“If we’re going to take off the Artificial Stricture, of “Teacher,” and “Student,” why should my own problems be any more a mystery than your own?“
This marks a crucial moment in the play wherein John begins to try to break down the boundaries between him and Carol, encouraging a less-formal relationship. For John, removing the limits of a student/teacher relationship is an extension of his deconstructionist philosophy toward higher education. For Carol, this moment represents one of the most egregious examples of John courting her. This quote will also be one of the main pieces of evidence against John in Carol’s report to the tenure committee. The quote also reveals the characters' different attitudes towards language. John, used to a comfortable academic post, is comfortable using this language completely metaphorically, and does not understand that the metaphorical removal of strictures might lead to a more literal breakdown of norms.
“Someone told you, and you hold it as an article of faith, that higher education is an unassailable good. This notion is so dear to you that when I question it you become angry. Good. Good, I say. Are these not the very things we should question?”
John’s academic work takes a critical approach toward higher education, calling it “hazing” and questioning its true value. It is John’s writing on the subject that confuses Carol and leads her to visit John’s office for the first time. The value of higher education is also the primary academic disagreement between John and Carol. To Carol, John’s negative perspective discounts the hard work of her and her peers and is somewhat contradictory, given John’s role in the university. When Carol accuses John of rape and battery, her accusations of physical violence and intimidation blend with allegations of intellectual abuse based on John’s statements about higher education. This quote's resonance grows throughout the play, highlighting the limits of an academic perspective. From his perch in the classroom, John can critique the power of professors, but when his power is actually challenged and threatened by a student, he is bewildered and angry.
“She what?” She can’t, she said the agreement is void? How is the agreement void? That’s Our House.
Throughout the play, John and Carol are interrupted by phone calls from his family and other associates. Most of these calls relate to a home that John and his wife are buying, a result of John getting tenure at the university. For John, the house is physical confirmation of his success, a manifestation of his newfound stability. As the play proceeds and things grow more dire for John, the home-buying deal also starts to go south. John refuses to admit defeat, locking himself in a futile fight for his new home. By referring to the house as "our house," John also reveals that he considers a home, along with his job and his socioeconomic status, to be his rightful belonging. Whereas Carol assumes that nothing will come her way without a fight, leading, perhaps, to her surprisingly aggressive approach to John, John assumes that he should obtain the things he wants without a fight.
“Whatever you have done to me—to the extent that you’ve done it to me, do you know, rather than to me as a student, and so to the student body, is contained in my report.”
After submitting the report to the tenure committee, Carol meets with John again. During this meeting, John tries to understand Carol’s motivation behind the report. Carol, on the other hand, sees John’s manipulative tactics and academic language as a means of forcing her to retract her allegations. To defend herself, Carol now draws on the report produced for the tenure committee as her definitive narrative. For Carol, John’s actions towards her are just one example of his inappropriate behavior toward students. While Carol does refer to specific cases of inappropriate behavior, her suggestions that John has done something to the student body is a more conceptual, metaphorical claim. With this statement, Carol asserts that his ideology and attitude toward higher education constitutes an offense against the student body, echoing on a larger scale the dynamic between the two.
“Those are my own words.”
A recurring argument between John and Carol involves John demanding that Carol share her feelings while she is in the midst of attempting to express herself. This quote comes after Carol has read from her report to the tenure committee and John has asked her to share her feelings in her own words. Unlike in Act I, where Carol allows John to cut her off and is insecure about her responses, now she is confident in articulating her thoughts. With a seemingly objective report, Carol has found equal footing with John. In this moment, she also asserts that she is able to express herself, in her "own words," through writing—she no longer relies on the feminine-coded language of in-person, emotive conversation.
“You. Do. Not. Have. The. Power.”
This is Carol's most direct assertion that her report has reversed the power dynamics that defined her relationship with John. While presumably John, as a professor, would have near-universal power over Carol in terms of her success in his course, Carol has used the university's system of accountability to gain significant power over John. The play centers around John's use of his power over Carol, but this scene (and the allegations that follow) also suggest that Carol may be abusing her power over John as well. By allowing both characters power, and the tools to abuse that power, Mamet encourages the audience to question where power lies in an academic system and what, exactly, constitutes an abuse of that power.
“You said you came in the class because you want to learn about education. I don’t know that I can teach you about education. But I know that I can tell you what I think about education, and then you decide.”
After Carol submits the report to the tenure committee and John tries to convince her to recant, John abruptly switches the conversation to small talk. When Carol appears puzzled by this sudden transition, John explains that such a dialogue is the basis of human communication. Here, John extends this framework to encompass his relationship with Carol. To John, his role is to explain his own opinions, not to teach Carol something specific—only then is it left to Carol to decide whether or not to embrace his thoughts. John's statement makes clear that he does not understand Carol's central problem— namely, that she does not understand his opinions or language and needs clarification. While John believes that his pedagogy is radical and progressive, to Carol it is confusing and transgresses the appropriate boundaries of their relationship.
“You worked twenty years for the right to insult me. And you feel entitled to be paid for it. Your Home. Your Wife ... Your sweet 'deposit' on your house...”
To Carol, John's statements about higher education as "hazing" are unnecessary and insulting, because she has worked hard to earn her place in the university. The hypocrisy that Carol identifies here—that John is supported and upheld by the same institution that he demeans—is not new. Indeed, Carol identifies this hypocrisy and her anger toward John at several points in the play. What has changed here, however, is that Carol has taken John's interest in his house and his family and weaponized them. Whereas Carol originally claimed that John's personal life was not her concern, she now uses it as a tactic to argue against him.
“I saw you, Professor. For two semesters sit there, stand there and exploit our, as you thought, 'paternal prerogative,' and what is that but rape; I swear to God.”'
Carol's allegations toward John grow more abstract and questionable as the play progresses. At first, Carol hints at how uncomfortable she is with John's actions but cannot seem to put words to her specific feelings. After submitting the report, and with the backing of her "Group," Carol is now able to explain to John exactly what she finds so objectionable. She accuses John of taking advantage of his position as a father figure—that is, as a man who has power over the students and should be teaching them—and exploiting the trust they place in him. This exploitation, Carol alleges, is tantamount to rape. These tenuous allegations, which John refers to as "political correctness," call the reader's trust of Carol into question as the play continues. Ironically, while Carol's allegations grow ever more ambiguous and less concrete, John's responses become more overt and physical, culminating with him beating her in his office.
“You vicious little bitch. You think you can come in here with your political correctness and destroy my life?”
At the end of Act III, Carol interjects into a conversation between John and his wife, telling him not to call her "baby." This follows Carol's allegation that exploiting students' "paternal prerogative" is tantamount to rape and her request that, in exchange for dropping the charges against him, John remove his book from the curriculum. John snaps and begins to beat Carol while accusing her of using political correctness to destroy his career. For John, this is the crux of the problem: that Carol is too sensitive and cannot understand his unorthodox teaching style. While the audience is unsure as to whether or not he has actually abused Carol previously, now they see John actually commit a crime against Carol by beating her.
