The opinions expressed in this article are the writer’s own and do not reflect the views of Her Campus, The University of Scranton, and The University of Scranton Players.
This article is written by a student writer from the Her Campus at Scranton chapter.
As I believe with most Americans, my relationship to my country is complicated politically. Having spent the past five months in Europe explaining American politics and watching my European friends scoff (typically rightly) at United States policy, it has become difficult to love my country. Being in a foreign country makes it easier to see the flaws in your own country. Personally, this was largely due to how much I liked Europe, but also to my family, friends, and even strangers’ questions: “Do you like your country?” “How are they your only candidates for President?” and “Are you scared to go home?” Believe me, these were things I wondered to myself as well; I felt, as a young person, I was “waiting on the world to change,” much like the John Mayer song. However, performing in The University of Scranton Players’ latest show “What the Constitution Means to Me” has given me hope for our country and what it has the power to become.
Hope in my country is not a sentiment I have felt since I was a child, and I suspect my parents may have set me up to be disappointed. When I was little, my history major dad and educationally minded mother would rent a 2004 series called “Liberty Kids.” The cartoon followed James, an American boy working for Benjamin Franklin, Sarah, a teenage British reporter, Henri, a French sailor, and Moses, a freed slave, as they reported about the events of the American Revolutionary war, meeting famous historical figures such as George Washington, Benedict Arnold, Paul Revere, etc. The characters were voiced by stars like Walter Cronkite, Sylvester Stallone, Ben Stiller, Billy Crystal, Annette Bening, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Douglas, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Liam Neeson, Whoopi Goldberg, Charles Shaughnessy, and Ralph Fiennes. Despite this incredible voice cast, I think we were the only people using these VHS tapes, and the library sold them all to us after a few years. Watching this series gave me my love of American history, and it was my favorite show when I’d get a sore throat or the flu and stay home from school. My hometown is 40 minutes outside of Philly with traffic, so my parents would often take me into the city to see Independence Hall and the Constitution Center; these trips later extended to Boston, Gettysburg, New York, and Washington D.C. By the time I was in third grade, I was correcting my teacher about the facts of the Revolutionary War (I was a very insufferable know-it-all in middle school), and loved history, even the difficult stuff; to me, that was how we could learn and be better.Â
My father was very pragmatic about ensuring I understood the shortcomings of our “founding fathers” and other great figures of American history, so the older I got, the more I could see that many of these historical figures I revered were not the great men I believed them to be as a child. I started to look around at my country and feel a large amount of dissatisfaction, seeing a nation plagued by school shootings, violence, and injustice. By the time I was in high school, I was a cynic; I was sick of hearing or caring about politics because I felt they only served to divide us (and I knew George Washington argued against them). I watched my friends hurl insults to each other over Republican and Democratic policy and a Congress so divided neither party was willing to cooperate across party lines to improve our country. Whenever I tried to take an active role in politics or any type of advocacy, I found myself blocked. In middle school, I was prevented from leaving during a national student walk-out about gun control. Four years later, I was told by a school administrator that a poetry piece about school shootings “wasn’t appropriate” to be performed at an event showcasing my high school’s Speech and Debate team’s work. I was taking the piece to the national competition that year. Eventually, I was done; not only had my country failed me as a young person, but it had also failed my future, though this might have been inevitable. The Constitution that those people in the cartoon had fought and died for wasn’t really protecting me. I quickly lost faith in my country, a feeling that was exacerbated by hostilities around political opinion; it seemed as though people were sinking themselves deeper into an inability to listen to one another, and as such, working together to make change became impossible.
When “Roe V. Wade” was overturned, I felt failed, not as a college student or a young person, but as a woman. I remember that I was on a family vacation, sitting on a bed in an Airbnb, reading and rereading a news article. I was shocked; this was a case I studied in high school as a landmark Supreme Court case. I’m Catholic, but I always felt that women reserve the right to have an abortion, and it’s a stance that I have always stood by; as someone who wants to become a lawyer, this ruling was particularly difficult for me. I decided affability was the best way to interpret the future of our country. It didn’t care about me, why should I care about it?
Then, the University of Scranton Players announced that they would be staging “What the Constitution Means to Me” by Heidi Schreck. I had my doubts and, based on the title alone, assumed that no one would come to see it. Of course, I hadn’t read it, I just felt like touching anything political with a ten-foot pole seemed like a terrible idea. However, when auditions rolled around, I figured I would watch the taped version on Amazon, just out of curiosity.
I was deeply moved.Â
I expected a political show, but what I watched couldn’t be further from my expectations. Schreck, who plays a version of herself, wrote and performed a nuanced show about the history of the Constitution, how it has impacted her life, and hope for her country, something I hadn’t felt in a very long time. I laughed, I cried, I took two days to process it and then watched it again. Then, I auditioned for the show. Our director, Sam Morales, believed in me enough to play the part of Heidi (still pinching myself) so, script in hand, I spent the summer reading it. It changed my mind and rejuvenated my faith in the Constitution.
With everything happening in our country, how could one play, this play, change my mind? Written in 2016, “What the Constitution Means to Me” is actually a period play, given the way the American legal landscape has since shifted. As per the synopsis by Concord Theatricals, “Playwright Heidi Schreck’s boundary-breaking play breathes new life into our Constitution and imagines how it will shape the next generation of Americans. Fifteen-year-old Heidi earned her college tuition by winning Constitutional debate competitions across the United States. In this hilariously hopeful and achingly human play, she resurrects her teenage self in order to trace the profound relationship between four generations of women and the founding document that shaped their lives.” During the first half of the play, Heidi discusses her fifteen-year-old self’s love of the Constitution and how its various amendments have impacted her life.Â
At the midpoint of the show, she vulnerably talks about how domestic abuse has impacted her, her family, and women in our country. As an actor, this part of the show is difficult for me because the words often get caught in my throat. I’ve volunteered for the past two summers at Legal Aid of Southeastern Pennsylvania, a law clinic for those who are unable to afford a lawyer. Every day, I hear about cases of domestic and child abuse, so this issue feels personal. Schreck talks about a case I had previously never heard of, “Jessica Lenehan v. Castle Rock,” through which Lenehan sued her abusive husband for kidnapping her three daughters. Lenehan had a protection from abuse order against her husband, but the Castle Rock, Colorado police refused to help her and told her to “leave them alone.” Then, her husband murdered their daughters, using a gun he was able to legally buy thanks to the woeful misinterpretation of the second amendment still in use today. From a legal standpoint, the Supreme Court feared that ruling in Lenehan’s favor would mean opening the doors to lawsuits against police, fire companies, and other first responders.
From a humanistic perspective, they don’t spend a lot of time talking about Jessica or her daughters, Rebecca, Katherine, and Leslie; in the words of the play, “instead they spend a lot of the time discussing the word shall.” Justices spend more time discussing a word than the people whose lives were lost or the woman who wasn’t protected by the law. As an aspiring attorney, it’s hard to reconcile that a system I want to enter has historically excluded women; our bodies were not considered when the Constitution was written by men and the amendments don’t seem to protect women today. However, these are the types of questions the play explores. In the past eight years since this show was performed on Broadway, statistics regarding violence against women have increased exponentially, most notably the number of women assaulted in their lifetime has gone from 1 in 4 to 1 in 3 according to statistics by the Center for Disease Control.
Most shockingly, though, is a different statistic the show addresses, “since the year 2000, more American women have been killed by their male partners than Americans have died in the war on terror – including 9/11.” If that alone doesn’t make you stop and truly wonder what is happening to women in our society, I don’t know what will. Women are fighting a daily war against violence perpetrated by men against us and a patriarchy that refuses to protect us time and time again.Â
You may be confused, then, as to why, as previously mentioned, this show makes me optimistic about the Constitution. I’ve listed a lot of very concerning reasons as to why our Constitution, and moreover, American courts and politicians have failed us. My personal view is shifted for the better by the second half of the show, which consists of a debate between Heidi and a teenage debater; the debate is centered around whether it would be more beneficial for our nation to keep the Constitution or abolish it and create a new one. This makes me wonder what Heidi as a playwright believes and how this impacts the play as a whole.Â
Opposing ideas can complicate a play because actors often try to establish a character’s objective to guide their performance; this is typically done by making a “to ___” statement that encapsulates what it is the character wants. From there, we look at the scene and see what sort of tactic a character is following with their lines. Take, for example, Juliet in Shakespeare’s fatal play; she wants to be with Romeo, and will use her words “to convince,” “to romance,” and “to plead” in order to achieve her goal of being with Romeo.
How do you reconcile an objective with a character that shifts every night in their beliefs? This tells me that Schreck as a character, and maybe even as a writer, doesn’t know if the Constitution should be kept in its present form or if it is protecting us. The play’s dialogue leads me to believe that the answer is dualistic. Perhaps that’s why my objective statement is ever evolving but settled within the idea that Heidi wants to inspire change for a better country. I think Schreck, despite everything, is saying that there is a hope that things can get better. She is holding a mirror to American society to show us that women and many historically marginalized groups have been and remain to be persecuted. In doing this, she provides a roadmap for how, through Constitutional amendments, systematic and historical issues can be fixed, and indeed they must, in order to create positive change to protect all people’s rights. She is showing us that we have the power to change our Constitution for the better. This is a message I needed to hear to give me hope for my country, especially with November’s Presidential election quickly approaching. As such, I’d like to extend to you the invitation to see this show, not only because of the very talented cast and crew I have the pleasure of performing alongside, but because I think it is something we need to hear. You may leave changed by this beautiful show, I know I have, as it has taught me what the Constitution means to me.Â
Performances are September 19th-22nd. Thursday, Friday, and Saturday performances are at 8 PM, and the Sunday performance is at 2 PM. All performances take place in the Studio Theatre inside the McDade Center for the Literary and Performing Arts.Â
“What the Constitution Means to Me” is presented by arrangement with Concord Theatricals on behalf of Samuel French, Inc. www.concordtheatricals.com.Â
Content Warning: This show contains content about serious topics.Â
For tickets:Â https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdLb9vMFO4ez-MYja9l3fiHonl_UTytONjWYqgrrkFlJnVeDw/viewform