Oleanna

LEGAL NOTES
Notes in Revised Penal Code

Analysis of the Oleanna Case. This is merely a copy of my assignment for Legal Aspects of Education under Atty. Jocelyn Cruz


Parameters of the Present Analysis



As agreed upon in class, we will apply the IRAC formula in writing and analyzing the relevant issues and pertinent circumstances of the movie “Oleanna” by David Mamet. The movie, based on an original play by Mamet, was set in an age that has not fully understood the meaning of “sexual harassment”. Indeed, David Mamet wrote this play/movie after the famous Anita Hill vs. Clarence Thomas in the early 1990s. However, even the charge made then was “sexual impropriety”. What the said celebrated case achieved is the understanding of the general (American) populace of term “sexual harassment”, although this latter term seemed to have been coined in 1974 at Cornell University. Atty. Drobac (2005) of the Indiana University School of Law, maintains that the law on sexual harassment has its legal standpoint from the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and that indeed it is a form of “discrimination because of …sex”.



Now, the present analysis transfers the situation to our present day and country, when and where a law is already in force against sexual harassment, particularly our Anti-Sexual Harassment Act (RA 7877). Interestingly, the latter act began in our Congress in 1994, and was enacted the following year. Anita Hill’s case and Oleanna evidently influenced this.



Further, the original complaint of Carol carries education issues, colored by “political correctness” - an issue that is somehow related to harassment. Indeed, as Spark Notes (Barnes and Noble) maintains, political correctness is a major theme in Oleanna. Now, the present study, although set in a master’s class in education, is not concerned about political correctness and educational issues per se. Rather, the concern of this paper pertains to the legal issues that apply to our life as teachers and future administrators and educational leaders.



Another parameter that must be considered here is that the original complaint does not carry the last scene, where John – evidently fuming mad with rage – beats Carol to the point of almost hitting her with a chair. This present analysis considers that scene as an added complaint. However, the last scene will inject several issues in the complaint of Carol against John. Hence, I decided to do a separate analysis for the inclusion of the last scene.



Further, while it is important to consider literary effect, especially in this literary-driven masterpiece, I have downplayed the same for the purpose of focusing on matters-of-fact and issues of legality. Hence, while there seems to be a meaning for the cinematography of lighting, the communication and miscommunication that results from persistent interruptions, the positions of Carol and John, etc., most of these are unacceptable as evidence. Hence, most of literary effects are left for literary - and not legal – analysis.



In Summary



The analysis is set in the present day Philippines, 2006. RA 7877 is already in effect.



There are two cases at bar:

* Carol, a tertiary level student, files a complaint against John, a professor, for sexual harassment, attempted rape and battery (not considering the last scene)
* Carol, a tertiary level student, files a complaint against John, a professor for battery (RA 3815, Revised Penal Code), sexual harassment (RA 7877), attempted rape (RA 8353, Anti-Rape Law), and physical injuries (RA 3815, Revised Penal Code).



Evidences are presented according to the facts presented in the play/movie, without prejudice to the validity and reliability of the statements of the witnesses (Carol, John, Jerry or Grace). Sexual Harassment centers not purely on context, but also on individual interpretation (as will be later clear). Considering this, the presented testimonies may be considered from the perspective of the individual complaining.





First case. Carol, a tertiary level student, files a complaint against John, a professor, for sexual harassment, attempted rape and battery (not considering the last scene)



Plot Overview (some adaptation from Sparknotes.com analysis of the play)



Carol was the student of John. She was asked to his office in order to discuss her poor class performance. John was worried because he thought of Carol as a bright girl. During their talks, telephone calls – alternately from John’s wife Grace and his friend Jerry - keep on coming. Apparently, Grace was concerned about the house they were purchasing.



Now, Carol said she’s also worried about her grades, and that she wishes to understand what is going on in class. Carol though she is stupid, that people have always thought her stupid, and that now John, too, is aware of her stupidity.

In an effort to appease Carol’s bad self-image, John said he sympathized with this feeling; he told Carol he, too, was brought up to feel stupid. From his original feeling of wanting to leave – because of the urgency of the situation with his house and his wife - John has turned himself around, however, and said he wishes to help Carol see how she can improve herself. John took the blame for Carol's lack of understanding in his class and vowed to fix it.

At this point, Grace called again about the house. At about this time also, Carol made the connection that the new house is to accompany John's tenure at the college. John connected this tenure concern to Carol's problem. Here, he suggested that tests, like those of the tenure committee, which has announced but not yet approved him, are meaningless. He started his pedantic and highfaluting discourse against the structures of higher education, and the established teacher-student relationship, which he dubbed as unnecessary and unimportant. Carol asked again about her grade, but John interrupted, assuring her that she will receive an A, if the two of them begin the class again in his office hours.



They discussed some topics from class about which Carol has questions, and John explained his view of higher education - a criminal trial is not a necessity to live a complete life, yet college—a similar right in the modern age—is regarded as a necessity and taken for granted. To John, higher education is not such a good thing, a view with which Carol takes opposition. He explained more, and Carol could not understand some points and became frustrated. John tried to comfort her physically, but she denied him and walked away.



In the second act /scene, Carol already filed a complaint with the tenure committee regarding John. She charged that he was a sexist, elitist, racist, was alone with her, moved to physically embrace her, told her a sexually explicit story, and offered her grades in exchange for private visits to his office—all charges substantiated by actions in the first act/scene.



Carol then attacked John for his views on higher education and his inherent role in the system; he defended this, showing her that they are merely people who agree to take part in an exchange. His role was to provoke her (this has earned another cause for complaint) and, more so, to tell her what he thinks; he cannot correct her, but he merely shares his views as a professor with her, for her to do with as she will. At this point, Carol mentioned that she has consulted on this matter with her "Group". Apparently, she has a backing. Grace called again; John brushed her off to talk to Carol, who tells him the proper venue for these discussions is at the hearing of the tenure committee. Carol turned to go, but John physically restrained her, telling her he just wants to talk to her. Here, Carol shouted for help, and forced her way out the door. There were people outside looking at their direction.



(The third act/scene will be considered as additional evidence/s for the second version of the case, as stipulated above.)



Details of the third act/scene are as follows:



After some time, John has lost his job and his security of tenure. Carol came back to the office once again, and insisted that the charges are absolute fact. John apologized and Carol lectured him on how he exploits students who have every right to learn in college, perpetuating the elitist paradigm. Carol told John she desires not revenge but understanding. John is insistent in attempting to discover how he may end Carol's attacks, and she ultimately offers a bargain; she and her group will drop their charges if John recommends the banning of certain books at the college and signs a statement of support. John is repulsed and refused, snapping out of his kowtowing to Carol. He then became firm in his denial. He revealed that he has not been home in days. The phone rang, and Carol urged him to pick it up. It was Jerry who advised him that Carol and her group are considering pursuing criminal charges against John for battery and attempted rape. John's wife called, and as he talks to her, he asked Carol to leave. She began to oblige, but warned John on the way out not to call his wife "baby." John knocked Carol down, began to beat her, and grabbed a chair as if to hit her with it. As he attempted to regain composure, she sat on the floor, saying to herself, "Yes. That's right."





Issue: Has John, professor of Carol:



1. Committed sexual harassment against the person of Carol, in violation of RA 7877?
2. Attempted the rape of Carol, in violation of RA 8353?
3. Inflicted physical injuries to Carol, in violation of RA 3815?





According to the RA 7877, harassment is committed in educational environment:

(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the offender;

(2) Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the offender;

(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a passing grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships, or the payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or considerations; or

(4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.

As provided for in the text of the movie, all requirements are fulfilled for the case at bar. Carol is under the care of John as his student in fulfillment of (2). Further, she was offered an A if she will meet him in his office, in fulfillment of (3). For the requirement in (4), Carol is now presents herself as intimidated; she also maintains that John was hostile and offensive to her.



Now the Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 01-0940 explains and differentiates circumstances surrounding sexual harassment, to wit:

GRAVE OFFENSES SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
a. Unwanted touching of private parts of the body (genitalia, buttocks, and breast);
b. Sexual assault;
c. Malicious touching;
d. Requesting sexual favor in exchange for employment, promotion, local or foreign travels, favorable working conditions or assignments, a passing grade, the granting of honors or scholarship, or the grant of benefits or payment of a stipend or allowance; and
e. Other analogous cases.

LESS GRAVE OFFENSES SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
a. Unwanted touching or brushing against a victim’s body;
b. Pinching, not falling under grave offenses;
c. Derogatory or degrading remarks or innuendos directed toward the members of one sex or one’s sexual orientation or used to describe a person;
d. Verbal abuse or threats with sexual overtones; and
e. Other analogous cases.

THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE CONSIDERED LIGHT OFFENSES:
a. Surreptitiously looking or stealing a look at a person’s private parts or worn undergarments;
b. Telling sexist/smutty jokes or sending these through text, e-mail, or other similar means, causing embarrassment or offense and carried out after the offender had been advised that they are offensive or embarrassing or, even without such advice, when they are by their nature clearly embarrassing, offensive, or vulgar;
c. Malicious leering or ogling;
d. Display of sexually offensive pictures, materials, or graffiti;
e. Unwelcome inquiries or comments about a person’s sex life;
f. Unwelcome flirtation, advances, and propositions;
g. Making offensive hand or body gestures at an employee;
h. Persistent unwanted attention with sexual overtones causing discomfort, embarrassment, offense, or insult to the receiver; and
i. Other analogous cases.

Wherefore, the University of the Philippines, for example has the following as its policy against Sexual Harassment:

THINGS TO REMEMBER:

• It is important for faculty to recognize the power they have over their students (grading, thesis supervision, and provision of references) and that students have a high regard for their teachers. It is therefore the responsibility of the faculty to observe proper decorum and maintain a professional relationship with students at all times. This also holds true for relations between senior faculty/junior faculty and faculty/staff.

• Be aware that students come from different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds and thus have varied perceptions of behavior. While there is nothing wrong with being friendly to students, interactions that are perceived as informal and personal may make some students feel uncomfortable, confused, or anxious about the faculty’s intention.

• Refrain from discussing with students their sexual life, (unless it is part of the class discussion in which case duly inform the students about it) or giving unsolicited advice on personal and intimate matters.

• Be supportive of students who seek help for personal issues; however, avoid taking on a counseling role. Refer them to the UP Diliman Gender Office Crisis Counseling Service of the Office of Counseling and Guidance for advice.

• Be aware that some students may not feel comfortable with physical touching and the showing of nude paintings/photographs. If physical touching and the showing of nude paintings/photographs are necessary for teaching, as in physical education and art classes, duly inform the students about it before the start of classes.

• Let your students know about your boundaries for interactions with them. If a student/staff crosses a boundary, let them know right away to avoid misunderstanding.

• All Deans/heads of units who fail to report officially filed complaints of sexual harassment to the Office of Anti-Sexual Harassment shall be administratively liable for NEGLECT OF DUTY.

COMPLAINTS MUST HAVE THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS:

1. Unwanted, whether done intentionally or not;

2. Sexual in nature

3. Occurs in a peer, superior-inferior (or vice-versa) relationship in a work, education, or training-related environment;

4. Submission/rejection of acts used as basis for any employment/academic decision; or

5. Effects:

· Interferes with work performance or creates a hostile, offensive, or intimidating environment; or

· Might reasonably be expected to cause discrimination, insecurity, discomfort, offense, or humiliation.

XXX



Now, for rape to be committed, pursuant to the provisions of RA 8353 (Arts. 266-A, as amendments to Act 3815, Revised Penal Code), a man should have “carnal knowledge” of a woman. Now, for the complaint to prosper with respect to (attempted) rape (as stated in GR#143468-71 : People vs Freddie Lizada):

“In reviewing rape cases, this Court is guided by the following principles: (1) to accuse a man of rape is easy but to disprove it is difficult though the accused may be innocent; (2) considering the nature of things, and only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense. By the very nature of the crime of rape, conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony because of the fact that usually only the participants can testify as to its occurrence. However, if the accused raises a sufficient doubt as to any material element of the crime, and the prosecution is unable to overcome it with its evidence, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond cavil of doubt and hence, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.”

“…being of tender age, it is possible that the penetration of the male organ went only as deep as her labia. Whether or not the hymen of private complainant was still intact has no substantial bearing on accused-appellant's commission of the crime. Even, the slightest penetration of the labia by the male organ or the mere entry of the penis into the aperture constitutes consummated rape. It is sufficient that there be entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum.25 In People vs. Baculi, cited in People vs. Gabayron,26 we held that there could be a finding of rape even if despite repeated intercourse over a period of four years, the complainant still retained an intact hymen without injury. In these cases, the private complainant testified that the penis of accused-appellant gained entry into her vagina”

In the foregoing statements, it is clear that rape constitutes carnal knowledge – of penile insertion in the woman’s vagina, anus or mouth (as clear in the Art 266-A, 2 of the above stipulated law). Hence, attempted rape constitutes an effort on the part of the accused to have carnal knowledge of the victim.



XXX



On the complaint with respect to battery, the laws on physical injuries apply (Revised Penal Code, Art. 263, 265, 266). Here, the court must scrutinize the case’s gravity. The law differentiates between the following:



* Serious physical injuries (Art. 263), which applies to persons who “shall wound, beat or assault another”; penalty varies as to the circumstances described in the article.
* Less serious physical injuries (Art. 265), which applies to persons who “shall inflict upon another physical injuries not described in the preceding articles (262 -264), but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or shall require medical attendance for the same period”. Penalty here is arresto mayor.
* Slight physical injuries and maltreatment (Art. 266) when the offender has inflicted physical injuries
+ which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period – penalty is arresto menor.
+ Which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical attendance – penalty is arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.
+ Ill-treatment by deed without causing injury – penalty is arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos.





XXX



Arguments and evidences:





Overview:



As in most sexual harassment cases, this is another one of those “he said, she said” cases. Sexual Harassment cases almost always have no evidence apart from the testimonies of the complainant and the accused. Indeed, as Drobac (2005) explained why sexual harassment litigation seems more like a trial of the complainant – his/her innermost behavior, even the most intimate medical, psychiatric, psychological details – than of the alleged harasser behavior. It is with this in mind that she manifested in the same book that it is a consensus that the law “leaves too much out” in sexual harassment. More often than not, the ….



Evidence of the prosecution



On the charge of sexual harassment, the prosecution maintains that accused was alone with the plaintiff, told her a sexually explicit story, motioned to hug her, and guaranteed her a grade of “A” if she would meet with him in his office.



There were no witnesses to these allegations. However, the plaintiff shows her journal where she usually jots down things so that she will be able to remember them.



On the charge of attempted rape, the plaintiff said on one occasion, the accused “restrained her” from leaving his office. She said “Let me go”, as the professor’s “body was pressed into her”. With this, she claims she has witnesses – the people outside the office of John who stared as she cried for help and eventually left his office.



On the charge of battery, or physical injuries, she claims that the defendant restrained her with force, and forced her to stay in his office. In an instant when he tried to rape her, she forcefully pressed his body on her body, and she was hurt in the process.







Evidence of the defense



While it is true that the plaintiff was alone with the accused on that day, it was due to a discussion of her performance in class. The professor was worried that although Carol Is a bright girl, she was not performing very well in class, and tried to find ways to help her in her academic performance. In fact, he was in a hurry that day because his wife wanted him to meet her. It was an “unscheduled meeting”.



In his effort to “level with” Carol, the accused told her that she is not “stupid”, and that he also thought then that he was “stupid”. In this exchange of stories and “lessons”, he told the story that Carol classified as “sexually explicit”. “When I was young, I was told that rich people copulate less often than the poor”. He said that he told this story because he wanted to make her feel at ease with the professor, and the subject matter he was teaching, and to avoid thinking that she was stupid. If the professor felt the same when he was young, then it is quite normal for her to feel the same way.



The accused also maintained that the writings on the journal of Carol were all taken out of context. “I want to be personal with you” may connote sexual harassment, but it was taken out of context. The reason he said that is because he felt that the student was not learning in his class, and that she was aloof. She was only there at one side of the room, dreaming away. “Personal” here meant that he wanted to personalize his instruction to her. He wanted to be learner centered in approach.



The guarantee of an A, meant that if she would only make up for her lessons – by meeting with him in his office to discuss the same – she is guaranteed an A. This is in the sense that every student deserves an A, a mastery level, if she demonstrates mastery. Now, promising A to her was a sort of encouragement for her to attain that level, as her aptitude demanded. She was a bright student. Her receiving of a grade less than an A meant that he as a teacher was the guilty party. He thought Carol would be motivated through the “A” grade because she seemed so concerned with her grade, because she said “What’s my grade?” Also, he said this to somehow make up for his innocent words (“What can this mean?”) that were adjudged as insulting by Carol.



On the charge of attempted rape, he said that he had no sexual desires on Carol. He made this clear when she said “Let me go” and seemed afraid of him. He said, “I have no desire to hold you…I just want to talk to you.” The instances presented by the plaintiff when she said he “moved in to embrace” her and “forcefully restrained” her from leaving the office were actions that are devoid of malicious content. He was simply acting as an authoritative teacher. He told her to “sit down” many times, because she seemed to be confused. He wanted to make sure she understood what he meant. But this seemed impossible to accomplish since she would always interrupt him. When all else failed, and she was showing signs of confusion and bewilderment, he held her but not to embrace her. His motives were just to physically restrain her, especially since she seemed adamant with her misguided thoughts. He wanted to calm her down.



From the foregoing, his defense on physical injuries and battery follows. He did not willfully cause harm to her. Whatever pains she may be reporting to the court, are the results of his trying to calm her down, as was said above.



Besides, she still came back to his office two times after the said sexual harassment incident. After she charged the professor with attempted rape, she again came back. This last time, she came back to ask for him to sign support papers for the ouster of some books. This list of books includes one book written by him.



XXX





Application



On the charge of sexual harassment, it must be said that sexual harassment in educational setting is committed when sexual favor is asked in return for passing, etc as discussed in RA 7877, Sec 3, b, par 3-4:

Sexual harassment is done in an education or training environment:

(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a passing grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships, or the payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or considerations; or

(4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.

In order to convict the accused, it must be shown that the actions he exhibited towards the plaintiff have sexual overtones. And this must be beyond reasonable doubt. We cannot believe that the words were said with malicious intent. The denial of the accused was vehement, being substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Indeed, they were mere speculation on the part of the plaintiff, translating the words of the accused out of context, in order to mean other than they were intended.



Her accusations were vague and unconvincing.



Also in MTJ-98-1162 (Ana May Simbajon vs. Judge Rogelio Esteban), the SC considered the importance of showing that the woman is capable of spinning a lie, on the part of the defense. The coming of the plaintiff to the office of the accused in order to seek for “support on the banning of some books” clouds the personality of the plaintiff. Indeed, it is clear that she is not a victim but a blackmailer.



Now, according to CSC Resolution No.98089, as applied in Civil Service Commission res#000563 (Anna Leah J. Morales vs, Melquiades D. Ordena), in cases of sexual harassment, “weight is given to the reaction of the victim than to the intent of the harasser”. The intention of the harasser, it continues, is irrelevant and the determinative factor is the effect of the act or request on the complainant.



That the plaintiff did not suffer humiliation, ill-feelings or embarrassment and did not experience a hostile, intimidating or offensive environment is clear from the fact that, after accusing the professor of sexual harassment at the Tenure Committee, she still came back to the office of the professor twice. If she was really maligned and suffered the indignation that she was saying – a requisite of sexual harassment – she wouldn’t have come back to the place of the professor, considering that at her coming back, she was again all alone by herself.

When the credibility of a witness is sought to be impeached by proof of his reputation, it is necessary that the reputation shown should be that which existed before the occurrence of the circumstances out of which the litigation arose, or at the time of the trial and prior thereto, but not at a period remote from the commencement of the suit. This is because a person of derogatory character or reputation can still change or reform himself. (G.R. No. 132164 October 19, 2004 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vs. ALLYSON BELAGAN)

In its Resolution No. 972423 dated April 11, 1997, the CSC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration, holding that:

"The character of a woman who was the subject of a sexual assault is of minor significance in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the person accused of having committed the offense. This is so because even a prostitute or a woman of ill repute may become a victim of said offense.

As such, the fact that complainant Magdalena Gapuz is shown to have had cases before the regular courts for various offenses and was condemned by her community for wrongful behavior does not discount the possibility that she was in fact telling the truth when she cried about the lecherous advances made to her by the respondent. x x x"

Credibility means the disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony given. It refers to a person’s integrity, and to the fact that he is worthy of belief.19 A witness may be discredited by evidence attacking his general reputation for truth,20 honesty21 or integrity.22 Section 11, Rule 132 of the same Revised Rules on Evidence reads:

"SEC. 11. Impeachment of adverse party’s witness. –A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense."

In the case at bar, the character of Carol is in question. After the alleged incident of harassment (or sexual impropriety), she still came back to John’s office, the last time, in order to ask for his support – through signing - on the banning of certain books that includes his own. It is the opinion of (this court) that there is “ample evidence to show” that Carol had a motive in accusing respondent, i.e., to pressure him to ban the books presented to him.

In GR 118860 (July 17, 1997 ROLINDA B. PONO vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RAFAELITO I. CASTILLO, and SANDOZ PHILS., INC.) the Court dismissed the case of sexual harassment for lack of merit. Apparently, she was merely covering up her serious misconduct charge, an offense that merits dismissal under the Art. 282 of the Labor Code. The Court however was “not convinced that he has the quantum of evidence at hand to support the averments.” It is convinced that “Pono decided to fabricate her attempted rape story”, and this because she is “aware that she could no longer offer a reasonable justification of her continued inefficiency”.

Now, based on the CSC guidelines, stipulated above, the case at bar might only qualify for less grave offense?



XXX



Now, on the charge of rape, we cannot agree with the plaintiff that there was even a quantum of evidence that will support her averments. The charge of rape is too grave to inflict to a person who did not show clear manifestation of intention to have carnal knowledge with the plaintiff. As was said above, the charge of rape must be accompanied with clear manifestation of a series of actions that leads to carnal knowledge, or in the case of attempted rape, the attempt of the same. The accused was fully dressed on the occasion, as witnessed by the people outside the office when the plaintiff ran outside and cried for help.



For acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336, Revised Penal Code), the following is found under Section 32, Article XIII, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610 or the Child Abuse Law, defining lascivious conduct, as follows:

"[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person."

The plaintiff cannot prove without an iota of doubt that said accused has sexual motives for touching her that day. And this accusation is again made vague by her coming back to his office, alone by herself, as described in the testimony of the defense.



The inability of the plaintiff to establish sexual intent on the part of the accused renders the charges to be ineffectual even to merit a case of seduction, as provided for in Art. 337ff (Title XI, Crimes Against Chastity, Chapter 3 Seduction, Corruption of Minors and White Slave Trade).



XXX



On the charges of physical injuries, the plaintiff alleged that pain was inflicted upon her by the defendant. Now, this physical injury that she was saying did not incapacitate her in anyway. Nor did the same prevent her the offended party, from engaging in her habitual work. Nor did she require any medical attention regarding the same. In light of the foregoing, her case qualifies only for slight physical injuries, under Art. 266 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted above. Particular to this case at bar is its paragraph 2.



Now, let us consider that the penalty of the same is merely arresto menor (1 – 30 days) or a penalty of not exceeding two hundred pesos. Further, the accused is found to be performing an act that is not unlawful – trying to persuade the plaintiff to stay and sit down in order for her to be clear in things already aforementioned. Now, this action was performed not wanting of due care. Hence, the ingredients of circumstances which exempt from criminal liability are found (Art. 12, Revised Penal Code):



Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — the following are exempt from criminal liability:



…



4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.

…

An accident is an occurrence that "happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences." It connotes the absence of criminal intent. Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is shown by a person's overt acts. In the case at bar, appellant got his shotgun and returned to the kitchen to shoot his son, who had intervened in the quarrel between the former and Conchita. It must also be pointed out that the firearm was a shotgun that would not have fired off without first being cocked. Undoubtedly, appellant cocked the shotgun before discharging it, showing a clear intent to fire it at someone. (G.R. No. 140794 October 16, 2001PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RICARDO AGLIDAY Y TOLENTINO)

Now, applying the same to the case at bar, we find no intention on the part of the professor to inflict harm to Carol. He was not angry (this does not include the last scene) nor provoked to anger. As was said above, his intention to pacify Carol – a lawful act – accidentally resulted in the physical injury inflicted on her.







WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the decision of this honorable Court of Sta. Rosa City, Branch 222, in Criminal Case No. _______,



1. On the charge of Sexual Harassment in violation of the RA 7877, we find the accused NOT GUILTY;
2. On the charge of (Attempted) Rape in violation of RA 3815 Art. 266A, we find the accused NOT GUILTY;
3. On the charge of Physical Injuries, in violation of RA 3815 Art. 263-266, we find the accused NOT GUILTY.



Should the case be a Civil Service Commission case, and not a criminal case, I will add the following judgment (especially if he is a public school teacher, hence, a government employee):



HOWEVER, we find the accused guilty of Simple Misconduct, in his utterance of words that may be misinterpreted as sexual advances. This, he failed to explain and is a show of his indiscretion. Aggravating to this is the fact that he is the teacher of the plaintiff, and he should be the one to have cleared the meaning of the same to her, being the person with greater wisdom and authority.



Although there might have been other cases that can be filed against the accused, which should have been more convincing, it is not the scope of this analysis. After all, in GR 122764 - September 24, 1998 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERNESTO PEREZ, the Supreme Court said that “since the People dictate what he should be charged with, fairness demands that he should not be convicted of a crime with which he is not charged or which is not necessarily included therein.”



Second case. Carol, a tertiary level student, files a complaint against John, a professor, for sexual harassment, attempted rape and battery (this time considering the last scene)



Analysis of the additional evidences.



Most of the evidences will be the same, except for the inclusion of the incident where John repeatedly slapped Carol, and almost hit her with a chair. On the part of the prosecution, this will be added as evidences substantiating the charge of battery,



On the part of the defense, the defense will again point out that there was no rape, because Carol even came back a second time. Then also, the defense will even use the hitting incident as a proof that John had no sexual desire for Carol.



The comment of Carol “You should not call your wife baby” is a clear manifestation of her insistence on political correctness. It might be drawn from direct examination that Carol was insistent on political correctness – the comment above being a clear evidence of the same. Insistence on political correctness may substantiate the claim of the defense that indeed, Carol was merely making the words of the accused to mean something other than they were originally intended by him. Experts in the education set-up have attacked this. Scatambulo (1998) and Schultz (1993) attacked the over-insistence on political correctness, which promotes overreservedness, thus, making even the academe overly rigid and without freedom.



Issues:



1. Will there be changes in the exoneration of the accused on charges of sexual harassment in the light of the additional evidences?
2. Will there be changes in the exoneration of the accused on charges of attempted rape in the light of the additional evidences?
3. Will there be changes in the exoneration of the accused on the charges of physical injuries in the light of the additional evidences?



For sexual harassment and attempted rape, the defense will be benefited of the additional evidences. Firstly, as was already mentioned, the plaintiff’s repeated trips to the office of the accused, all by herself, despite the charges of sexual advances and attempted rape, raises the doubts of the veracity of her claims for damages. She wouldn’t have repeatedly risked being alone with the man who sexually molested her.



Now, the prosecution might also use the beating incident as evidence to what kind of character the professor has. That he, while in closed doors, is capable of doing actions that are unbecoming of a person of dignity. It might even be showed that such actions are the result of her filing a rape case, and that the professor was angry because he found out of the charge. The defense on the other hand will excuse itself by telling the court of the circumstances surrounding the beating, and what the professor was feeling at that time. That he was provoked repeatedly by the plaintiff with her insistence of political correctness – the very reason why he has lost his job, tenure and his house. When his wife called him, for him, it was a manifestation of the only good thing he has left. Now, when Carol intruded again with her political correctness issue of not calling his wife baby, he flared up. This might save him from character assassination – that he is not a mad man, or a usual perpetrator of crime; that he was merely provoked to anger by the circumstances surrounding him that day, and the provocation of the plaintiff.



On the charge of physical injuries, the plaintiff will bank on the prima facie evidence – the professor repeatedly hit her, and even attempted to hit her with a chair. Considering the provisions of the Penal Code on physical injuries, and the damages on the plaintiff, the charge will not go graver than slight physical injuries. The next article (265) on Less Serious Physical Injuries requires that the physical injuries … “shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or shall require medical attendance for the same period”. In the event of the same, the plaintiff may charge the accused with Less Serious Physical Injuries, under Art 265 of the Revised Penal Code in order to seek a graver penalty of Arresto Mayor, for the latter.

Now, there is no unlawful aggression to justify the action of the professor. "For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude (People v. Rey, 172 SCRA 149 (1989)) and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression." (People v. Literado, 209 SCRA 319 (1992)). (in G.R. No. 109814 July 8, 1997 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FERNANDO MAALAT y FAJARDO)

Now, should the plaintiff produces the necessary requirements – medical records to substantiate a claim for a stiffer penalty – the accused will be guilty of Less Serious Physical Injuries. The accused, further, cannot find justifying or mitigating circumstances for his actions. Wherefore, considering the light of the above arguments and scrutiny of the same, this will make him GUILTY of less physical injuries, and may suffer the penalty of ARRESTO MAYOR, in its minimum term (1-2 months).



However, should the plaintiff fail to produce medical evidences of her incapacity of the required term, the accused will be charged of the same violation of the Article 266, Slight Physical Injuries. Again, the accused will be unable to find justifying or mitigating circumstances for his actions. Wherefore, considering the above arguments and scrutiny of the evidences, the accused will be GUILTY of slight physical injuries, and may suffer the penalty of ARRESTO MENOR (1-30days) or a fine of 200 pesos, and censure if the aggrieved party was not incapacitated by the action.



Wherefore, the fact that he was a first-time offender, the accused can avoid the punitive requirement of the penalty, by applying for probation under the Probation Law:

“Under Section 9 of the Probation Law, the offenders disqualified from availing of the benefits of the Probation Law are the following:

(a) those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years;

(b) those convicted of any offense against the security of the State;

(c) those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than two hundred pesos;

(b) those who have been once on probation under the provisions of the decree; and

(e) those who were already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of the decree became applicable, pursuant to Section 33.

“It is undisputed that petitioner is not a disqualified offender under the above section. That the offended party was the president of the association of barangay captains and that he was 60 years old at the time of the incident hardly justify the inference that the grant of probation would depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed. Indeed, such conclusion contradicts the very finding of the trial court that the offense committed by the accused was not attended by any aggravating circumstance. The petitioner is a first-time offender. According to the trial court, the petitioner, a school teacher, was drunk at the time of the incident. Such state of intoxication undoubtedly affected his mental faculties and diminished his capacity to understand the consequences of his act. It is significant that the trial court found no evidence to prove that such drunkenness on the part of the accused was habitual or intentional. Upon this premise, a deviation from the policy of liberality in the application of the Probation Law is not justified in the instant case. As this Court said in Santos v. Paño. 3

The purpose of probation, what the law gives more importance to is the offender, not the crime. The inquiry is more on whether probation wig help the offender along the fines for which the probation system has been established, such as giving the first-time offender a second chance to maintain his place in society through a process of reformation, which is better achieved, at least as to one who has not committed a very serious offense, when he is not mixed with hardened criminals in an atmosphere not conducive to soul-searching as within prison wails. The consciousness of the State's benignity in giving him that second chance to continue in peaceful and cordial association with his fellowmen will advance, rather than retard, the process of reformation in him. “

(G.R. No. L-60892 December 12, 1985 MANUEL ATIENZA vs. CA)

In this case at bar, the more the professor has eligibility for probation (Under PD 968, as amended by PD 1990), since his charge is a slight felony that is punished by a light penalty (arresto menor).





References:



* Drobac, Jennifer Ann. (2005). Sexual Harassment Law: History, Cases and Theory Carolina Academic Press: Durham, North Carolina.
* MacKinnon, Catharine A. and Reva B. Siegel, eds.,. Directions in Sexual Harassment Law. New Haven, Yale University Press, 2003.
* MacKinnon, Catharine A. Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1979.
* Pellicciotti, Joseph M. Title VII Iiability for sexual harassment in the workplace. Alexandria, Va. International Personnel Management Association, 1988.
* Scatamburlo, Valerie L. 1998. Soldiers of Misfortune: The New Right's Culture War and the Politics of Political Correctness. Counterpoints series, Vol. 25. New York: Peter Lang.
* Schultz, Debra L. (1993). To Reclaim a Legacy of Diversity: Analyzing the "Political Correctness" Debates in Higher Education. New York: National Council for Research on Women.
* University of the Philippines, http://up.edu.ph “Policy on Sexual Harassment”
* Watson, Helen. "Red herrings and mystifications: Conflicting perceptions of sexual harassment," in Brant, Clare, and Too, Yun Lee, eds., Rethinking Sexual Harassment. Boulder, Colorado, Pluto Press, 1994.
* Wikipedia, free online encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment
*





APPENDICES



I. The Song Oleanna (1957) from which David Mamet derived the play’s title.



OLEANNA
(Translation from the Norwegian by Pete Seeger)

Ole, oleanna, ole, oleanna
ole, ole, ole, ole, ole, oleanna

Oh to be in Oleanna,
that's where I'd like to be
Than to be in Norway
and bear the chains of slavery

Little roasted piggies
rush around the city streets
Inquiring so politely
if a slice of ham you'd like to eat

Beer as sweet as muncheners
springs from the ground and flows away
The cows all like to milk themselves
And the hens lay eggs ten times a day
The women there do all the work
As round the fields they quickly go
Each one has a hickory stick
And beats herself if she works too slow

In Oleanna land is free
The wheat and corn just plant themselves
Then grow a good four feet a day
While on your bed you rest yourself





II. RA 7877. Sexual Harassment Law.



Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro, Manila



Third Regular Session

Begun and held in Metro, Manila, on Monday, the twenty- fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and ninety–four.

____



REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7877

AN ACT DECLARING SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNLAWFUL IN THE EMPLOYMENT, EDUACATION OR TRAINING ENVIRONMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Title. – This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995."

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. – The State shall value the dignity of every individual, enhance the development of it human resources, guarantee full respect for human rights, and uphold the dignity of workers, employees, applicants for employment, students or those undergoing training, instruction or education. Towards this end, all forms of sexual harassment in the employment, education or training environment are hereby declared unlawful.

Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined. – Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.

(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when:

(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in a way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;

(2) The above acts would impair the employee’s rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or

(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.

(b) In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is committed:

(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the offender;

(2) Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the offender;

(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a passing grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships, or the payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or considerations; or

(4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.

Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment as herein defined, or who cooperates in the commission thereof by another without which it would not have been committed, shall also be held liable under this Act.

Sec.4. Duty of the Employer or Head of Office in a Work-related, Education or Training Environment. – It shall be the duty of the employer or the head of the work-related, educational or training environment or institution, to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment and to provide the procedures for the resolution, settlement or prosecution of acts of sexual harassment. Towards this end, the employer or head of office shall:

(a) Promulgate appropriate rules and regulations in consultation with the jointly approved by the employees or students or trainees, through their duly designated representatives, prescribing the procedure for the investigation or sexual harassment cases and the administrative sanctions therefor.

Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar to prosecution in the proper courts for unlawful acts of sexual harassment.

The said rules and regulations issued pursuant to this section (a) shall include, among others, guidelines on proper decorum in the workplace and educational or training institutions.

(c) Create a committee on decorum and investigation of cases on sexual harassment. The committee shall conduct meetings, as the case may be, with other officers and employees, teachers, instructors, professors, coaches, trainors and students or trainees to increase understanding and prevent incidents of sexual harassment. It shall also conduct the investigation of the alleged cases constituting sexual harassment.

In the case of a work-related environment, the committee shall be composed of at least one (1) representative each from the management, the union, if any, the employees from the supervisory rank, and from the rank and file employees.

In the case of the educational or training institution, the committee shall be composed of at least one (1) representative from the administration, the trainors, teachers, instructors, professors or coaches and students or trainees, as the case maybe.

"The employer or head of office, educational or training institution shall disseminate or post a copy of this Act for the information of all concerned.

Sec. 5. Liability of the Employer, Head of Office, Educational or Training Institution. – The employer or head of office, educational training institution shall be solidarily liable for damage arising from the acts of sexual harassment committed in the employment, education or training environment if the employer or head of office, educational or training institution is informed of such acts by the offended party and no immediate action is taken thereon.

Sec. 6. Independent Action for Damages. – Nothing in this Act shall preclude the victim of work, education or training-related sexual harassment from instituting a separate and independent action for damages and other affirmative relief.

Sec. 7. Penalties. – Any person who violates the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be penalized by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6) months, or a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000) nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000), or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

Any action arising from the violation of the provision of this Act shall prescribe in three (3) years.

Sec. 8. Separability Clause – If any portion or provision of this Act is declared void and unconstitutional, the remaining portions or provisions hereof shall not be affected by such declaration.

Sec.9. Repealing Clause. – All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, other issuances, or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Sec.10. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) national newspaper of general circulation.

Approved,



EDGARDO J. ANGARA


JOSE DE VENECIA, JR.

President of Senate


Speaker of the House




of Representatives



` This Act which is a consolidation of House Bill NO. 9425 and Senate Bill 1632 was finally passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate on February 8, 1995.



EDGARDO E. TUMANGAN


CAMILO L. SABIO

Secretary of the Senate


Secretary General




House of Representatives



Approved : Feb 14, 1995



FIDEL V. RAMOS
President of the Philippines


Appendix III.

OLEANNA, full script
http://staff.bcc.edu/jalexand/Mamet--Oleanna.htm#TWO



a play by

DAVID MAMET

© 1992



Act One

Act Two

Act Three



ONE



JOHN is talking on the phone. CAROL is seated across the desk from him.



JOHN (on phone): And what about the land. (Pause) The land. And what about the land? (Pause) What about it? (Pause) No. I don’t understand. Well, yes, I’m I’m … no, I’m sure it’s signif … I’m sure it’s significant. (Pause) Because it’s significant to mmmmmm … did you call Jerry? (Pause) Because … no, no, no, no, no. What did they say…? Did you speak to the real estate … where is she…? Well, well, all right. Where are her notes? Where are the notes we took with her. (Pause) I thought you were? No. No, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean that, I just thought that I saw you, when we were there … what…? I thought I saw you with a pencil. WHY NOW? Is what I’m say … well, that’s why I say “call Jerry.” Well, I can’t right now, be … no, I didn’t schedule any … Grace: I didn’t … I’m well aware … Look: Look. Did you call Jerry? Will you call Jerry…? Because I can’t now. I’ll be there, I’m sure I’ll be there in fifteen, in twenty. I intend to. No, we aren’t going to lose the, we aren’t going to lose the house. Look: look, I’m not minimizing it. The “easement.” Did she say “easement”? (Pause) What did she say; is it a “term of art,” are we bound by it … I’m sorry … (Pause) are: we: yes. Bound by … Look: (He checks his watch.) before the other side goes home, all right? “a term of art.” Because: that’s right (Pause) The yard for the boy. Well, that’s the whole … Look: I’m going to meet you there … (He checks his watch.) Is the realtor there? All right, tell her to show you the basement again. Look at the this because … Bec … I’m leaving in, I’m leaving in ten or fifteen … Yes. No, no, I’ll meet you at the new … That’s a good. If he thinks it’s necc … you tell Jerry to meet … All right? We aren’t going to lose the deposit. All right? I’m sure it’s going to be … (Pause) I hope so. (Pause) I love you, too. (Pause) I love you, too. As soon as … I will.

(He hangs up.) (He bends over the desk and makes a note.) (He looks up.) (To CAROL:) I’m sorry…



CAROL: (Pause) What is a “term of art”?



JOHN: (Pause) I’m sorry…?



CAROL: (Pause) What is a “term of art”?



JOHN: Is that what you want to talk about?



CAROL: …to talk about…?



JOHN: Let’s take the mysticism out of it, shall we? Carol? (Pause) Don’t you think? I’ll tell you: when you have some “thing.” Which must be broached. (Pause) Don’t you think…? (Pause)



CAROL: …don’t I think…?



JOHN: Mmm?


CAROL: …did I…?



JOHN: …what?



CAROL: Did … did I … did I say something wr…



JOHN: (Pause) No. I’m sorry. No. You’re right. I’m very sorry. I’m somewhat rushed. As you see. I’m sorry. You’re right. (Pause) What is a “term of art”? It seems to mean a term, which has come, through its use, to mean something more specific than the words would, to someone not acquainted with them … indicate. That, I believe, is what a “term of art,” would mean. (Pause)



CAROL: You don’t know what it means…?



JOHN: I’m not sure that I know what it means. It’s one of those things, perhaps you’ve had them, that, you look them up, or have someone explain them to you, and you say “aha,” and, you immediately forget what…



CAROL: You don’t do that.



JOHN: …I…?



CAROL: You don’t do…



JOHN: …I don’t, what…?



CAROL: …for…



JOHN: …I don’t for…



CAROL: …no…



JOHN: …forget things? Everybody does that.



CAROL: No, they don’t.



JOHN: They don’t…



CAROL: No.



JOHN: (Pause) No. Everybody does that.



CAROL: Why would they do that…?



JOHN: Because. I don’t know. Because it doesn’t interest them.



CAROL: No.



JOHN: I think so, though. (Pause) I’m sorry that I was distracted.



CAROL: You don’t have to say that to me.



JOHN: You paid me the compliment, or the “obeisance” – all right – of coming in here … All right. Carol. I find that I am at a standstill. I find that I…



CAROL: …what…



JOHN: …one moment. In regard to your … to your…



CAROL: Oh, oh. You’re buying a new house!



JOHN: No, let’s get on with it.



CAROL: “get on”? (Pause)



JOHN: I know how … believe me. I know how … potentially humiliating these … I have no desire to … I have no desire other than to help you. But: (He picks up some papers on his desk.) I won’t even say “but.” I’ll say that as I go back over the…



CAROL: I’m just, I’m just trying to…



JOHN: …no, it will not do.



CAROL: …what? What will…?



JOHN: No. I see, I see what you, it… (He gestures to the papers.) but your work…



CAROL: I’m just: I sit in class I… (She holds up her notebook.) I take notes…



JOHN (simultaneously with “notes”): Yes, I understand. What I am trying to tell you is that some, some basic…



CAROL: …I…



JOHN: …one moment: some basic missed communi…



CAROL: I’m doing what I’m told. I bought your book, I read your…



JOHN: No, I’m sure you…



CAROL: No, no, no. I’m doing what I’m told. It’s difficult for me. It’s difficult…



JOHN: …but…



CAROL: I don’t … lots of the language…



JOHN: …please…



CAROL: The language, the “things” that you say…



JOHN: I’m sorry. No. I don’t think that that’s true.



CAROL: It is true. I…



JOHN: I think…



CAROL: It is true.



JOHN: …I…



CAROL: Why would I…?



JOHN: I’ll tell you why: you’re an incredibly bright girl.



CAROL: …I…



JOHN: You’re an incredibly … you have no problem with the … Who’s kidding who?



CAROL: …I…



JOHN: No. No. I’ll tell you why. I’ll tell … I think you’re angry, I…



CAROL: …why would I…



JOHN: …wait one moment. I…



CAROL: It is true. I have problems…



JOHN: …every…



CAROL: …I come from a different social…



JOHN: …ev….



CAROL: a different economic…



JOHN: …Look:



CAROL: No. I: when I came to this school:



JOHN: Yes. Quite… (Pause)



CAROL: …does that mean nothing…?



JOHN: …but look: look…



CAROL: …I…



JOHN: (Picks up paper.) Here: Please: Sit down. (Pause) Sit down. (Reads from her paper.) “I think that the ideas contained in this work express the author’s feelings in a way that he intended, based on his results.” What can that mean? Do you see? What…



CAROL: I, the best that I…



JOHN: I’m saying, that perhaps this course…



CAROL: No, no, no, you can’t, you can’t … I have to…



JOHN: …how…



CAROL: …I have to pass it…



JOHN: Carol, I:



CAROL: I have to pass this course, I…



JOHN: Well.



CAROL: …don’t you…



JOHN: Either the…



CAROL: …I…



JOHN: …either the, I … either the criteria for judging progress in the class are…



CAROL: No, no, no, no, I have to pass it.



JOHN: Now, look: I’m a human being, I…



CAROL: I did what you told me. I did, I did everything that, I read your book, you told me to buy your book and read it. Everything you say I… (She gestures to her notebook.) (The phone rings.) I do. …Ev…


JOHN: …look:



CAROL: …everything I’m told…



JOHN: Look. Look. I’m not your father. (Pause)



CAROL: What?



JOHN: I’m.



CAROL: Did I say you were my father?



JOHN: …no…



CAROL: Why did you say that…?



JOHN: I…



CAROL: …why…?



JOHN: …in class I… (He picks up the phone.) (Into phone:) Hello. I can’t talk now. Jerry? Yes? I underst … I can’t talk now. I know … I know … Jerry. I can’t talk now. Yes, I. Call me back in … Thank you. (He hangs up.) (To CAROL:) What do you want me to do? We are two people, all right? Both of whom have subscribed to…



CAROL: No, no…



JOHN: …certain arbitrary…



CAROL: No. You have to help me.



JOHN: Certain institutional … you tell me what you want me to do … You tell me what you want me to…



CAROL: How can I go back and tell them the grades that I…



JOHN: …what can I do…?



CAROL: Teach me. Teach me.



JOHN: …I’m trying to teach you.



CAROL: I read your book. I read it. I don’t under…



JOHN: …you don’t understand it.



CAROL: No.



JOHN: Well, perhaps it’s not well written…



CAROL (simultaneously with “written”): No. No. No. I want to understand it.



JOHN: What don’t you understand? (Pause)



CAROL: Any of it. What you’re trying to say. When you talk about…



JOHN: …yes…? (She consults her notes.)



CAROL: “Virtual warehousing of the young”…



JOHN: “Virtual warehousing of the young.” If we artificially prolong adolescence…



CAROL: …and about “The Curse of Modern Education.”



JOHN: …well…



CAROL: I don’t…



JOHN: Look. It’s just a course, it’s just a book, it’s just a…



CAROL: No. No. There are people out there. People who came here. To know something they didn’t know. Who came here. To be helped. To be helped. So someone would help them. To do something. To know something. To get, what do they say? “To get on in the world.” How can I do that if I don’t, if I fail? But I don’t understand. I don’t understand. I don’t understand what anything means … and I walk around. From morning ‘til night: with this one thought in my head. I’m stupid.



JOHN: No one thinks you’re stupid.



CAROL: No? What am I…?



JOHN: I…



CAROL: …what am I, then?



JOHN: I think you’re angry. Many people are. I have a telephone call that I have to make. And an appointment, which is rather pressing; though I sympathize with your concerns, and though I wish I had the time, this was not a previously scheduled meeting and I…



CAROL: …you think I’m nothing…



JOHN: …have an appointment with a realtor, and with my wife and…



CAROL: You think that I’m stupid.



JOHN: No. I certainly don’t.



CAROL: You said it.



JOHN: No. I did not.



CAROL: You did.



JOHN: When?



CAROL: …you…



JOHN: No. I never did, or never would say that to a student, and…



CAROL: You said, “What can that mean?” (Pause) “What can that mean” … (Pause)



JOHN: …and what did that mean to you…?



CAROL: That meant I’m stupid. And I’ll never learn. That’s what that meant. And you’re right.



JOHN …I…



CAROL: But then. But then, what am I doing here…?



JOHN: …if you thought that I…



CAROL: …when nobody wants me, and…



JOHN: …if you interpreted…



CAROL: Nobody tells me anything. And I sit there … in the corner. In the back. And everybody’s talking about “this” all the time. And “concepts,” and “precepts” and, and, and, and, and, WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? And I read your book. And they said, “Fine, go in that class.” Because you talked about responsibility to the young. I DON’T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS AND I’M FAILING…



JOHN: May…



CAROL: No, you’re right. “Oh, hell.” I failed. Flunk me out of it. It’s garbage. Everything I do. “The ideas contained in this work express the author’s feelings.” That’s right. That’s right. I know I’m stupid. I know what I am. (Pause) I know what I am, Professor. You don’t have to tell me. (Pause) It’s pathetic. Isn’t it?



JOHN: …Aha… (Pause) Sit down. Sit down. Please. (Pause) Please sit down.



CAROL: Why?



JOHN: I want to talk to you.



CAROL: Why?



JOHN: Just sit down. (Pause) Please. Sit down. Will you, please…? (Pause. She does so.) Thank you.



CAROL: What?



JOHN: I want to tell you something.



CAROL: (Pause) What?



JOHN: Well, I know what you’re talking about.



CAROL: No. You don’t.



JOHN: I think I do. (Pause)



CAROL: How can you?



JOHN: I’ll tell you a story about myself. (Pause) Do you mind? (Pause) I was raised to think myself stupid. That’s what I want to tell you. (Pause)



CAROL: What do you mean?



JOHN: Just what I said. I was brought up, and my earliest, and most persistent memories are of being told that I was stupid. “You have such intelligence. Why must you behave so stupidly?” Or, “Can’t you understand? Can’t you understand?” And I could not understand. I could not understand.



CAROL: What?



JOHN: The simplest problem. Was beyond me. It was a mystery.



CAROL: What was a mystery?



JOHN: How people learn. How I could learn. Which is what I’ve been speaking of in class. And of course you can’t hear it. Carol. Of course you can’t. (Pause) I used to speak of “real people,” and wonder what the real people did. The real people. Who were they? They were the people other than myself. The good people. The capable people. The people who could do the things, I could not do: learn, study, retain … all that garbage – which is what I have been talking of in class, and that’s exactly what I have been talking of – If you are told … Listen to this. If the young child is told he cannot understand. Then he takes it as a description of himself. What am I? I am that which can not understand. And I saw you out there, when we were speaking of the concepts of…



CAROL: I can’t understand any of them.



JOHN: Well, then, that’s my fault. That’s not your fault. And that is not verbiage. That’s what I firmly hold to be the truth. And I am sorry, and I owe you an apology.



CAROL: Why?



JOHN: And I suppose that I have had some things on my mind. … We’re buying a house, and…



CAROL: People said that you were stupid…?



JOHN: Yes.



CAROL: When?



JOHN: I’ll tell you when. Through my life. In my childhood; and, perhaps, they stopped. But I heard them continue.



CAROL: And what did they say?



JOHN: They said I was incompetent. Do you see? And when I’m tested the, the, the feelings of my youth about the very subject of learning come up. And I … I become, I feel “unworthy,” and “unprepared.” …



CAROL: …yes.



JOHN: …eh?



CAROL: …yes.



JOHN: And I feel that I must fail. (Pause)



CAROL: …but then you do fail. (Pause) You have to. (Pause) Don’t you?



JOHN: A pilot. Flying a plane. The pilot is flying the plane. He thinks: Oh, my God, my mind’s been drifting! Oh, my God! What kind of a cursed imbecile am I, that I, with this so precious cargo of Life in my charge, would allow my attention to wander. Why was I born? How deluded are those who put their trust in me, … et cetera, so on, and he crashes the plane.



CAROL: (Pause) He could just…



JOHN: That’s right.



CAROL: He could say:



JOHN: My attention wandered for a moment…



CAROL: …uh huh…



JOHN: I had a thought I did not like … but now:



CAROL: …but now it’s…



JOHN: That’s what I’m telling you. It’s time to put my attention … see: it is not: this is what I learned. It is Not Magic. Yes. Yes. You. You are going to be frightened. When faced with what may or may not be but which you are going to perceive as a test. You will become frightened. And you will say: “I am incapable of…” and everything in you will think these two things. “I must. But I can’t.” And you will think: Why was I born to be the laughingstock of a world in which everyone is better than I? In which I am entitled to nothing. Where I can not learn.



(Pause)



CAROL: Is that… (Pause) Is that what I have…?



JOHN: Well. I don’t know if I’d put it that way. Listen: I’m talking to you as I’d talk to my son. Because that’s what I’d like him to have that I never had. I’m talking to you the way I wish that someone had talked to me. I don’t know how to do it, other than to be personal, …but…



CAROL: Why would you want to be personal with me?



JOHN: Well, you see? That’s what I’m saying. We can only interpret the behavior of others through the screen we… (The phone rings.) Through… (To phone:) Hello…? (To CAROL:) Through the screen we create. (To phone:) Hello. (To CAROL:) Excuse me a moment. (To phone:) Hello? No, I can’t talk nnn … I know I did. In a few … I’m … is he coming to the … yes. I talked to him. We’ll meet you at the No, because I’m with a student. It’s going to be fff… This is important, too. I’m with a student, Jerry’s going to… Listen: the sooner I get off, the sooner I’ll be down, all right. I love you. Listen, listen, I said “I love you,” it’s going to work out with the, because I feel that it is, I’ll be right down. All right? Well, then it’s going to take as long as it takes. (He hangs up.) (To CAROL:) I’m sorry.



CAROL: What was that?



JOHN: There are some problems, as there usually are, about the final agreements for the new house.



CAROL: You’re buying a new house.



JOHN: That’s right.



CAROL: Because of your promotion.



JOHN: Well, I suppose that that’s right.



CAROL: Why did you stay here with me?



JOHN: Stay here.



CAROL: Yes. When you should have gone.



JOHN: Because I like you.



CAROL: You like me.



JOHN: Yes.



CAROL: Why?



JOHN: Why? Well? Perhaps we’re similar. (Pause) Yes. (Pause)



CAROL: You said “everyone has problems.”



JOHN: Everyone has problems.



CAROL: Do they?



JOHN: Certainly.



CAROL: You do?



JOHN: Yes.



CAROL: What are they?



JOHN: Well. (Pause) Well, you’re perfectly right. (Pause) 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? Of course I have problems. As you saw.



CAROL: …with what?



JOHN: With my wife … with work…



CAROL: With work?



JOHN: Yes. And, and, perhaps my problems are, do you see? Similar to yours.



CAROL: Would you tell me?



JOHN: All right. (Pause) I came late to teaching. And I found it Artificial. The notion of “I know and you do not”; and I saw an exploitation in the education process. I told you. I hated school, I hated teachers. I hated everyone who was in the position of a “boss” because I knew – I didn’t think, mind you, I knew I was going to fail. Because I was a fuckup. I was just no goddamned good. When I … late in life … (Pause) When I got out from under … when I worked my way out of the need to fail. When I…



CAROL: How do you do that? (Pause)



JOHN: You have to look at what you are, and what you feel, and how you act. And, finally, you have to look at how you act. And say: If that’s what I did, that must be how I think of myself.



CAROL: I don’t understand.



JOHN: If I fail all the time, it must be that I think of myself as a failure. If I do not want to think of myself as a failure, perhaps I should begin by succeeding now and again. Look. The tests, you see, which you encounter, in school, in college, in life, were designed, in the most part, for idiots. By idiots. There is no need to fail at them. They are not a test of your worth. They are a test of your ability to retain and spout back misinformation. Of course you fail them. They’re nonsense. And I…



CAROL: …no…



JOHN: Yes. They’re garbage. They’re a joke. Look at me. Look at me. The Tenure Committee. The Tenure Committee. Come to judge me. The Bad Tenure Committee.



The “Test.” Do you see? They put me to the test. Why, they had people voting on me I wouldn’t employ to wax my car. And yet, I go before the Great Tenure Committee, and I have an urge, to vomit, to, to, to puke my badness on the table, to show them: “I’m not good. Why would you pick me?”



CAROL: They granted you tenure.



JOHN: Oh no, they announced it, but they haven’t signed. Do you see? “At any moment…”



CAROL: …mmm…



JOHN: “They might not sign” … I might not … the house might not go through … Eh? Eh? They’ll find out my “dark secret.” (Pause)



CAROL: …what is it…?



JOHN: There isn’t one. But they will find an index of my badness…



CAROL: Index?



JOHN: A “…pointer.” A “Pointer.” You see? Do you see? I understand you. I. Know. That. Feeling. Am I entitled to my job, and my nice home, and my wife, and my family, and so on. This is what I’m saying: That theory of education which, that theory:



CAROL: I… I… (Pause)



JOHN: What?



CAROL: I…



JOHN: What?



CAROL: I want to know about my grade. (Long pause)



JOHN: Of course you do.



CAROL: Is that bad?



JOHN: No.



CAROL: Is it bad that I asked you that?



JOHN: No.



CAROL: Did I upset you?



JOHN: No. And I apologize. Of course you want to know about your grade. And, of course, you can’t concentrate on anyth… (The telephone starts to ring.) Wait a moment.



CAROL: I should go.



JOHN: I’ll make you a deal.



CAROL: No, you have to…



JOHN: Let it ring. I’ll make you a deal. You stay here. We’ll start the whole course over. I’m going to say it was not you, it was I who was not paying attention. We’ll start the whole course over. Your grade is an “A.” Your final grade is an “A.” (The phone stops ringing.)



CAROL: But the class is only half over…



JOHN (simultaneously with “over”): Your grade for the whole term is an “A.” If you will come back and meet with me. A few more times. Your grade’s an “A.” Forget about the paper. You didn’t like it, you didn’t like writing it. It’s not important. What’s important is that I awake your interest, if I can, and that I answer your questions. Let’s start over. (Pause)



CAROL: Over. With what?



JOHN: Say this is the beginning.



CAROL: The beginning.



JOHN: Yes.



CAROL: Of what?



JOHN: Of the class.



CAROL: But we can’t start over.



JOHN: I say we can. (Pause) I say we can.



CAROL: But I don’t believe it.



JOHN: Yes, I know that. But it’s true. What is The Class but you and me? (Pause)



CAROL: There are rules.



JOHN: Well. We’ll break them.



CAROL: How can we?



JOHN: We won’t tell anybody.



CAROL: Is that all right?



JOHN: I say that it’s fine.



CAROL: Why would you do this for me?



JOHN: I like you. Is that so difficult for you to…



CAROL: Um…



JOHN: There’s no one here but you and me. (Pause)



CAROL: All right. I did not understand. When you referred…



JOHN: All right, yes?



CAROL: When you referred to hazing.



JOHN: Hazing.



CAROL: You wrote, in your book. About the comparative … in the comparative … (She checks her notes.)



JOHN: Are you checking your notes…?



CAROL: Yes.



JOHN: Tell me in your own…



CAROL: I want to make sure that I have it right.



JOHN: No. Of course. You want to be exact.



CAROL: I want to know everything that went on.



JOHN: …that’s good.



CAROL: …so I…



JOHN: That’s very good. But I was suggesting, many times, that that which we wish to retain is retained oftentimes, I think, better with less expenditure of effort.



CAROL: (Of notes) Here it is: you wrote of hazing.



JOHN: …that’s correct. Now: I said “hazing.” It means ritualized annoyance. We shove this book at you, we say read it. Now, you say you’ve read it? I think that you’re lying. I’ll grill you, and when I find you’ve lied, you’ll be disgraced, and your life will be ruined. It’s a sick game. Why do we do it? Does it educate? In no sense. Well, then, what is higher education? It is something-other-than-useful.



CAROL: What is “something-other-than-useful?”



JOHN: It has become a ritual, it has become an article of faith. That all must be subjected to, or to put it differently, that all are entitled to Higher Education. And my point…



CAROL: You disagree with that?



JOHN: Well, let’s address that. What do you think?



CAROL: I don’t know



JOHN: What do you think, though? (Pause)



CAROL: I don’t know.



JOHN: I spoke of it in class. Do you remember my example?



CAROL: Justice.



JOHN: Yes. Can you repeat it to me? (She looks down at her notebook.) Without your notes? I ask you as a favor to me, so that I can see if my idea was interesting.



CAROL: You said “justice”…



JOHN: Yes?



CAROL: …that all are entitled … (Pause) I … I … I …



JOHN: Yes. To a speedy trial. To a fair trial. But they needn’t be given a trial at all unless they stand accused. Eh? Justice is their right, should they choose to avail themselves of it, they should have a fair trial. It does not follow, of necessity, a person’s life is incomplete without a trial in it. Do you see?



My point is a confusion between equity and utility arose. So we confound the usefulness of higher education with our, granted, right to equal access to the same. We, in effect, create a prejudice toward it, completely independent of…



CAROL: …that it is prejudice that we should go to school?



JOHN: Exactly. (Pause)



CAROL: How can you say that? How…



JOHN: Good. Good. Good. That’s right! Speak up! What is a prejudice? An unreasoned belief. We are all subject to it. None of us is not. When it is threatened, or opposed, we feel anger, and feel, do we not? As you do now. Do you not? Good.



CAROL: …but how can you…



JOHN: …let us examine. Good.



CAROL: How…



JOHN: Good. Good. When…



CAROL: I’M SPEAKING… (Pause)



JOHN: I’m sorry.



CAROL: How can you…



JOHN: …I beg your pardon.



CAROL: That’s all right.



JOHN: I beg your pardon.



CAROL: That’s all right.



JOHN: I’m sorry I interrupted you.



CAROL: That’s all right.



JOHN: You were saying?



CAROL: I was saying … I was saying … (She checks her notes.) How can you say in a class. Say in a college class, that college education is prejudice?



JOHN: I said that our predilection for it…



CAROL: Predilection…



JOHN: …you know what that means.



CAROL: Does it mean “liking”?



JOHN: Yes.



CAROL: But how can you say that? That College…



JOHN: …that’s my job, don’t you know.



CAROL: What is?



JOHN: To provoke you.



CAROL: No.



JOHN: Oh. Yes, though.



CAROL: To provoke me?



JOHN: That’s right.



CAROL: To make me mad?



JOHN: That’s right. To force you…



CAROL: …to make me mad is your job?



JOHN: To force you to … listen: (Pause) Ah. (Pause) When I was young somebody told me, are you ready, the rich copulate less often than the poor. But when they do, they take more of their clothes off. Years. Years, mind you, I would compare experiences of my own to this dictum, saying, aha, that fits the norm, or ah, this is a variation from it. What did it mean? Nothing. It was some jerk thing, some school kid told me that took up room inside my head. (Pause)



Somebody 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 not those the very things which we should question? I say college education, since the war, has become so a matter of course, and such a fashionable necessity, for those either of or aspiring to to the new vast middle class, that we espouse it, as a matter of right, and have ceased to ask, “What is it good for?” (Pause)



What might be some reasons for pursuit of higher education?

One: A love of learning.

Two: The wish for mastery of a skill.

Three: For economic betterment.

(Stops. Makes a note.)



CAROL: I’m keeping you.



JOHN: One moment. I have to make a note…



CAROL: It’s something that I said?



JOHN: No, we’re buying a house.



CAROL: You’re buying the new house.



JOHN: To go with the tenure. That’s right. Nice house, close to the private school… (He continues making his note.) … We were talking of economic betterment (CAROL writes in her notebook.) … I was thinking of the School Tax. (He continues writing.) (To himself:) … where is it written that I have to send my child to public school. … Is it a law that I have to improve the City Schools at the expense of my own interest? And, is this not simply The White Man’s Burden? Good. And (Looks up to CAROL) … does this interest you?



CAROL: No. I’m taking notes…



JOHN: You don’t have to take notes, you know, you can just listen.



CAROL: I want to make sure I remember it. (Pause)



JOHN: I’m not lecturing you, I’m just trying to tell you some things I think.



CAROL: What do you think?



JOHN: Should all kids go to college? Why…



CAROL: (Pause) To learn.



JOHN: But if he does not learn.



CAROL: If the child does not learn?



JOHN: Then why is he in college? Because he was told it was his “right”?



CAROL: Some might find college instructive.



JOHN: I would hope so.



CAROL: But how do they feel? Being told they are wasting their time?



JOHN: I don’t think I’m telling them that.



CAROL: You said that education was “prolonged and systematic hazing.”



JOHN: Yes. It can be so.



CAROL: …if education is so bad, why do you do it?



JOHN: I do it because I love it. (Pause) Let’s … I suggest you look at the demographics, wage-earning capacity, college- and non-college-educated men and women, 1855 to 1980, and let’s see if we can wring some worth from the statistics. Eh? And…



CAROL: No.



JOHN: What?



CAROL: I can’t understand them.



JOHN: …you…?



CAROL: …the “charts.” The Concepts, the…



JOHN: “Charts” are simply…



CAROL: When I leave here…



JOHN: Charts, do you see…



CAROL: No, I can’t…



JOHN: You can, though.



CAROL: NO, NO – I DON’T UNDERSTAND. DO YOU SEE??? I DON’T UNDERSTAND…



JOHN: What?



CAROL: Any of it. Any of it. I’m smiling in class, I’m smiling, the whole time. What are you talking about? What is everyone talking about? I don’t understand. I don’t know what it means. I don’t know what it means to be here … you tell me I’m intelligent, and then you tell me I should not be here, what do you want with me? What does it mean? Who should I listen to … I …

(He goes over to her and puts his arm around her shoulder.)

NO! (She walks away from him.)



JOHN: Sshhhh.



CAROL: No, I don’t under…



JOHN: Sshhhhh.



CAROL: I don’t know what you’re saying…



JOHN: Sshhhhh. It’s all right.



CAROL: …I have no…



JOHN: Sshhhhh. Sshhhhh. Let it go a moment. (Pause) Sshhhh … let it go. (Pause) Just let it go. (Pause) Just let it go. It’s all right. (Pause) Sshhhhh. (Pause) I understand … (Pause) What do you feel?



CAROL: I feel bad.



JOHN: I know. It’s all right.



CAROL: I… (Pause)



JOHN: What?



CAROL: I…



JOHN: What? Tell me.



CAROL: I don’t understand you.



JOHN: I know. It’s all right.



CAROL: I…



JOHN: What? (Pause) What? Tell me.



CAROL: I can’t tell you.



JOHN: No, you must.



CAROL: I can’t.



JOHN: No. Tell me. (Pause)



CAROL: I’m bad. (Pause) Oh, God. (Pause)



JOHN: It’s all right.



CAROL: I’m…



JOHN: It’s all right.



CAROL: I can’t talk about this.



JOHN: It’s all right. Tell me.



CAROL: Why do you want to know this?



JOHN: I don’t want to know. I want to know whatever you…



CAROL: I always…



JOHN: …good…



CAROL: I always … all my life … I have never told anyone this…



JOHN: Yes. Go on. (Pause) Go on.



CAROL: All of my life… (The phone rings.) (Pause. JOHN goes to the phone and picks it up.)



JOHN (into phone): I can’t talk now. (Pause) What? (Pause) Hmm. (Pause) All right, I … I. Can’t. Talk. Now. No, no, no, I Know I did, but … What? Hello. What? She what? She can’t, she said the agreement is void? How, how is the agreement void? That’s Our House.



I have the paper; when we come down, next week, with the payment, and the paper, that house is … wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait: Did Jerry … is Jerry there? (Pause) Is she there…? Does she have a lawyer…? How the hell, how the Hell. That is … it’s a question, you said, of the easement. I don’t underst … it’s not the whole agreement. It’s just the easement, why would she? Put, put, put, Jerry on. (Pause) Jer, Jerry: What the Hell … that’s my house. That’s … Well, I’m, no, no, no, I’m not coming ddd … List, Listen, screw her. You tell her. You, listen: I want you to take Grace, you take Grace, and get out of that house. You leave her there. Her and her lawyer, and you tell them, we’ll see them in court next … no. No. Leave her there, leave her to stew in it: You tell her, we’re getting that house, and we are going to … No. I’m not coming down. I’ll be damned if I’ll sit in the same rrr … the next, you tell her the next time I see her is in court … I … (Pause) What? (Pause) What? I don’t understand. (Pause) Well, what about the house? (Pause) There isn’t any problem with the hhh… (Pause) No, no, no, that’s all right. All ri … All right… (Pause) Of course. Tha … Thank you. No, I will. Right away. (He hangs up.) (Pause)



CAROL: What is it? (Pause)



JOHN: It’s a surprise party.



CAROL: It is.



JOHN: Yes.



CAROL: A party for you.



JOHN: Yes.



CAROL: Is it your birthday?



JOHN: No.



CAROL: What is it?



JOHN: The tenure announcement.



CAROL: The tenure announcement.



JOHN: They’re throwing a party for us in our new house.



CAROL: Your new house.



JOHN: The house that we’re buying.



CAROL: You have to go.



JOHN: It seems that I do.



CAROL: (Pause) They’re proud of you.



JOHN: Well, there are those who would say it’s a form of aggression.



CAROL: What is?



JOHN: A surprise.







TWO



JOHN and CAROL seated across the desk from each other.



JOHN: You see, (pause) I love to teach. And flatter myself I am skilled at it. And I love the, the aspect of performance. I think I must confess that.



When I found I loved to teach I swore that I would not become that cold, rigid automaton of an instructor which I had encountered as a child.



Now, I was not unconscious that it was given me to err upon the other side. And, so, I asked and ask myself if I engaged in heterodoxy, I will not say “gratuitously” for I do not care to posit orthodoxy as a given good – but, “to the detriment of, of my students.” (Pause)



As I said. When the possibility of tenure opened, and, of course, I’d long pursued it, I was, of course happy, and covetous of it.



I asked myself if I was wrong to covet it. And thought about it long, and, I hope, truthfully, and saw in myself several things in, I think, no particular order. (Pause)



That I would pursue it. That I desired it, that I was not pure of longing for security, and that that, perhaps, was not reprehensible in me. That I had duties beyond the school, and that my duty to my home, for instance, was, or should be, if it were not, of an equal weight. That tenure, and security, and yes, and comfort, were not, of themselves, to be scorned; and were even worthy of honorable pursuit. And that it was given me. Here, in this place, which I enjoy, and in which I find comfort, to assure myself of – as far as it rests in The Material – a continuation of that joy and comfort. In exchange for what? Teaching. Which I love.



What was the price of this security? To obtain tenure. Which tenure the committee is in the process of granting me. And on the basis of which I contracted to purchase a house. Now, as you don’t have your own family, at this point, you may not know what that means. But to me it is important. A home. A Good Home. To raise my family. Now: The Tenure Committee will meet. This is the process, and a good process. Under which the school has functioned for quite a long time. They will meet, and hear your complaint – which you have the right to make; and they will dismiss it. They will dismiss your complaint; and, in the intervening period, I will love my house. I will not be able to close on my house. I will lose my deposit, and the home I’d picked out for my wife and son will go by the boards. Now: I see I have angered you. I understand your anger at teachers. I was angry with mine. I felt hurt and humiliated by them. Which is one of the reasons that I went into education.



CAROL: What do you want of me?



JOHN: (Pause) I was hurt. When I received the report. Of the tenure committee. I was shocked. And I was hurt. No, I don’t mean to subject you to my weak sensibilities. All right. Finally, I didn’t understand. Then I thought: is it not always at those points at which we reckon ourselves unassailable that we are most vulnerable and … (Pause) Yes. All right. You find me pedantic. Yes. I am. By nature, by birth, by profession, I don’t know … I’m always looking for a paradigm for…



CAROL: I don’t know what a paradigm is.



JOHN: It’s a model.



CAROL: Then why can’t you use that word? (Pause)



JOHN: If it is important to you. Yes, all right. I was looking for a model. To continue: I feel that one point…



CAROL: I…



JOHN: One second … upon which I am unassailable is my unflinching concern for my students’ dignity. I asked you here to … in the spirit of investigation, to ask you … to ask … (Pause) What have I done to you? (Pause) And, and, I suppose, how I can make amends. Can we not settle this now? It’s pointless, really, and I want to know.



CAROL: What you can do to force me to retract?



JOHN: That is not what I meant at all.



CAROL: To bribe me, to convince me…



JOHN: …No.



CAROL: To retract…



JOHN: That is not what I meant at all. I think that you know it is not.



CAROL: That is not what I know. I wish I…



JOHN: I do not want to … you wish what?



CAROL: No, you said what amends can you make. To force me to retract.



JOHN: That is not what I said.



CAROL: I have my notes.



JOHN: Look. Look. The Stoics say…



CAROL: The Stoics?



JOHN: The Stoical Philosophers say if you remove the phrase “I have been injured,” you have removed the injury. Now: Think: I know that you’re upset. Just tell me. Literally. Literally: what wrong have I done you?



CAROL: 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. To the tenure committee.



JOHN: Well, all right. (Pause) Let’s see. (He reads.) I find that I am sexist. That I am elitist. I’m not sure I know what that means, other than it’s a derogatory word, meaning “bad.” That I … That I insist on wasting time, in nonprescribed, in self-aggrandizing and theatrical diversions from the prescribed text … that these have taken both sexist and pornographic forms … here we find listed… (Pause) Here we find listed … instances “…closeted with a student” … “Told a rambling, sexually explicit story, in which the frequency and attitudes of fornication of the poor and rich are, it would seem, the central point … moved to embrace said student and … all part of a pattern…” (Pause)



(He reads.) That I used the phrase “The White Man’s Burden” …that I told you how I’d asked you to my room because I quote like you. (Pause)



(He reads.) “He said he ‘liked’ me. That he ‘liked being with me.’ He’d let me write my examination paper over, if I could come back oftener to see him in his office.” (Pause) (To CAROL:) It’s ludicrous. Don’t you know that? It’s not necessary. It’s going to humiliate you, and it’s going to cost me my house, and…



CAROL: It’s “ludicrous…”?



(JOHN picks up the report and reads again.)



JOHN: “He told me he had problems with his wife; and that he wanted to take off the artificial stricture of Teacher and Student. He put his arm around me…”



CAROL: Do you deny it? Can you deny it…? Do you see? (Pause) Don’t you see? You don’t see, do you?



JOHN: I don’t see…



CAROL: You think, you think you can deny that these things happened; or, if they did, if they did, that they meant what you said they meant. Don’t you see? You drag me in here, you drag us, to listen to you “go on”; and “go on” about this, or that, or we don’t “express” ourselves very well. We don’t say what we mean. Don’t we? Don’t we? We do say what we mean. And you say that “I don’t understand you…”: Then you… (Points.)



JOHN: “Consult the Report”?



CAROL: …that’s right.



JOHN: You see. You see. Can’t you … You see what I’m saying? Can’t you tell me in your own words?



CAROL: Those are my own words. (Pause)



JOHN: (He reads.) “He told me that if I would stay alone with him in his office, he would change my grade to an A.” (To CAROL:) What have I done to you? Oh. My God, are you so hurt?



CAROL: What I “feel” is irrelevant. (Pause)



JOHN: Do you know that I tried to help you?



CAROL: What I know I have reported.



JOHN: I would like to help you now. I would. Before this escalates.



CAROL (simultaneously with “escalates”): You see. I don’t think that I need your help. I don’t think I need anything you have.



JOHN: I feel…



CAROL: I don’t care what you feel. Do you see? DO YOU SEE? You can’t do that anymore. You. Do. Not. Have. The. Power. Did you misuse it? Someone did. Are you part of that group? Yes. Yes. You Are. You’ve done these things. And to say, and to say, “Oh. Let me help you with your problem…”



JOHN: Yes. I understand. I understand. You’re hurt. You’re angry. Yes. I think your anger is betraying you. Down a path which helps no one.



CAROL: I don’t care what you think.



JOHN: You don’t? (Pause) But you talk of rights. Don’t you see? I have rights too. Do you see? I have a house … part of the real world; and The Tenure Committee, Good Men and True…



CAROL: …Professor…



JOHN: …Please: Also part of that world: you understand? This is my life. I’m not a bogeyman. I don’t “stand” for something, I…



CAROL: …Professor…



JOHN: …I…



CAROL: Professor. I came here as a favor. At your personal request. Perhaps I should not have done so. But I did. On my behalf, and on behalf of my group. And you speak of the tenure committee, one of whose members is a woman, as you know. And though you might call it Good Fun, or An Historical Phrase, or An Oversight, or, All of the Above, to refer to the committee as Good Men and True, it is a demeaning remark. It is a sexist remark, and to overlook it is to countenance continuation of that method of thought. It’s a remark…



JOHN: OH COME ON. Come on… Sufficient to deprive a family of…



CAROL: Sufficient? Sufficient? Sufficient? Yes. It is a fact… and that story, which I quote, is vile and classist, and manipulative and pornographic. It…



JOHN: …it’s pornographic…?



CAROL: What gives you the right. Yes. To speak to a woman in your private… Yes. Yes. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. You feel yourself empowered … you say so yourself. To strut. To posture. To “perform.” To “Call me in here…” Eh? You say that higher education is a joke. And treat it as such, you treat it as such. And confess to a taste to play the Patriarch in your class. To grant this. To deny that. To embrace your students.



JOHN: How can you assert. How can you stand there and…



CAROL: How can you deny it. You did it to me. Here. You did… You confess. You love the Power. To deviate. To invent, to transgress … to transgress whatever norms have been established for us. And you think it’s charming to “question” in yourself this taste to mock and destroy. But you should question it. Professor. And you pick those things which you feel advance you: publication, tenure, and the steps to get them you call “harmless rituals.” And you perform those steps. Although you say it is hypocrisy. But to the aspirations of your students. Of hardworking students, who come here, who slave to come here – you have no idea what it cost me to come to this school – you mock us. You call education “hazing,” and from your so-protected, so-elitist seat you hold our confusion as a joke, and our hopes and efforts with it. Then you sit there and say “what have I done?” And ask me to understand that you have aspirations too. But I tell you. I tell you. That you are vile. And that you are exploitative. And if you possess one ounce of that inner honesty you describe in your book, you can look in yourself and see those things that I see. And you can find revulsion equal to my own. Good day. (She prepares to leave the room.)



JOHN: Wait a second, will you, just one moment. (Pause) Nice day today.



CAROL: What?



JOHN: You said “Good day.” I think that it is a nice day today.



CAROL: Is it?



JOHN: Yes, I think it is.



CAROL: And why is that important?



JOHN: Because it is the essence of all human communication. I say something conventional, you respond, and the information we exchange is not about the “weather,” but that we both agree to converse. In effect, we agree that we are both human. (Pause)



I’m not a … “exploiter,” and you’re not a … “deranged,” what? Revolutionary … that we may, that we may have … positions, and that we may have … desires, which are in conflict, but that we’re just human. (Pause) That means that sometimes we’re imperfect. (Pause) Often we’re in conflict… (Pause) Much of what we do, you’re right, in the name of “principles” is self-serving … much of what we do is conventional. (Pause) You’re right. (Pause) You said you came in the class because you wanted 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. And you don’t have to fight with me. I’m not the subject. (Pause) And where I’m wrong … perhaps it’s not your job to “fix” me. I don’t want to fix you. I would like to tell you what I think, because that is my job, conventional as it is, and flawed as I may be. And then, if you can show me some better form, then we can proceed from there. But, just like “nice day, isn’t it…?” I don’t think we can proceed until we accept that each of us is human. (Pause) And we still can have difficulties. We will have them … that’s all right too. (Pause) Now:



CAROL: …wait…



JOHN: Yes. I want to hear it.



CAROL: …the…



JOHN: Yes. Tell me frankly.



CAROL: …my position…



JOHN: I want to hear it. In your own words. What you want. And what you feel.



CAROL: …I…



JOHN: …yes…


CAROL: My Group.



JOHN: Your “Group”…? (Pause)



CAROL: The people I’ve been talking to…



JOHN: There’s no shame in that. Everybody needs advisers. Everyone needs to expose themselves. To various points of view. It’s not wrong. It’s essential. Good. Good. Now: You and I … (The phone rings.)

You and I…

(He hesitates for a moment, and then picks it up.) (Into phone) Hello. (Pause) Um … no, I know they do. (Pause) I know she does. Tell her that I … can I call you back? … Then tell her that I think it’s going to be fine. (Pause) Tell her just, just hold on, I’ll … can I get back to you? … Well … no, no, no, we’re taking the house … we’re … no, no, nn … no, she will nnn, it’s not a question of refunding the dep … no … it’s not a question of the deposit … will you call Jerry? Babe, baby, will you just call Jerry? Tell him, nnn … tell him they, well, they’re to keep the deposit, because the deal, be … because the deal is going to go through … because I know … be … will you please? Just trust me. Be … well, I’m dealing with the complaint. Yes. Right Now. Which is why I … yes, no, no, it’s really, I can’t talk about it now. Call Jerry, and I can’t talk now. Ff … fine. Gg … good-bye. (Hangs up.) (Pause) I’m sorry we were interrupted.



CAROL: No…



JOHN: I … I was saying:



CAROL: You said that we should agree to talk about my complaint.



JOHN: That’s correct.



CAROL: But we are talking about it.



JOHN: Well, that’s correct too. You see? This is the gist of education.



CAROL: No, no. I mean, we’re talking about it at the Tenure Committee Hearing. (Pause)



JOHN: Yes, but I’m saying: we can talk about it now, as easily as…



CAROL: No. I think that we should stick to the process…



JOHN: …wait a…



CAROL: …the “conventional” process. As you said. (She gets up.) And you’re right, I’m sorry if I was, um, if I was “discourteous” to you. You’re right.



JOHN: Wait, wait a…



CAROL: I really should go.



JOHN: Now, look, granted. I have an interest. In the status quo. All right? Everyone does. But what I’m saying is that the committee…



CAROL: Professor, you’re right. Just don’t impinge on me. We’ll take our differences, and…



JOHN: You’re going to make a … look, look, look, you’re going to…



CAROL: I shouldn’t have come here. They told me…



JOHN: One moment. No. No. There are norms, here, and there’s no reason. Look: I’m trying to save you…



CAROL: No one asked you to … you’re trying to save me? Do me the courtesy to…



JOHN: I am doing you the courtesy. I’m talking straight to you. We can settle this now. And I want you to sit down and…



CAROL: You must excuse me… (She starts to leave the room.)



JOHN: Sit down, it seems we have a … Wait one moment. Wait one moment … just do me the courtesy to…

(He restrains her from leaving.)



CAROL: LET ME GO.



JOHN: I have no desire to hold you, I just want to talk to you…



CAROL: LET ME GO. LET ME GO. WOULD SOMEBODY HELP ME? WOULD SOMEBODY HELP ME PLEASE…?







THREE



(At rise, CAROL and JOHN are seated.)



JOHN: I have asked you here. (Pause) I have asked you here against, against my…



CAROL: I was most surprised you asked me.



JOHN: …against my better judgment, against…



CAROL: I was most surprised…



JOHN: …against the … yes. I’m sure.



CAROL: …If you would like me to leave, I’ll leave. I’ll go right now… (She rises.)



JOHN: Let us begin correctly, may we? I feel…



CAROL: That is what I wished to do. That’s why I came here, but now…



JOHN: …I feel…



CAROL: But now perhaps you’d like me to leave…



JOHN: I don’t want you to leave. I asked you to come…



CAROL: I didn’t have to come here.



JOHN: No. (Pause) Thank you.



CAROL: All right. (Pause) (She sits down.)



JOHN: Although I feel that it profits, it would profit you something, to…



CAROL: …what I…



JOHN: If you would hear me out, if you would hear me out.



CAROL: I came here to, the court officers told me not to come.



JOHN: …the “court” officers…?



CAROL: I was shocked that you asked.



JOHN: …wait…



CAROL: Yes. But I did not come here to hear what it “profits” me.



JOHN: The “court” officers…



CAROL: …no, no, perhaps I should leave… (She gets up.)



JOHN: Wait.



CAROL: No. I shouldn’t have…



JOHN: …wait. Wait. Wait a moment.



CAROL: Yes? What is it you want? (Pause) What is it you want?



JOHN: I’d like you to stay.



CAROL: You want me to stay.



JOHN: Yes.



CAROL: You do.



JOHN: Yes. (Pause) Yes. I would like to have you hear me out. If you would. (Pause) Would you please? If you would do that I would be in your debt. (Pause) (She sits.) Thank You. (Pause)



CAROL: What is it you wish to tell me?



JOHN: All right. I cannot… (Pause) I cannot help but feel you are owed an apology. (Pause) (Of papers in his hands) I have read. (Pause) And reread these accusations.



CAROL: What “accusations”?



JOHN: The, the tenure comm. … what other accusations…?



CAROL: The tenure committee…?



JOHN: Yes.



CAROL: Excuse me, but those are not accusations. They have been proved. They are facts.



JOHN: …I…



CAROL: No. Those are not “accusations.”



JOHN: …those?



CAROL: …the committee (The phone starts to ring.) the committee has…



JOHN: …All right…



CAROL: …those are not accusations. The Tenure Committee.



JOHN: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. (He picks up the phone.) Hello. Yes. No. I’m here. Tell Mister … No, I can’t talk to him now … I’m sure he has, but I’m fff … I know … No, I have no time t … tell Mister … tell Mist … tell Jerry that I’m fine and that I’ll call him right aw … (Pause) My wife … Yes. I’m sure she has. Yes, thank you. Yes, I’ll call her too. I cannot talk to you now. (He hangs up.) (Pause) All right. It was good of you to come. Thank you. I have studied. I have spent some time studying the indictment.



CAROL: You will have to explain that word to me.



JOHN: An “indictment”…



CAROL: Yes.



JOHN: Is a “bill of particulars.” A…



CAROL: All right. Yes.



JOHN: In which is alleged…



CAROL: No. I cannot allow that. I cannot allow that. Nothing is alleged. Everything is proved…



JOHN: Please, wait a sec…


CAROL: I cannot come to allow…



JOHN: If I may … If I may, from whatever you feel is “established,” by…



CAROL: The issue here is not what I “feel.” It is not my “feelings,” but the feelings of women. And men. Your superiors, who’ve been “polled,” do you see? To whom evidence has been presented, who have ruled, do you see? Who have weighed the testimony and the evidence, and have ruled, do you see? That you are negligent. That you are guilty, that you are found wanting, and in error; and are not, for the reasons so-told, to be given tenure. That you are to be disciplined. For facts. For facts. Not “alleged,” what is the word? But proved. Do you see? By your own actions.



That is what the tenure committee has said. That is what my lawyer said. For what you did in class. For what you did in this office.



JOHN: They’re going to discharge me.



CAROL: As full well they should. You don’t understand? You’re angry? What has led you to this place? Not your sex. Not your race. Not your class. YOUR OWN ACTIONS. And you’re angry. You ask me here. What do you want? You want to “charm” me. You want to “convince” me. You want me to recant. I will not recant. Why should I…? What I say is right. You tell me, you are going to tell me that you have a wife and child. You are going to say that you have a career and that you’ve worked for twenty years for this. Do you know what you’ve worked for? Power. For power. Do you understand? And you sit there, and you tell me stories. About your house, about all the private schools, and about privilege, and how you entitled. To buy, to spend, to mock, to summon. All your stories. All your silly weak guilt, it’s all about privilege; and you won’t know it. Don’t you see? 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…



JOHN: Don’t you have feelings?



CAROL: That’s my point. You see? Don’t you have feelings? Your final argument. What is it that has no feelings. Animals. I don’t take your side, you question if I’m Human.



JOHN: Don’t you have feelings?



CAROL: I have a responsibility, I…



JOHN: …to…?



CAROL: To? This institution. To the students. To my group.



JOHN: … your “group.”…



CAROL: Because I speak, yes, not for myself. But for the group; for those who suffer what I suffer. On behalf of whom, even if I, were, inclined, to what, forgive? Forget? What? Overlook your…



JOHN: …my behavior?



CAROL: … it would be wrong.



JOHN: Even if you were inclined to “forgive” me.



CAROL: It would be wrong.



JOHN: And what would transpire.



CAROL: Transpire?



JOHN: Yes.



CAROL: “Happen?”



JOHN: Yes.



CAROL: Then say it. For Christ’s sake. Who the hell do you think that you are? You want a post. You want unlimited power. To do and to say what you want. As it pleases you – Testing, Questioning, Flirting…



JOHN: I never…



CAROL: Excuse me, one moment, will you?

(She reads from her notes.)

The twelfth: “Have a good day, dear.”

The fifteenth: “Now, don’t you look fetching…”

April seventeenth: “If you girls would come over here…” I saw you. 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. You asked me in here to explain something to me, as a child, that I did not understand. But I came to explain something to you. You Are Not God. You ask me why I came? I came here to instruct you.

(She produces his book.)

And your book? You think you’re going to show me some “light”? You “maverick.” Outside of tradition. No, no, (She reads from the book’s liner notes.) “of that fine tradition of inquiry. Of Polite skepticism” … and you say you believe in free intellectual discourse. YOU BELIEVE IN NOTHING. YOU BELIEVE IN NOTHING AT ALL.



JOHN: I believe in freedom of thought.



CAROL: Isn’t that fine. Do you?



JOHN: Yes. I do.



CAROL: Then why do you question, for one moment, the committee’s decision refusing your tenure? Why do you question your suspension? You believe in what you call freedom of thought. Then, fine. You believe in freedom-of-thought and a home, and, and prerogatives for your kid, and tenure. And I’m going to tell you. You believe not in “freedom of thought,” but in an elitist, in, in a protected hierarchy which rewards you. And for whom you are the clown. And you mock and exploit the system which pays your rent. You’re wrong. I’m not wrong. You’re wrong. You think that I’m full of hatred. I know what you think I am.



JOHN: Do you?



CAROL: You think I’m a, of course I do. You think I am a frightened, repressed, confused, I don’t know, abandoned young thing of some doubtful sexuality, who wants, power and revenge. (Pause) Don’t you? (Pause)



JOHN: Yes. I do. (Pause)



CAROL: Isn’t that better? And I feel that that is the first moment which you’ve treated me with respect. For you told me the truth. (Pause) I did not come here, as you are assured, to gloat. Why would I want to gloat? I’ve profited nothing from your, your, as you say, your “misfortune.” I came here, as you did me the honor to ask me here, I came here to tell you something.



(Pause) That I think … that I think you’ve been wrong. That I think you’ve been terribly wrong. Do you hate me now? (Pause)



JOHN: Yes.



CAROL: Why do you hate me? Because you think me wrong? No. Because I have, you think, power over you. Listen to me. Listen to me, Professor. (Pause) It is the power that you hate. So deeply that, that any atmosphere of free discussion is impossible. It’s not “unlikely.” It’s impossible. Isn’t it?



JOHN: Yes.



CAROL: Isn’t it…?



JOHN: Yes. I suppose.



CAROL: Now. The thing which you find so cruel is the selfsame process of selection I, and my group, go through every day of our lives. In admittance to school. In our tests, in our class rankings. … Is it unfair? I can’t tell you. But, if it is fair. Or even if it is “unfortunate but necessary” for us, then, by God, so must it be for you. (Pause) You write of your “responsibility to the young.” Treat us with respect, and that will show you your responsibility. You write that education is just hazing. (Pause) But we worked to get to this school. (Pause) And some of us. (Pause) Overcame prejudices. Economic, sexual, you cannot begin to imagine. And endured humiliations I pray that you and those you love never will encounter. (Pause) To gain admittance here. To pursue that same dream of security you pursue. We, who, who are, at any moment, in danger of being deprived of it. By…



JOHN: …by…?



CAROL: By the administration. By the teachers. By you. By, say, one low grade, that keeps us out of graduate school; by one, say, one capricious or inventive answer on our parts, which, perhaps, you don’t find amusing. Now you know, do you see? What it is to be subject to that power. (Pause)



JOHN: I don’t understand. (Pause)



CAROL: My charges are not trivial. You see that in the haste, I think, with which they were accepted. A joke you have told, with a sexist tinge. The language you use, a verbal or physical caress, yes, yes, I know, you say that it is meaningless. I understand. I differ from you. To lay a hand on someone’s shoulder.



JOHN: It was devoid of sexual content.



CAROL: I say it was not. I SAY IT WAS NOT. Don’t you begin to see…? Don’t you begin to understand? IT’S NOT FOR YOU TO SAY.



JOHN: I take your point, and I see there is much good in what you refer to.



CAROL: …do you think so…?



JOHN: …but, and this is not to say that I cannot change, in those things in which I am deficient … But, the…



CAROL: Do you hold yourself harmless from the charge of sexual exploitativeness…? (Pause)



JOHN: Well, I … I … I … You know I, as I said. I … think I am not too old to learn, and I can learn, I…



CAROL: Do you hold yourself innocent of the charge of…



JOHN: …wait, wait, wait … All right, let’s go back to…



CAROL: YOU FOOL. Who do you think I am? To come here and be taken in by a smile. You little yapping fool. You think I want “revenge.” I don’t want revenge. I WANT UNDERSTANDING.



JOHN: …do you?



CAROL: I do. (Pause)



JOHN: What’s the use. It’s over.



CAROL: Is it? What is?



JOHN: My job.



CAROL: Oh. Your job. That’s what you want to talk about. (Pause) (She starts to leave the room. She steps and turns back to him.) All right. (Pause) What if it were possible that my Group withdraws its complaint. (Pause)



JOHN: What?



CAROL: That’s right. (Pause)



JOHN: Why.



CAROL: Well, let’s say as an act of friendship.



JOHN: An act of friendship.



CAROL: Yes. (Pause)



JOHN: In exchange for what.



CAROL: Yes. But I don’t think, “exchange.” Not “in exchange.” For what do we derive from it? (Pause)



JOHN: “Derive.”



CAROL: Yes.



JOHN: (Pause) Nothing. (Pause)



CAROL: That’s right. We derive nothing. (Pause) Do you see that?



JOHN: Yes.



CAROL: That is a little word, Professor. “Yes.” “I see that.” But you will.



JOHN: And you might speak to the committee…?



CAROL: To the committee?



JOHN: Yes.



CAROL: Well. Of course. That’s on your mind. We might.



JOHN: “If” what?



CAROL: “Given” what. Perhaps. I think that that is more friendly.



JOHN: GIVEN WHAT?



CAROL: And, believe me, I understand your rage. It is not that I don’t feel it. But I do not see that it is deserved, so I do not resent it … All right. I have a list.



JOHN: … a list.



CAROL: Here is a list of books, which we…



JOHN: …a list of books…?



CAROL: That’s right. Which we find questionable.



JOHN: What?



CAROL: Is this so bizarre…?



JOHN: I can’t believe…



CAROL: It’s not necessary you believe it.



JOHN: Academic freedom…



CAROL: Someone chooses the books. If you can choose them, others can. What are you, “God”?



JOHN: …no, no, the “dangerous.” …



CAROL: You have an agenda, we have an agenda. I am not interested in your feelings or your motivation, but your actions. If you would like me to speak to the Tenure Committee, here is my list. You are a Free Person, you decide. (Pause)



JOHN: Give me the list. (She does so. He reads.)



CAROL: I think you’ll find…



JOHN: I’m capable of reading it. Thank you.



CAROL: We have a number of texts we need re…



JOHN: I see that.



CAROL: We’re amenable to…



JOHN: Aha. Well, let me look over the … (He reads.)



CAROL: I think that…



JOHN: LOOK. I’m reading your demands. All right?! (He reads) (Pause) You want to ban my book?



CAROL: We do not…



JOHN (Of list): It says here…



CAROL: …We want it removed from inclusion as a representative example of the university.



JOHN: Get out of here.



CAROL: If you put aside the issues of personalities.



JOHN: Get the fuck out of my office.



CAROL: No, I think I would reconsider.



JOHN: …you think you can.



CAROL: We can and we will. Do you want our support? That is the only quest…



JOHN: …to ban my book…?



CAROL: …that is correct…



JOHN: …this … this is a university … we …



CAROL: …and we have a statement … which we need you to … (She hands him a sheet of paper.)



JOHN: No, no. It’s out of the question. I’m sorry. I don’t know what I was thinking of. I want to tell you something. I’m a teacher. I am a teacher. Eh? It’s my name on the door, and I teach the class, and that’s what I do. I’ve got a book with my name on it. And my son will see that book someday. And I have a respon … No, I’m sorry I have a responsibility … to myself, to my son, to my profession… I haven’t been home for two days, do you know that? Thinking this out.



CAROL: …you haven’t?



JOHN: I’ve been, no. If it’s of interest to you. I’ve been in a hotel. Thinking. (The phone starts ringing.) Thinking…



CAROL: …you haven’t been home?



JOHN: …thinking, do you see.



CAROL: Oh.



JOHN: And, and, I owe you a debt, I see that now. (Pause) You’re dangerous, you’re wrong and it’s my job … to say no to you. That’s my job. You are absolutely right. You want to ban my book? Go to hell, and they can do whatever they want to me.



CAROL: …you haven’t been home in two days…



JOHN: I think I told you that.



CAROL: …you’d better get that phone. (Pause) I think that you should pick up the phone. (Pause)


(JOHN picks up the phone.)



JOHN (on phone): Yes. (Pause) Yes. Wh … I. I. I had to be away. All ri … did they wor … did they worry ab … No. I’m all right, now, Jerry. I’m f … I got a little turned around, but I’m sitting here and … I’ve got it figured out. I’m fine. I’m fine don’t worry about me. I got a little bit mixed up. But I am not sure that it’s not a blessing. It cost me my job? Fine. Then the job was not worth having. Tell Grace that I’m coming home and everything is fff… (Pause) What? (Pause) What? (Pause) What do you mean? WHAT? Jerry … Jerry. They … Who, who, what can they do…? (Pause) NO. (Pause) NO. They can’t do th… What do you mean? (Pause) But how… (Pause) She’s, she’s, she’s here with me. To … Jerry. I don’t underst… (Pause) (He hangs up.) (To CAROL:) What does this mean?



CAROL: I thought you knew.



JOHN: What. (Pause) What does it mean. (Pause)



CAROL: You tried to rape me. (Pause) According to the law. (Pause)



JOHN: …what…?



CAROL: You tried to rape me. I was leaving this office, you “pressed” yourself into me. You “pressed” your body into me.



JOHN: …I…



CAROL: My Group has told your lawyer that we may pursue criminal charges.



JOHN: …no…



CAROL: …under the statute. I am told. It was battery.



JOHN: …no…



CAROL: Yes. And attempted rape. That’s right. (Pause)



JOHN: I think that you should go.



CAROL: Of course. I thought you knew.



JOHN: I have to talk to my lawyer.



CAROL: Yes. Perhaps you should.

(The phone rings again.) (Pause)



JOHN: (Picks up phone. Into phone:) Hello? I … Hello…? I … Yes, he just called. No … I. I can’t talk to you now, Baby. (To CAROL:) Get out.



CAROL: …your wife…?



JOHN: …who it is is no concern of yours. Get out. (To phone:) No, no, it’s going to be all right. I. I can’t talk now, Baby. (To CAROL:) Get out of here.



CAROL: I’m going.



JOHN: Good.



CAROL (exiting): …and don’t call your wife “baby.”


JOHN: What?



CAROL: Don’t call your wife baby. You heard what I said.



(CAROL starts to leave the room. JOHN grabs her and begins to beat her.)



JOHN: You vicious little bitch. You think you can come in here with your political correctness and destroy my life?



(He knocks her to the floor.)



After how I treated you…? You should be … Rape you …? Are you kidding me…?



(He picks up a chair, raises it above his head, and advances on her.)



I wouldn’t touch you with a ten-foot pole. You little cunt…



(She cowers on the floor below him. Pause. He looks down at her. He lowers the chair. He moves to his desk, and arranges the papers on it. Pause. He looks over at her.)



…well…



(Pause. She looks at him.)



CAROL: Yes. That’s right.



(She looks away from him, and lowers her head. To herself:) …yes. That’s right.



END

A Good Name

January 28.

One of the most important realization this day was that we should not only read the law, but understand it. My group got only 23 + 5 incentive points, an average of 28.6 or 29 (because of Pak Lim, our Yao Ming). There were three questions there that we should have got only if I understood what I read. Most groups got those correct since they thought the statements are false because of the amount (1M, 2.5M, 5M). The mistake was that the clause "not less than" was missing. Only, since we were not asked to correct the mistakes of the false statements, we were wrong and they were correct. The problem? I read those amounts, and somehow breezed through the details. I did not think that "not less than" would spell a lot of difference.

Most of our classmates who got those questions wrong did ask the good madam why the statement "the minimum amount of capital requirement....shall be 1M" is not the same as "the minimum amount of capital requirement...shall not be less than 1M". Plot it on the number line and it looks the same. Even the grammar points to a double negative, a sort of redundancy. But, although I was wrong, I supported the position of the madam that my answer was incorrect.

The question is a true or false question regarding not the application of a legal provision on a certain example of fact, but on the provision itself. We cannot divert from the letter of the law.

Secondly, if there is a difference of opinion especially among people who are not legal experts, we must go to the letter of the law and to no other.

I find the comment of my classmate Andy quite pertinent. The provision is made as such in order for future promulgations not to contradict the law. Let us say it is the year 2015 and the provided minimum is not pertinent anymore due to excessive inflation. If the letter of the law did not carry the word "not less than", it will be necessary for the law to be repealed. No further amendments may be made because one article needs to be taken out. Now, the words "not less than 1million" may be amended later, say to "not less than 2.5Million". The letter of the law was not contradicted since, clearly, 2.5Million is not lesser than 1million. Instead of writing "the minimum will be 1million", further amendments will not be made possible without junking the whole law.

I think Dr. Cruz also mentioned about not being a minimalist, especially in schools that need special funds - medical and nursing schools. Hence, should the CHED orders the minimum capital requirement for those schools is 5M, it will not contradict the law.

Associate only with those people you trust. In this regard, be competent, be professional. In La Salle, we get to meet a lot of prospective clients and partners. It pays to be the best always. We are building a name. It must be a good name.

I am reminded of the "Crucible" wherein the protagonist was requested to write his name on a paper and burn it, in order to be "cleaned" from the witchcraft issue against him. When he was repeatedly asked why he is unable to do a simple thing, tears burst in his eyes (Daniel Day-Lewis). "Because it is my name!" was the reply.

It pays to have a good name. Later, it will be the only thing that will be remembered. People will offer you goods, services, business opportunities because of your good name.

Building Culture and Climate

One of the best things I have learned in the course is that of differentiating School Culture and Climate. I once thought they are the same. However, one can see the clear connection between the two.

If you have a good school culture, then the climate is positive and relaxed. Now, the two last words point not to nonchalance and non-commitment. Contrariwise, people feel positive and relaxed because the culture is positive and relaxed. Further, the culture has made them better staff, principal, faculty. It has made them a better, effective part of the whole, thus making them fulfilled as an individual. This has connection with the motivation of individuals according to Maslow (Need-Hierarchy), Hull (Drive-Reduction), and Herzberg (Motivation-Hygiene).

The problem then is how to get there. We are flooded with literature of how an effective school should be – key words such as collegiality, collaboration, cooperation, belief in the educability of all children, teacher-empowerment. I trust that if we list them all down, this will become a thesis for Effective Schools Movement. However, no one told us how to get there. The mathematician in me, prompts me to focus on the process and not on the final output. In fact, one song puts it, “Life’s a journey, not a destination” (Crazy, Aerosmith). We should not say, for example, that De La Salle or Ateneo de Manila has reached the height of effectiveness. As long as we are still here in this world, there is still something to improve on. Hence, we must focus rather on how a school culture can be achieved.

For me, it starts on the leader. The teachers build the school culture and climate, but only as reaction to the administration and leadership of their leaders. Are the teachers always complaining? That points to a mediocre culture. But who is to blame? Napoleon once said – and we always say this in the Legion of Mary – there are no bad soldiers, only bad officers. If one or two teachers are not doing well, we may blame those two teachers. But if the culture is such that everyone is complaining, then something is wrong with the leader.

My leadership style is not a demanding one. I am perhaps to be classified as the Humanitarian, only, I put the burden on my shoulders. I used to think it is because I was born under the Pisces sign, and the year of the Pig. Anyway, I am criticized for doing everything by myself. That is, if no one will do it, then I will. Partly, it is because I am able to. Or, as my classmate Ma-ann said – because we had almost the same scores in “delegating” (Blanchard, through Dr. Muñoz) – it shows that we do not trust people that much. I just feel that if I depend on anyone, and s/he does not deliver, then I am left with nothing. Nevertheless, this is trait leadership, as the report of Andy and Ram said.

Building a school culture then rests on the leaders’ attitudes, beliefs, relationships, and competence/ skills. A leader that is not positive will not evoke genuine support, only compliance. Even a principal who has finished all the doctorate in the world cannot move teachers to be leaders themselves, if that principal has the wrong set of beliefs. If the leader’s relationships are not good, then it reflects on what is happening in his school. There is blaming syndrome, no inputs coming from the teachers. As in the case of one Bethany School, everybody sits at the back row. No one feels responsible for anything. They are afraid to be criticized, to be laughed at. In short, they are afraid to make a mistake because failure has always been not an option.

A competent leader is a given. S/he must be proficient as a leader; else, no one will follow him/her. Now, being competent in leadership does not imply success in building a good school culture. Right attitude and sets of belief must also be present. A leader is one who exerts influence. Power (or resort to position) has always been one of the last options. Violence is the ultimate option.

A study on the rating given by the third year high school students of Dominican College of Sta. Rosa, School Year 2004-2005 on the Teaching Procedures

Introduction

Teacher quality is the single most important factor influencing students’ achievement. In fact, PAASCU (Philippine Accrediting Association of School,
Colleges, and Universities) consider Faculty and Instruction as the most important factors that determine school quality. In fact, as Jennifer King Rice reports , teacher compensation represents a significant public investment. In 2002 alone, the United States invested $192 billion in teacher pay and benefits. Given the size of this investment, there is remarkably little research to guide such critical decisions
as whom to hire, retain, and promote.

To be a teacher may be easy for some. Indeed, an individual aiding another to learn is in a sense, a teacher. James Garfield (20th president of the United States) once remarked “A good teacher on one end of the log, and an interesting student on the other will make a university anywhere”. Still, we must see to it that the teaching profession is equipped with all the trainings and studies, aimed towards the objective that education is really ushered towards development. Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi believed that education has the power for societal regeneration.

It is a given that we must train our teachers to be effective. This is in order to carry out the task of educating our children for the future. But, as William Osler remarked, “The successful teacher is no longer on a height, pumping knowledge at high pressure into passive receptacles...He is a senior student anxious to help his juniors”. Education, in our modern times, became a great task and responsibility.

The problem in assessing teacher effectiveness has been discussed in full detail by Michael Dunkin of University of Sydney. In his study, he proposed five main preliminary matters involved in arriving at a system for the evaluation of teachers. The first is the purpose of the evaluation; the second is the target category of teachers to be assessed; the third is the conception of teachers' work that is adopted; the fourth concerns the dimensions of teaching quality about which judgments are to be made; and the fifth is the approach to establishing the validity of the assessments.

He also criticized the traditional methods of assessing teacher quality by means of observational schedule or checklist, following Haertel (1991) , especially of unreliability across content areas and grade levels, poor conceptual bases, incompetence and lack of resolve by principals who apply them, negative teacher attitudes towards them, lack of uniformity of them within school systems, inadequate training of school administrators in their use, trivialization of teaching proficiency, and reinforcing a "single, narrow conception of effective teaching" (p.5).

On the part of the use of rating scales, Good and Mulryan (1990) found that the problems in their use had persisted from the early years of the twentieth century right up till the time of their writing (1988) . When Medley and Shannon (1994) reviewed the literature on the validity of observational rating scales for measuring teacher performance, they found that the best of them had high content validity. It is not clear what was meant by "content validity" in this case, but presumably it had a wider meaning than academic subject-matter knowledge and included "aspects of teacher performance known to be related to teacher effectiveness" (p.6018).

Medley and Shannon concluded concerning predictive validity that there is no empirical evidence that correlations between supervisors' ratings of teacher performance and direct measures of teacher effectiveness differ from zero. Thus, they apparently do not contain the information about teacher effectiveness they are assumed to contain. (p.6018)

Good and Mulryan (1990) invoked a professional development criterion and concluded as follows :

...[T]he key role for teacher ratings in the 1980s is to expand opportunities for teachers to reflect on instruction by analytically examining classroom processes. For too long rating systems ... delineated what teachers should do and collected information about the extent to which they did it, Ratings of teacher behavior should be made not only to confirm the presence or absence of a behavior but with the recognition that many aspects of a teaching behavior are important (quality, timing, context) and that numerous teacher behaviors combine to affect student learning.

Observation schedules, however, were less subject to halo effects on raters, and had been shown to have predictive validity. Good and Mulryan (1990) concluded that the identification of relationships between observed classroom behaviours and students' scores on standardised achievement tests and on criterion-referenced tests had been "small but significant." Stodolsky (1990) pointed out, "[u]sers must accept the limitations of observations as sources of evidence about teaching while recognizing that they provide a needed direct view of teaching processes in action" (p.185). Later, she concluded, "[c]lassroom observations are likely to be the centrepiece of a systematic evaluation.

Given all these intricacies and weaknesses, we cannot do away with teacher effectiveness assessment. In order for our school to be of good quality, we must focus towards the assessment of whether our system of education is indeed working or not. Dominican College of Sta. Rosa (DCSR) is now gearing up to be first-level PAASCU-accredited. Series of surveys have been made especially on the classroom instruction and the faculty in order to assess the right of DCSR to be accredited, based on the strength of its faculty and classroom instruction.

A study by Atento (2004) focuses on the Seniors and Juniors, and how these students feel about their teachers’ classroom instruction procedures. The questions he used are the very same questions PAASCU is using for its accreditation. His study inspected on the teachers themselves, the stating of objectives, the content of teaching, teaching procedure, medium of instruction, instructional tools and classroom management . For the part of the proponent, she surveyed the Juniors, in order to gauge the characteristics of their teachers, and how they feel about the quality of teaching instruction given to them.

Sample

For the sample, the study focused on the third year high school (N=35) students. This is about half of the whole Junior high school population, and about 10% of the whole high school population. The study chose the said year level, because the students of these levels were exposed to the teaching instruction in Dominican College for three years now, and mainly because the proponent’s advisory is third year. A class rating was made on the students, using the final average they have for the School Year. There are ninety-three juniors, and percentile ranking was used to determine who are included in class 1 and class 2. The median is at rank 46, and so, students ranked 1-46, are “Class 1” students; while those who were ranked 47-93 are “Class 2” students. This ranking style is not revealed to the students.

Also, there are 32 old students and 3 new students. Old students are those who were exposed to the teaching instruction at DCSR for more than two years.

Instrument

The instrument is written by Ramon George Atento and the proponent, and is a part of the proposed instrument for the assessment of the Science-Enriched Curriculum of DCSR. It is composed of forty-seven questions, attempting to find the attitude of the students towards their teachers. It is composed of questions pertaining to teacher qualities and characteristics, such as: Appearance, Clarity of Instruction, Classroom Management, Compassion, Competence/Content, Enthusiasm, Ethical/Moral/ Professional, Giving of Grades, Humor, Instruction Procedure and Quality, Insistence on Mastery and Learning/ Student-Centeredness, Using a Variety of Teaching Methods, Motivation, Organization, and Personal Relationship.

The students were asked to give their ratings on the statements bearing in mind their teachers in DCSR. The scale used is Interval, using the values of 5 for Strongly agree; 4, for agree; 3 for minimally agree; 2 for disagree; and 1 for strongly disagree After reading each of the statement, the student then rates his/her agreement on the same, bearing in mind their teachers at DCSR.

Variable grouping

The study followed the grouping of questions as was said above, in the following way:
Factors Statement numbers
Appearance Statement #13
Clarity Statement #14
Classroom Management Statements #5, 36
Compassion Statements #16, 32, 37, 40
Competence, Content Statements# 4, 8, 9, 45
Enthusiasm Statement#3
Ethical/Moral/Professional Statements# 10, 11, 12, 25, 26
Giving of Grades Statements # 34, 35
Humor Statement#29
Quality of Instruction,
Teaching Procedure Statements# 1, 18, 43, 44, 46, 47
Insistence on Mastery
and Learning/
Student-Centeredness Statements# 2, 17, 38
Using a Variety of Teaching
Methods and Strategies Statement#39
Motivation #15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33

Organization of Classroom
Instruction/ Evidence of
Teaching Plan Statements# 6, 7
Relationship with Teachers Statements# 41, 42


Method of Research

The proponent used survey questions and distributed them to III-St. Thomas, her advisory class, and III-St. Catherine. The students were asked not to rate specific teachers but the classroom teaching procedures of all teachers.

Discussion and Results

Cronbach Alpha.

In order to test the consistency of responses to all items, and for the homogeneity of all items, the study used SPSS 11.0 to compute for the Cronbach Alpha. The result is a high consistency rating of 0.9545.

Overall Average

The overall average rating for all the questions by the respondents is 3.51126, with a standard deviation of 0.874786. This is found to be highly correlated with Atento’s result of 3.5438, with a standard deviation of 0.9483 . P-value for the comparison of the two means is at 0.8414 with t-obtained at 0.1959.

Comparing between means using Student’s t-test

The grand mean for the Class 1 students is higher, at 3.6787 (standard deviation at 0.400), while the Class 2 has 3.2867 (standard deviation at 0.5028). T-test for the two means reveal an obtained value of 2.4926 revealing a significance verdict for the two means. Hence, we reject the equality of means, and profess that Class 1 students give significantly higher ratings for their teachers than Class 2 students.

Now, ratings were higher for the new students, with a mean of 3.7447 (standard deviation at 0.425), as compared to the old students’ 3.489 (standard deviation is at 0.4872). However, comparing between means using the t-test obtained a low 0.85341 or a no-significance between the two means. This is partly because of a low number of new students (only three). We accept here the equality of means.

Comparing results among Factors

Below are the results of the means gathered per factor
Items Average
1 Humor 4.00
2 Relationship 3.91
3 Clarity 3.66
4 Competence/Content 3.62
5 Motivation 3.62
6 Compassion 3.54
7 Enthusiasm 3.54
8 Instruction 3.53
9 Methods 3.46
10 Ethical/Moral/
Professional 3.44
11 Classroom Mgmt 3.4
12 Mastery 3.36
13 Appearance 3.31
14 Grades 3.07
15 Organization 2.86


Discussion on the results per Factor

It is found out that the highest rating given to teachers in DCSR, is on their sense of humor. The students agree that their teachers use humor and fun in teaching instruction. This is important for the students, since this takes away the boredom of classroom set-up. Humor is also very much needed in DCSR classroom set-up, since the curriculum of DCSR High School is Enriched and students have to sit down for 12 classes a day, the maximum hours allowed by Department of Education.

Secondly, and almost understandably, the students believe that they have a good relationship with their teachers. They treat them as friends , and as second parents.

Thirdly, the students believe that their teachers are clear in their teaching. They speak clearly. However, this fact does not make them learn in a more positive way, as is clear later on.

Next, the students believe that the teachers they have are competent in their fields. This is also clear in the PAASCU self-survey evaluation made by Atento and Tejido on the competency of teachers. The students believe that their teachers are knowledgeable in the subject matters they are teaching , and that they are competent in their fields. In Atento , this was rated the highest, receiving 3.619. As is clear, this is very correlated with our 3.62 (see above).

Almost the garnering the same average is motivation. The students feel that they are motivated by their teachers. One student who gave scores of only 2s and 1s, gave just one grade of 4 to this question: “My teachers made me a better person”. The students feel that their teachers push them into learning , and that they expect highly of them . Their teachers also believe they can make good in life , and are supportive of them , encouraging them , and using praise and encouragement whenever they do good.

Next, the compassion of the teachers is judged 6th highest, with a rating of 3.54. The students feel that their teachers are willing to help them always , trying their best to understand students.

Enthusiasm ranks 7th with an equal rating. Here, the students believe that their teachers are enthusiastic in their teaching

At the lowest, we have organization of teaching. The students feel that the classroom instruction is not so organized , and that the instruction follows a plan. Basically, as a teacher, I feel this is due to the inability of the teachers to do their lesson plans, or come to class with an evident plan of instruction.

“Appearance” is ranked second lowest, which is a bit of a surprise. Anyway, the students feel that their teachers do not regard their appearance when they teach in front of the class.

Insistence on Mastery/Learning and Student-centeredness garnered 3.36 as average and is among the lowest. Here, the students feel that their teachers do not regard mastery in their teaching. The teachers move on to the next topic, even without mastery. Also, they do not believe that the instruction of their teachers is student-centered.

Again, classroom management received a low 3.40. This is below the average of 3.51 for all the factors rated by the students. In Atento , classroom management is the second lowest rated factor, receiving 3.447. Although this still translates to GOOD, in his study this creates a scenario where improvement is greatly needed. The students here feel that the teachers do not see to it that they are quiet in class. Also, the teachers do not maintain order in the classroom. Again, the proponent does not maintain that the teachers absolutely are not in control of their classrooms. Only that among the factors rated, this receives one of the lowest ratings.

Professionalism/Ethical Dealings is also judged one of the lowest. The proponent feels that due to the high ratings given in the relationship with teachers (see above), and also in motivation and compassion, the students are sometimes confused on the dividing line that separates teachers from themselves. Perhaps, they feel that teachers are family. Familiarity breeds contempt, as a famous proverb states. One especially bad feedback from the survey is that their teachers speak bad words.

Methods is also not at par with the other factors. This received only a meager 3.46. This is correlated with Atento, where Instructional Tools received 3.357, the lowest for his study. The students believe that their teachers do not vary their teaching methods in classroom instruction.

Individually, the students rated these statements the highest:
1. My teachers use humor and fun in classroom instruction. – 4.00
2. Our teachers believe we can make it good in life. – 3.97
3. Our teachers are supportive of us – 3.91
Our teachers are our second parents – 3.91
Our teachers are our friends – 3.91
6. Our teachers use encouragement and praise whenever we do good – 3.89
7. Our teachers expect highly of us – 3.8
Our teachers encourage us – 3.8
Our teachers try their best to understand students – 3.8
10. Our teachers are knowledgeable in the subject matters they are teaching – 3.77

Individually, the students rated these statements the lowest:
1. The classroom instruction is organized – 2.83
2. Our instruction follows a plan – 2.89
3. Our teachers do not say bad words – 3.03
4. I love my teachers because they give me high grades – 3.06
5. I love my teachers because they give me a passing mark – 3.09
6. Our teachers do not focus on our failures – 3.14
7. My teachers will not move on to the next lesson unless we have mastered the topic – 3.26
8. My teachers made me a better person – 3.29
9. My teachers regard their appearance when they teach in front of the class – 3.31
The teaching instruction I received in my school is student-centered. – 3.31

Summary and Conclusions

Based on the analysis of each item, we can deduce the following:
The main strength of the teachers in DCSR-High School Department has something to do with their personal relationship with the students. The students feel that their teachers are their friends and their second parents. However, because of this, the students tend to feel that their teachers are not professional in their dealings with them. The teachers sometimes forget that they are professionals, and that they should treat the students professionally. There is also a tendency to be relaxed in the midst of students. The students report that their teachers say bad words in front of them, and this destroys the teachers’ professionalism in front of them. However, the students still feel that their teachers are competent in their fields, and that these people are knowledgeable in their subjects. Only, the students feel that their classroom instructions are not organized. Nor do they follow a plan. As the proponent have mentioned, this reflects the inability of teachers to prepare their lesson plans. The students have a way of knowing whether their teachers came in to class prepared or not. I also believe that, as Atento concludes in his study , the teachers of DCSR, is high on the content of their teaching. However, they must also vary their classroom activities, focusing on different methods and tools in instruction.

Finally, as in Atento , classroom management is still a weakness. Perhaps, because of their inability to be professional in their dealings with students, and their insistence on personal ties and relationships with students, they do not earn the respect they do deserve even inside the classroom. I believe that teachers should balance their personal relationships with students with their insistence on discipline and their right to be treated as professionals. This is also the cause of disarray, and lack of organization in instruction. Hence, as is clear, the weaknesses and strengths of teachers are all inter-connected.

Here are some of my recommendations regarding the study:

1. It is a limitation of the study that the proponent surveyed only the juniors, for reasons aforementioned. Actually, the plan of Mr. Atento and I is to have a standard for all the students of Dominican College, not only in their attitude towards teachers, but also towards the curriculum, their parents, study habits and so on. Hence, although he already surveyed the fourth year, and some second year students, I cannot present the results here yet, since we are trying to complete the whole High School Department. It is therefore recommended to include all the other levels.

2. It is also the same weakness, as in Atento on the part of the study that the students were asked to rate the teaching instructions, not only of their present teachers but the teachers that they have had since their first year. Here, the new students’ responses are a little bit more reliable, in the opinion of the researcher. This is for the reason that the memory required from them is lesser, and they have a few teachers to rate. Hence, it must be made clear to the respondents that they are rating their teachers as a whole.

3. Some students do not wish to rate their teachers as a whole, but individually. They mentioned to the researcher that if they will be rating the teachers as a whole, they would only remember the bad ones. This must be assumed by the study for the moment. Later on, the proponent wants to administer the same survey for individual teachers and inspect whether they are at par with the majority, and are thus, effective, or not.

Glόria tibi Dómine!

Analysis of my students at DCSR 2004-2005

Analysis of my students at Dominican College Sta. Rosa - school year 2004-2005


I am an adviser of Fourth Year - St. Rose. Since the top 20 students of the batch are in my section, one could say that it is the cream section (of the two sections of Fourth Year). Most of them are 15 to 16 years old, in their adolescence period. Since they are already in the Fourth Year, they will be going to College next year.

In order to analyze them according to their development stage, I prepared some questions that will try to check their self-evaluation with the theories of development, which we talked about in our class. There are 36 of them. Here are the questions I asked them:

1. I am more difficult to cope with /understand now, than when I was young.
2. Everything seems better when I was young than now.
3. I think positively about myself.
4. Life is how it is supposed to be.
5. The world is a good place to live.
6. I am still growing physically.
7. I am now attracted to the opposite sex.
8. I identify myself with my father (for the boys) / mother (for the girls).
9. I am now able to think hypothetically and counterfactually.
10. I feel like I am at center stage and am being watched all the time.
11. I dream of being a rock star, or someone very famous.
12. I know what I am supposed to do because of the past rules and customs that I learned when I was still young.
13. I have so many things to do and so many roles to assume now.
14. It is my goal to know myself or to have a correct sense of who I am.
15. I can say that my age is a negativistic age.
16. I know the standards of what is correct and not, and am able to choose between them.
17. I think that the "right" thing is tentative to my group.
18. The reason why I am doing right is that I have an obligation to the law.
19. The reason why I am doing right is that it is for the welfare and protection of the rights of others.
20. I know my goals in life and I am completely prepared for them.
21. I am now developing the abilities in order to march towards my goal.
22. I was raised up in a certain why by my parents/guardians that made me who I am.
23. The things I learned from my childhood days are at conflict with the society I am now living.
24. I know myself perfectly.


After evaluating themselves, they chose from the following:
1 Superduper disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither disagree nor agree (neutral)
4 Agree
5. Agree to the max


The following are the results:

These received the highest votes. At the right is the average.

1. It is my goal to know myself or to have a correct sense of who I am 4.06
2. I have so many things to do and so many roles to assume now 4.03
3. The reason why I am doing right is that it is for the welfare and protection of the rights of others 3.89
4. I was raised up in a certain why by my parents/guardians that made me who I am 3.81
5. The world is a good place to live 3.78
6. I dream of being a rock star, or someone very famous 3.69
7. I know what I am supposed to do because of the past rules and customs I learned when I was still young 3.58
8. I am still growing physically 3.56
9. I know the standards of what is correct and not and I am able to choose from them 3.56
10. I am now attracted to the opposite sex 3.53

These received the lowest votes.

1. I am more difficult to cope with or understand now than when I was young 2.61
2. Life is how it is supposed to be 2.78
3. I know my goals in life and I am completely prepared for them 2.78
4. I know myself perfectly 2.83
5. I can say that my age is a negativistic age 2.86
6. It seems better when I was young than now 2.97
7. I think positively about myself 2.97
8. I feel like I am at center stage and I am being watched all the time 3.06
9. I identify myself with my father/mother 3.08
10. I think that the "right" thing is tentative to my group 3.08

In these questions, they are most agreeable, having the least standard deviation:

I am able to think hypothetically and counterfactually 0.73
I have so many things to do and so many roles to assume now 0.74
The things I learned from my childhood days are at conflict with the society I am now living 0.80
The reason why I am doing right is that it is for the welfare and protection of the rights of others 0.82
I know the standards of what is correct and not and I am able to choose from them 0.84
I know what I am supposed to do because of the past rules and customs I learned when I was still young 0.87
I know myself perfectly 0.88
I am now developing the abilities in order to march towards my goal 0.89
I know my goals in life and I am completely prepared for them 0.93
I was raised up in a certain why by my parents/guardians that made me who I am 0.95
The reason why I am doing right is that I have an obligation to the law 0.97





These questions received the highest mean net of standard deviation (mean minus standard deviation):

I have so many things to do and so many roles to assume now 3.29
The reason why I am doing right is that it is for the welfare and protection of the rights of others 3.07
It is my goal to know myself or to have a correct sense of who I am 2.96
I was raised up in a certain why by my parents/guardians that made me who I am 2.85
The world is a good place to live 2.76
I know the standards of what is correct and not and I am able to choose from them 2.71
I know what I am supposed to do because of the past rules and customs I learned when I was still young 2.71
I am able to think hypothetically and counterfactually 2.68
The things I learned from my childhood days are at conflict with the society I am now living 2.56
I dream of being a rock star, or someone very famous 2.55

Problem Age. Their age is in the problem age stage. It is called the dreaded age, and an age of negativism. Although they did not think that their age is a negativistic age, they do not think positively about themselves (7th highest). It is also a time of unrealism. They want to see the world, as they want to be.


Psychosexual Development

In the Psychosexual development, my students are in their latency age, characterized by the following:

1. Psychological growth enters dormancy stage. This I wasn’t able to check through questioning because I asked the wrong question: “I am still growing physically”.
2. They start being attracted to the opposite sex. This is the tenth most agreeable statement.
3. They identify with their “same-sex” parent. This is the 9th most disagreeable statement. Most of my students are victims of broken homes. Some answers were even “uncertain” in this question, because they said they simply don’t know because their parents are not at home anymore, etc.

Cognitive Development

In the Cognitive Development, my students are now in their formal operational stage, characterized by:

1. They are able to think hypothetically and counterfactually (8th most agreeable statement, and the statement in which their answers agreed the most).
2. It is also the age of egocentrism. They have personal fables about themselves. “I want to be a rock star or an important person someday”, received one of the highest votes.

Psychosocial Development


In the Psychosocial Development, they are now in their identity vs role confusion stage, characterized by the following:

1. It is their goal to know themselves, or to have a correct sense of who they are. It is the most agreeable statement.
2. They have many things to do and so many roles to assume now. It is the second most agreeable statement, and the highest mean net of standard deviation statement.
3. They were raised up in a certain way by their parents that made them who they are now. It is the fourth most agreeable statement.
4. They know what they are supposed to do because of the way they were raised up (the traditions and customs that they were raised up with). It is the seventh most agreeable statement.
5. They are having a conflict in themselves because the standards in which they were brought up are at war with the society they are growing up right now. This statement although just the 13th highest, is the 2nd highest question where they agree the most. This clearly illustrates the identity vs role confusion.

Moral Development

In the Moral Development, they are now at Post-conventional morality, specifically at stage 5 Social Contract. For them

1. Obligation to law is for the welfare and protection of rights. This is the 4th most agreeable statement for them.

Life Goals Development

In the life goals development, my students are still in Before Self-Determination stage.

1. They are still developing abilities for goal setting. They have some goals about themselves, but they are not prepared for them.