8/12/2019 Ole Anna

1/2

The play oleanna by david mamet, talks about academic issues such as student-

teacher relationship and sexual harassment. However, by the evidence the play presents there

is not victim because both john and carol misunderstood each other actions and words.

Merced college catalog defines sexual harassment as an unwelcome sexual advances,

requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature, made by

someone from or in the work or educational setting under an encompasses of two kinds of

sexual harassment quid pro quo and hostile environment (sexual harassment). The drama

explores the miscommunication between two people.

First, carol went to johns office acting as the victim by saying that she does not

understand johns classbut at some point during the conversation she kept dramatizing and

exaggeration her situation as student. Furthermore, in their discussion she constantly asked

the why of every single thing; she sounds as if she was looking for a specific answer. For

instance, when she asked whywould you want to be personal with me (19). She is asking

a question that could link to break certain rules. In other words she was waiting for her

professor to break the line between student and professor. Well on the other hand, john

answer is very inappropriate he said because I like you (21). John strange attitude put his

arm around her shoulder; these are clear evidence about sexual harassment. John breaks the

rules between teacher and student. John seemed to forget all those rules, and probably this

was because all his problems were blocking his rational; when he said to carol your grade

for the whole term is an A if you will come back and meet with mea few more times. Your

grades an A forget about the paper. You didnt like it, you didnt like writing it. Its not

important (25). This quote is like john refers to the quid pro quothat refers to do

something verbal visual or physical in other words you do something for me, Ill do

something for your.

8/12/2019 Ole Anna

2/2

However, I consider john guilty for sexual harassment but there is other part in the act

that makes me think in a different way. I think this is kind of a counterargument. The play

involves unclear language. This means that most of the things that john said carol

misinterpret his words in some way. For example: when john said well, I dont know if Id

put it that away. Listen: Im talking to you as Id talk to my son. Because thats what Id like

him to have that I never had. Im talking to you the way I wish that someone had talked to

me. I dont know how to do it, other than to be personalbut(19) and then carol said,

why would you want to be personal with me? (19). The key word in this dialogue is

Personal. Carol did not hear the entire conversation. She just heard the words to be

personal. She wants in some way that john accepted that he was a bad man but he does not

admit nothing. It is in the last act when the situation gets out of control. This play shows two

different behaviors in one character. John becomes from good man to bad man in three acts.

John has more to lose than carol because he is losing his prestige as teacher breaking the

school rules.

In conclusion,both characters are guilty because any of them didnt know how to

manage the situation and thanks to this they fell into the category of removing the structure of

students and teachers Also, breaking the sexual harassment policy. At least any of them is the

victim. Misunderstand on conversations happened and conflict comes that is why Caron and

john get in trouble.