I’ve never seen the play, but having read that version of it, I have to say I’m surprised how little anger I had toward the (presumably) false accuser. She’s ruined his academic career and hurt his personal life, but the professor fairly blatantly treats her inappropriately in the first scene and physically restrains her in the second.

The second act ends without it being clear what’s happened after he restrains her (no further stage direction or dialogue exist until the start of the third act, which takes place days, weeks or months later) and the fact he can’t own up to his actions in this version suggest that even if more has occurred between the two, the professor would not be able to own up to it right away.

Personally, I thought the characterization in the play is what really drives it. Carol relies on her notepad and is at first timid, but then, post-tenure board complaint, is confident, solely as a result of the unnamed group she mentions repeatedly clearly pushing her to see John’s treatment of her as an obvious case of sexual harassment, even rape. Her character isn’t inconsistent, just pliable.

He, on the other hand, is a hypocrite and sort of a monster. He claims he wouldn’t trust the tenure board members to wash his car in the first act, then plays up their nobility and wisdom when he feels threatened by her complaint. He only really gets upset when Carol tells him she wants his book off the reading list. I guess if you see only limited sexual harassment in his actions, you might see her accusation as baseless and

I could, of course, be entirely mistaken, in addition to obviously being long winded. It’s really a fascinating, amazing play. Congratulations on the role. Thanks for reading.