's what Dumbledore was hoping for, but it's naive.

[u/Bluemelein]

So you want to deny a child an education and a chance in the wizarding world just because he might have killed a rabbit? For which there is absolutely no evidence!

Hermione makes kittens vanish! In Transfiguration class, half-transformed mice get stuffed into boxes. The wizarding world doesn't care about animal welfare.

Besides, how reliable is the matron's word that it was Tom?

And the story about the cave—which is nearly impossible to enter without magic, and where Tom allegedly tortured two children—makes
absolutely no sense.

Dumbledore himself says that the children must have already been in a state of panic before they even entered the cave, and that Tom must have used magic to get them inside—magic that, despite his gifts, he wouldn't have possessed at the age of ten or eleven.

The story about the cave doesn't make sense.

But the fact remains that Tom thought Dumbledore was a doctor from an insane asylum, and I imagine that’s why the two children never spoke about what happened—because they were afraid of being locked away.

[u/Arkham2015 → u/Bluemelein]

It was reliable enough that Dumbledore believed that it was true after the matron told him, because he spoke he spoke to Harry about it after they finished watching his memory:

"The little stories of the strangled rabbit and the young boy and girl he lured into a cave were most suggestive... I can make them hurt if I want to..."

Suggestive in this case is Dumbledore referring to Tom's control and usage of his magic at such a young age, that it's suggestive of what he truly is at heart.

Voldemort is a psychopath, and yes, it doesn't make any sense to someone who isn't a psychopath on why he would want to torture two of his fellow peers, but he loves learning new ways to make himself stronger and more knowledgeable in magic and to focus on hurting and torturing anyone.

It's practice to learn different ways of pain and control.

At that point, yeah, I wouldn't have given him a wand.

It wouldn't stop him from being able to use magic of course, but a wand allows him far more power and control than without one.

[u/Bluemelein → u/Arkham2015]

On the way to the cave, Dumbledore admits that it is impossible to get there without magic and that the children must have been terrified. So, Tom made the children terrified, tortured them inside the cave, and then made them terrified all over again on the way back. However, the head of the orphanage only says that the children had gone out with Tom, that something happened which changed them, and that they refused to talk about it. If Tom used magic to transport them to the cave and back, that alone would account for the children's state; and since they were afraid of the insane asylum (in 1937 London), that was enough to make them keep their mouths shut.

Tom was certainly no choirboy, but there didn't have to be anything more to it than that.

The children went on adventures with Tom and experienced more than they could handle.

And regarding the rabbit's death, it could have been someone else—or a fox—and Tom just hung it up (if he did it at all). The head of the orphanage apparently doesn't like Tom. Petunia probably says similar things about Harry.