By any account, Harry Potter is a startling success. Not since Pokémon hit the scene have children begged so hard for something. What remains startling, in this day of ever-changing entertainment choices, is that the kids are finally begging for something parents won’t mind buying— books. But before parents break out their credit card at Borders, they should know that Harry Potter is a sexist and classist pig.

That’s the verdict from Pierre Bruno, a French professor of something called “social theory,” who warns that the Potter books reinforce a neoconservative ideology, complete with antiquated notions of gender and class. Cautioning those who find the work inoffensive, he reminds us that feminists don’t like the books because of their perceived sexism, since—according to Bruno—females are less numerous, less important, and less valued than the male characters.

Bruno charges that the author, J.K. Rowling, has constructed a political allegory through dividing the wizard school into four houses, but this discovery is vague at best. After all, it is just as easily argued that this is simply a literary device designed to make team selection easy for the wizard sport, Quidditch, that lends much of the excitement to the series. Never mind that Bruno’s critique of this division stems from what he says is the arbitrary and rigid selection process. Here, as elsewhere, Bruno has his facts wrong.

The social stratification he sees present in the house divisions is neither arbitrary nor rigid. Instead, the process is highly influenced by the true nature of the child—via the insight of a magic hat, no less—and is done to best suit his abilities and desires. Harry Potter himself fought against the magic hat’s initial assignment, and convinced it that he instead wanted to belong to another group. This teaches children not that life is arbitrary, but that it is in equal part based upon ability and hard work. And the sexism?

While feminist critiques may argue that women are poorly represented, they ignore two facts. The first is that Hermione, the third in the trio of main characters, often saves the day through a natural intelligence that she hones through enthusiastic study. The second is that this is irrevocably a series that tries to accurately portray a young boy, his thoughts, and his adventures. To try to equalize the representation of all those he interacts with to reflect a gender sensitivity more in line with feminist dogma is to remove any universality from the story, and likely any literary merit along with it.

Pierre Bruno and his militant feminist comrades would have us believe that millions of children and families can’t understand a good book when they see it because they lack correct consciousness. In truth, the Harry Potter series is a richly-textured alternate universe, complete with good guys, bad guys, and moral dilemmas. If Harry Potter were written according to the orthodoxies of political correctness, as brokered by Pierre Bruno, we would have a sterile, politically-correct piece of fluff, not a book that children or anybody else would read.