Annie Hooper- Question #7

I agree with Curry that the problem with Oleanna is not mainly about sexual harassment but about false allegations. This is about women, using their supposed "weaker" status, to get what they want. In Oleanna, Carol knows that this professor is a good target for her agenda by him saying things like "Aren't you fetching today" or "have a good day dear". She purposely puts herself in a situation to be alone with him so she can bait him into harassment. I am not saying that John is not guilty, because he is, but she baited him and was partially to blame. She used her status as a lower class, little shy girl as a tool to get him to do something inappropriate because she knows that he likes his power over her. As soon as he does something inappropriate, she immediately cries to the tenure board saying she was sexually harassed, but her allegations of attempted rape were way out of line and totally false. Instead of just using what she already ligitimately had against him, she had to take it to the next level to really drive the nail home. She seemingly wanted to make an example of him and it was easy because he was not totally innocent. Curry said, "Playing to the fears of the audience, the work seems to argue that the real issue of sexual harassment is that an unsubstantiated charge could ruin the career and life of an absolutely innocent individual." Well, John is not absolutely innocent but he is certainly not guilty of attempted rape. That is the problem with the play, if John had been innocent then everyone would feel bad for him because she was ruining his life by a lie, but since he is guilty of sexual harassment and battery (however slight) her claim held water. Both John and Carol are to blame for what happened next, because he was stupid enough to think that by meeting again, he could charm her into dropping the complaint and she was clever enough to meet with him to give herself another opportunity at a harassment claim. What is so irritating about this whole thing is that it wasn't about making an example of him and standing against sexual harassment, because she would have dropped her claim if he backed her censorship agenda. She used her false allegation to blackmail him into doing what she wanted. It was never about harassment, it was about her using her status as a woman to get what she wanted which was censorship of the books. Another irritation is that, either way, Carol wins. If he does not give in to her blackmail, then she wins because he is still fired and loses his status as the rich and powerful white man. If he does give in, then she wins by getting the books censored and having him labeled with sexual harassment even if she drops the charges, he still has the stigma.