Blog post #5 Michelle Smart

While reading the play "Oleanna" I went through a whole range of emotions. This play is written in a way that you simply can not like the main characters at all. In the beginning I really disliked Carol because of the way she talked to her professor and her ignorance. She seemed to cut him off every time he would try to help her in any way. She would interrupt with "I don't understand" every time he would try to explain something she had asked. As the reader I believe that her own ignorance is what causes her fear and the following accusation towards her professor. In an article written by J.K. Curry, a professor in a university that comes in contact with scenarios like the one Carol starts, mentions Carol's behavior and possible motives behind them.

"The drastic transformation of Carol, from confused and helpless student to angry woman with an agenda, reads as an hysterical response to the increased access and power of women in higher education, and to their demand for fair treatment."

Curry finds Carols behavior to be a response of advancement towards the professor to gain power. I see this as a possibility for the character of Carol and a real problem that professors might face. Calling sexual harassment on one of your professors could ruin their career and their life, so the power was definitely in Carols hand after she put in a report against John. Carols accusations were not 100% accurate. Even though if the report was read word for word John did take the actions listed, but they were taken completely out of context by Carol. Curry also mentions that these accusations can not just be taken lightly or over looked.

" It is irresponsible for those of us involved in higher education to simply consider the problem of harassment passé, to take a position of solidarity with all accused professors, to treat the issue of harassment as a joke, or to raise the cry of "academic freedom" as a way to avoid a difficult issue."

Just because Carol took the actions John made out of context, does not mean nothing happened. John could have righted the wrongs that he was accused of just by meeting with the board and explaining his side of the story. When he invited her to his office alone after her report was filed to talk to her about her grade, he should have had another person present or even met with her in front of a panel of people. John did not just invite her back once, but twice! And alone.

Curry writes about going to the theater to see the play and the image on the Playbill of the woman with the target or the man with the target. Choosing a side is not the object of the play because both sides are wrong. I can agree with this since the play ends in a violent act from John towards Carol. He gets overwhelmed by her accusations and how she is set on ruining his life that he takes and hand other the goes even further and lifts a chair to hurt her further. The reader and audience already have hatred towards Carol, but now we can see how John can also be hated. This ends the play and the audience feels that neither side can be trusted and/ or liked.