Podcast Summary:
The New Yorker Radio Hour
Episode: What the Constitution Means to the Playwright Heidi Schreck
Date: May 14, 2019
Host: David Remnick
Guest: Heidi Schreck (Playwright and Actor); Interviewer: Dorothy Wickenden (Executive Editor, The New Yorker)
Overview
This episode focuses on Heidi Schreck's acclaimed Broadway play, What the Constitution Means to Me, in which she uses personal storytelling to examine the impact and limitations of the U.S. Constitution, especially on women's lives across generations. The discussion, led by Dorothy Wickenden, delves into the play’s conception, its striking contemporary relevance, and Schreck’s exploration of historical legal cases and amendments as they relate to women’s rights, bodily autonomy, and the idea of belonging in America.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
The Origins of the Play and Its Relevance today
-
Heidi Schreck originally conceived What the Constitution Means to Me as a personal reflection, not as a political statement for its current era.
-
She began exploring the Constitution through the lens of her family history, stemming from her experience as a teen competing in constitutional speech contests.
-
Despite its personal intent, the play has become highly topical during significant cultural and political debate, particularly in the era of Trump, Barr, and Kavanaugh.
Quote:
“I never imagined it would become as relevant as it is today. I was really looking at something quite personal and exploring a story that takes place over four generations.”
— Heidi Schreck [02:16]
The Centrality of the 14th Amendment
-
Schreck’s in-depth look at the 14th Amendment led her to connect family experiences to broader themes of citizenship, rights, and protection under the law.
-
She discusses the historical irony: while the 14th Amendment asserted equal protection, it specifically inserted the word “male” into the Constitution—a setback for women’s suffrage.
Quote:
“I suddenly realized that so many of the things that had deeply affected my life had a relationship to the 14th Amendment. So those things include birth control, they include abortion, Roe v. Wade, and then I have this history of domestic and sexual violence in my family.”
— Heidi Schreck [03:57]Quote:
“The 14th Amendment was the first time that the word ‘male’ was explicitly written into the Constitution. So while the 14th Amendment asserted equal protection under the law for everyone, it also made it clear that only male citizens were guaranteed the right to vote.”
— Heidi Schreck [04:30]
Historical Struggles for Women's Rights
-
Wickenden draws parallels to her own research, referencing Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s warning about the lasting consequences of the word “male” in the Constitution.
-
The conversation highlights how women's rights activists anticipated the enduring struggle for gender equality.
Quote:
“[Stanton] said if the word male was inserted into the Constitution, it would take women a century to get it out again... but it did take, as you say in the play, 54 years.”
— Dorothy Wickenden [05:21]
Landmark Court Cases: Griswold v. Connecticut
-
Schreck discusses including real Supreme Court audio in the play, particularly the discomfort exhibited by the all-male court discussing birth control and women's health.
-
She points out the persistent hypocrisy: while birth control wasn’t legally protected for all women until 1972, it was widely used despite restrictive laws.
Quote:
“The first thing I noticed when I started listening to the case is how uncomfortable all the men were talking about birth control and about women's bodies and about women's health... I just started laughing and laughing while I was listening to them.”
— Heidi Schreck [07:11, 08:04]Quote:
“Birth control was not constitutionally protected for all women until 1972. But of course, everybody was using birth control... and yet it was so difficult for this court to just come out and say, ‘of course this is a protected right.’”
— Heidi Schreck [08:56]
The Play's Relationship to the Current Political Climate
-
The show avoids explicit references to figures like Trump but resonates deeply with current events, audience anxieties, and the ongoing constitutional questions.
-
Audience reactions change night to night, reflecting the political climate’s influence on interpretation and engagement.
Quote:
“For example, I did the show during the Kavanaugh hearings, and the audience was very emotional... Strangely, during that time period, people voted to abolish the Constitution a lot.”
— Heidi Schreck [10:17]Quote:
“When the AP reported that Trump had said he was going to get rid of birthright citizenship, which of course he can't do... I just read [the birthright citizenship clause] in a very neutral voice, and that elicited a huge response from the audience.”
— Heidi Schreck [11:01]
Purpose, Hope, and Community
-
Schreck expresses that her hope for the play is not specific political action, but rather to offer a communal space for reflection and hope in difficult times.
-
She describes the satisfaction and optimism she experiences from engaging audiences in conversation and collective feeling.
Quote:
“I think the only thing I hope for people is that it brings people who maybe are suffering through this moment the way many people are, a sense of community... to also find ways to find hope for our future. It's made me a much happier person than I was two years ago.”
— Heidi Schreck [12:09]
Memorable Quotes & Moments (w/ Timestamps)
- “Just because the Constitution does not proclaim the having of imaginary friends as one of my rights does not mean I can be thrown in jail for being friends with Reba McEntire. Isn't that amazing?” — Heidi Schreck [00:52]
- “I was really looking at something quite personal and exploring a story that takes place over four generations.” — Heidi Schreck [02:16]
- “The 14th Amendment... was the first time that the word ‘male’ was explicitly written into the Constitution.” — Heidi Schreck [04:30]
- “I just started laughing... I was hearing the way they were talking about these things and the subtext... how ludicrous it was for this decision about women's health... being made by nine male justices.” — Heidi Schreck [07:11–08:38]
- “I never really refer to anything that's happening on that day. But the subtext of the play changes every night, and what people are bringing into the play changes.” — Heidi Schreck [11:22]
- “The ability to show up in a room every night and think through what's going on in our country and have space to have feelings about it and to grieve about it and to also find ways to find hope for our future.” — Heidi Schreck [12:10]
Important Segment Timestamps
- [00:09] David Remnick introduces the episode and the play’s context
- [01:30] Conversation with Heidi Schreck begins (Dorothy Wickenden)
- [03:08] Focus on the 14th Amendment and Schreck’s personal connection
- [05:05] Historical background on women’s rights and Constitutional language
- [06:27] Discussion of Supreme Court’s Griswold v. Connecticut case
- [09:38] Contemporary resonance; audiences’ reactions to political news and the Constitution debate in the play
- [11:42] Reflection on the play’s purpose and impact
- [12:58] Episode concludes the segment with Heidi Schreck
Tone and Style
The conversation is reflective, candid, and at times wryly humorous, matching Schreck’s approach in her play—balancing deeply personal storytelling with critical social commentary. Both Schreck and Wickenden approach heavy constitutional and legal topics with warmth, insight, and a sense of accessibility.
Summary for New Listeners
Even if you haven’t seen the play or followed every twist in constitutional law, this episode offers a compelling look at how the U.S. Constitution—and the history and exclusions within it—continues to directly shape women’s lives and American identity. Schreck’s personal narrative, coupled with her decades-spanning research, makes an often-daunting subject both vivid and urgent, offering listeners a space to process the political present while connecting it to the lives, struggles, and hopes of ordinary people.