“What the Constitution Means to Me” Means to Me

It’s extremely uncommon to hear of a show that is unconventional, funny, and argues a case for women and minorities in our current society, especially on Broadway. More commonly, instead, we see musicals and plays that depict issues and stories not prevalent in our world today. Enter Heidi Schreck’s unconventional “What the Constitution Means to Me,” an engaging masterpiece that is an absolute must-see this year.

Directed by Olivia Butler, “What the Constitution Means to Me” premiered March 31, 2019 at the Helen Hayes Theater. On a simple set that resembles an American Legion hall recreated from her memories, Schreck recounts the vital role the Constitution has played in her life. In an extremely engaging fashion, she begins by enacting the story of how, at the age of 15, had enough money to pay for her entire college tuition by competing at Constitutional Debate competitions nationwide. With Mike Iveson playing a legionnaire, and providing rules and additional insight, Schreck recreates her winning speech. In these types of debates, the competitors were asked to explain the impact the document had on their own lives. Here, Schreck draws parallels between her family history and the Constitution, and how the document that she idolized for so long fails to protect not only the women in her family, but also continues to fail women in the nation today. She pays homage to these women, going back generations and detailing the domestic abuse they faced. In her monologues, she quotes the Constitution, cites statistics, and recounts personal anecdotes, demonstrating what it truly means to be a woman in the United States, and the failure of this document to protect and acknowledge women throughout history. She goes on to express her current concern as to how this historic document affects the human rights of minorities and underrepresented communities both positively and negatively. Even though this document was something she idolized and was devoted to growing up, Schreck realizes it “is doing exactly what it was designed to do from the beginning, which is to protect the interests of a small number of rich, white men,” Schreck said.

The show concludes with Schreck introducing a high schooler for a formal debate on whether the U.S. Constitution should be abolished or kept. Rosdely Ciprian, a 14 year old freshman, alternates performances with Thursday Williams, a senior. Ciprian was the debater for the performance that I attended, and after a coin toss, she argued for abolishment while Schreck argued the other. Mini Constitutions are passed out, allowing the audience to follow along if either debater mentions or quotes certain parts. In one of the best moments of the show, both argue in a hilarious but sophisticated manner. Though the show is scripted, there is a realistic element, as both sides make cutting remarks in efforts of making their side more appealing to the audience, while also citing current events and parts of the Constitution to build a solid argument. An audience member chooses the winner of the debate, and everyone walks away from the show reflecting on the many points made in this historic document.

Heidi Schreck is an engaging performer, who by the end of the show, leaves the audience pensive, with her many insights and criticisms of the document and the current state of our country sticking in their heads. She breaks down the Constitution and its many amendments as if she were addressing a member of the audience directly, using personal anecdotes, sarcasm, and jokes to get her main ideas and points across. She does this in a way where it’s hard to believe the show is scripted, and not an improvised and open conversation. Not once does she let us lose sight of how the Constitution relates to our lives and affects us directly today. She reminds the audience of issues that take place throughout the country today, from domestic abuse to discrimination to the lack of representation and rights for people of color and immigrants. As a minority, there are so many aspects of this show that were beautiful to see. The guest debaters are minorities as well, and are advocating for underrepresented people and a better future that is inclusive rather than exclusive. This is such a huge contrast to what is normally seen on Broadway stages.

It’s satisfying to see Schreck initiate this conversation about the nation, one that was really necessary to have. By breaking down and tracing years and years of oppression and dehumanization brought on by the Constitution, Schreck gives the audience a new perspective that is constantly overlooked. Rather than leaving the audience with a grim sense of hopelessness and despair after recognizing all the flaws and wrongs of the document and nation, she inspires a call to action for change, one where we can rewrite a future that is diverse and female for once, instead of the same white men that are constantly seen in the history of the country. She evokes a sense of hope in the audience, where it is acknowledged that yes, the Constitution is flawed, and yes, our nation is flawed, but both are capable of being improved.