Daphne Nwobike, Staff Writer
Is the Constitution an infallible document that continues to uphold our rights and liberties? In the wake of the new presidency and the proliferation of several head-turning executive orders, what does the Constitution have to say about the state of our nation? Do we keep this age-old document or create a new and sustainable alternative? To answer this question, the Department of Theater and Dance held a staged reading of Heidi Schreck’s play, “What the Constitution Means to Me.” Directed by Sarah Lacy Hamilton and featuring Professor Jim Crawford, Professor Elyzabeth Gregory Wilder, and Akosua Aryeh-Green (C ‘28), this production of “What the Constitution Means to Me” was phenomenal.
On Friday, January 24, Convocation Hall was teeming with students, faculty, staff, and community members alike. Fifteen-year-old Heidi (played by Professor Wilder) began her speech with a vivid description of the Constitution as a living document, saying, “The Constitution is a living document. That is what is so beautiful about it. It is a living, warm-blooded, steamy document. It is hot and sweaty; it is a crucible.” This gripping, albeit uncanny, description of the Constitution gripped the audience’s attention and elicited laughs from the crowd.
The play continued with remarks about the qualities of the Constitution, spotlighting specific amendments, such as the 9th and 14th Amendments, and their implications for the United States. She highlighted the 9th Amendment’s importance in preserving the Constitution’s radical openness to future interpretations and its capacity to accommodate societal evolution. She explained the purpose of the 14th Amendment and its role in safeguarding birthright citizenship, as well as landmark cases like Roe v. Wade, which recognized a woman’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy. However, the reversal of these rights in recent rulings served as a sobering reminder of the fragility of constitutional protections.
Using humor, satire, and raw honesty, our protagonist moves the narrative into deeply personal reflections on her life and how the Constitution failed her and the women in her family. With anecdotes about issues from birth control to abortion to domestic violence, our protagonist is unflinchingly candid about how women’s bodies “have been left out of the constitution from the beginning.”
The play transitioned into a speech by Mel Johnson (played by Crawford), a legionnaire who fought in World War II and represented a real person from Heidi Schreck’s life. He shared his experiences with being queer and having to hide his identity to fit in, to avoid being the subject of violence, and to maintain traditional notions of masculinity. After Mel’s speech, Schreck continued elaborating on the generational trauma and pain created by the lack of protection and support for women experiencing domestic violence at the time. She culminates her speech with these noteworthy words, saying, “There are so many countries who created modern positive rights constitutions. Most of these constitutions have explicit gender protections written into them. Ours is not one of them. Our Constitution is so old. Of course, the problem with making an all-new positive rights constitution is that we’d still have to trust the people interpreting those rights.”
Moving into the debate portion of the production, Professor Wilder welcomed Aryeh-Green to the stage to share her thoughts on the Constitution and whether it should be abolished. The audience was invited to engage in the debate—to clap, chant, whoop, or boo, depending on their feelings about the arguments to be made. Aryeh-Green advocated for the abolition of the constitution, and Professor Wilder advocated for its preservation. In favor of abolishing the Constitution, Aryeh-Green says:
“Let’s look at the 13th Amendment. It abolished slavery only for it to be re-imagined as a prison industry, which is another systematic form of oppression. It is an illusion of progress. How do we expect to make any real progress when the Electoral College is a hot mess? Voter suppression is rampant. Communities of color, women, people with disabilities, LGBTQ folks, Indigenous people, and immigrants are affected by these challenges daily…This document is old and archaic. I want a document that believes health care is a human right, that protects gender equality, that requires us to honor communities, that sets education as a fundamental pillar of our society, and takes action on climate change because, without that, there is no future for any of us.”
Although this was a fictional debate, the broader implications of these conversations about the U.S. Constitution are incredibly relevant and timely. The future of the United States is at a crossroads, and we must remain cognizant of ways to hold lawmakers and the Constitution accountable to preserve true liberty and justice for all.