What the Constitution Means to the Playwright Heidi Schreck

Summary

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.

Transcript

[Announcer]

From one World Trade center in Manhattan. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour, a co production of the New Yorker and WNYC Studios.

[David Remnick]

Welcome to the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. What the Constitution Means to Me is the title of a one person show written and performed by Heidi Schreck. It was also the title of a speech that Schreck used to deliver a very long time ago at high school speech contests. Her show is on Broadway now and it's something of a surprise hit. In the play, Schreck talks about the protections that the Constitution guarantees and also the lack of protections and how those policies shaped her life and her family's history. What the Constitution Means to Me has been nominated for two Tony Awards and it's become a kind of cultural flashpoint in the era of William Barr, Brett Kavanaugh and Donald Trump.

[Heidi Schreck]

The fact is there was no way for the framers to put down every single right we have. I mean, the right to brush your teeth. Yes, you've got it. But how long do we want this document to be? Here's another example. When I was a little girl, I had an imaginary friend named Reba McIntyre. She was not related to the singer. 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?

This?

Think about it for a moment. Our Constitution doesn't tell you all the rights that you have because it doesn't know.

[David Remnick]

Dorothy Wickenden, who hosts the New Yorker's Political Scene podcast, spoke with Heidi Schreck.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Thank you so much for joining me on a day where you should be sort of kicking back and relaxing before your show tonight.

[Heidi Schreck]

Thank you. I'm very excited to talk with you.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

So I saw the play last week and I really haven't been able to stop thinking about it. We talk about political news every week, usually about the grotesque real life theater, political theater unfolding every day in Washington. But you found such an unlikely way to shed light on the constitutional crisis of the moment. And I wonder if you could talk a little bit about that.

[Heidi Schreck]

When I first began writing this play, I didn't intend to shed light on the constitutional crisis of the moment.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

That was some years ago.

[Heidi Schreck]

It was about 10 years ago I started exploring the Constitution in relationship to my own family history. I had done this contest as a teenage girl where I would travel the country giving speeches about the Constitution for prize money, and I thought it would be interesting to go back and tell a personal story in relationship to this document that has really shaped our lives and our country. So 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.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

It's about as unlikely as a rap musical about Alexander Hamilton.

[Heidi Schreck]

Exactly.

Indeed.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

As you were working through the complications of the show, it sounds as though when you started thinking about the 14th Amendment and thinking about your own heritage and the women in your family.

[Heidi Schreck]

Yes.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Suddenly the show just made sense and came together. How was that?

[Heidi Schreck]

So, I mean, the 14th Amendment was one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Part of it is birthright citizenship. So it ensured that former slaves could be considered citizens. It protected their right to vote, and it also guaranteed them, and ideally everyone, equal protection under the law. When I decided that the guiding principle of the show was that I was going to take the prompt of the contest seriously and try to draw a personal connection between my own life and the Constitution, which was impossible for me to do at 15 because I didn't know enough about myself or my family or history or. Or the Constitution. When I decided to do that as a, you know, a 40 year old, 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. And so when I began to look at the Supreme Court that were related.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

To.

[Heidi Schreck]

Physical and sexual violence toward women, I realized that the 14th Amendment had played a vital role in those cases as well. I also learned while studying it that 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.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

And I get. Maybe one of the reasons I particularly like this part of the play is because I've been writing a book about three women who fought for years for abolition and women's rights during the 1800s, in the years leading up to an end to the Civil War. And I came across a letter just a couple days before I saw the show from that Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote to Susan B. Anthony in 1866 about the 14th Amendment, which, as you say, purportedly guarantees equal protection under the law. She said they were incensed by the. They knew what. The conversation was underway in Congress. And she said if the word male was inserted into the Constitution, it would Take women a century to get it out again. Now, that was a bit of an exaggeration, but it did take, as you say in the play, 54 years.

[Heidi Schreck]

Yes.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

So they went on. They unsuccessfully petitioned Congress to demand that the 14th Amendment prohibit disenfranchisement on account of sex as well as race. And of course, they failed.

[Heidi Schreck]

Yes, they failed. Yeah. And as you know, I'm sure what was fascinating about that is that there were states where women were enfranchised, where women could vote, and progress was being made in terms of women's right to vote. And then that word went in the Constitution, and suddenly it felt like everything was moving back.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

So you also talk about the 1965 Supreme Court case, Griswold v. Connecticut.

[Heidi Schreck]

Yes.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

And another favorite part of mine, you play an audio recording during the show. So Estelle Griswold was arrested for dispensing birth control at a clinic in New Haven. And Justice William O. Douglas wrote the majority opinion, drawing on the first and the Ninth Amendments, I now know, to construe a right to privacy between husband and wife. And while I was sitting there, it just sort of blew my mind to realize, again, that contraception wasn't legal at the time, and this would make contraception legal for married couples and set a precedent for Roe. So in the recording. And maybe you could talk a little bit about this, how you got the idea to play it and what happens.

[Heidi Schreck]

Sure. So I was listening. So first of all, I've listened to hundreds and hundreds of hours of oa.org I love it so much. I've listened to all these Supreme Court cases, and I decided to listen to Griswold versus Connecticut so that I could educate myself about birth control, the right to birth control in this country. And 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.

[Dominic Fike (performer)]

The woman who.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Cannot have another child.

[David Remnick]

Without incurring ill health or death has.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

No other solution to that medical problem.

[Heidi Schreck]

I just started laughing and laughing while I was listening to them. I mean, maybe because I am a playwright and an actor and not a legal scholar, like, that was the thing I was hearing. I was hearing, you know, their performance. I was hearing the way they were talking about these things and the subtext of how they were talking about these things. And I just thought it really brought home for me how ludicrous it was for this decision about women's health, about women's reproduction, about birth Control. The fact that it was being made.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

By all, by nine justices, by nine male justices. How many whom were having.

[Heidi Schreck]

Well, so we know that William O. Douglas was having an affair with a 22 year old college student because he later married her. The other three justices, I only can get people to talk to me about off the record. So I.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Even now.

[Heidi Schreck]

Even now. But definitely, I mean, this is the other thing that I, that when I listened to this recording that I thought about was just like the hypocrisy of it all. Because the truth is, like, birth control was not constitutionally protected for all women until 1972. But of course, everybody was using birth control. It's not like it didn't exist or people weren't, you know, you could go to the drugstore and buy a condom despite the Comstock Laws, despite it being technically illegal in Connecticut. And yet it was so difficult for this court to just come out and say, like, of course this is a protected right, so to speak. Yeah.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

You never utter the word Trump in the show.

[Heidi Schreck]

I don't know.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

And you don't need to. And so just on my way up here from downtown, I was compulsively checking my phone for the news, as people tend to do these days. And the newest headline is White House Asserts Executive Privilege over the the Mueller Report. So for the umpteenth time since the election of 2016, people are again talking about a constitutional crisis.

[Heidi Schreck]

Yes.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

And the night I was there, in the audience, there was this palpable sense that a cathartic experience was underway.

[Heidi Schreck]

Right.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Do you, what does it feel like for you on stage as you relate to your audience's reactions to the play?

[Heidi Schreck]

It changes dramatically every night depending on what is happening that day. For example, I. The show during the Kavanaugh hearings, and the audience was very emotional. There were just audible sounds of grief. There were audible sounds of response. Strangely, during that time period, people voted to abolish the Constitution a lot. Maybe because they felt like, you know, because it felt like for some people, the Supreme Court and the way it operates wasn't working. Although, as you know, you're referring to.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

The scene at the end of the play.

[Heidi Schreck]

I am, yes. Yeah. We debate at the end of the play whether to abolish or keep the Constitution. And during that time period, people were voting to abolish a lot. The day that Trump, that the AP reported that Trump had said he was going to get rid of birthright citizenship, which of course he can't do. But when they reported that that night, the audience broke into APPLAUSE When I just simply read the birthright citizenship clause, I just read it in a very neutral voice, and that elicited a huge response from the audience. So I don't change the language of the play very much from night to night, and 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. So right now, people are always voting to keep the Constitution. And I understand. I understand why.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

So it's so interesting because that wasn't all that long ago, the Capitol hearings.

[Heidi Schreck]

No, no.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

You know, the show does offer a warning and a call to action. And I wonder, when you're looking back on it, say a year or two from now, what do you hope it will have accomplished?

[Heidi Schreck]

I. So I don't create things hoping for any particular response. So the fact that it's sort of expanded into this thing that reaches so many people is exciting for me. And 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. I mean, that's been true for me. Just like 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. It's made me a much happier person than I was two years ago when I was just scrolling through Twitter in despair on my sofa.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Thank you so much, Heidi. Break a leg tonight.

[Heidi Schreck]

Thank you so much.

[David Remnick]

Heidi Schreck is the writer and star of what the Constitution Means to Me. And it's on Broadway now, and it's nominated for two Tony Awards. Dorothy Wickenden is executive editor at the New Yorker, and she hosts our podcast the Political Scene, talking every week with our reporters about the news in Washington and well beyond. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. More to come. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour, and welcome back. I'm David Remnick. We're going to talk for a minute about SoundCloud, and if you're not familiar with it, SoundCloud is sort of like the YouTube of audio. It's a website and an app, and you post sound files on it instead of videos. For musicians struggling to be heard, though, SoundCloud offers a way to reach huge audiences, especially for rappers in the music world, SoundCloud rap suddenly became all the rage. One of our music critics, Carrie Batten, has written all about it. So, Carrie, fill me in. What makes SoundCloud rap distinctive? What makes it a thing unto itself?

[Carrie Batten]

It started, as many things do, as a countercultural movement and then I think it very, very quickly became co opted by the mainstream in a kind of unprecedented way. Very lo fi DIY sounding. One synonym for Soundcloud rap is mumble rap. So it sort of doesn't care at all about the craft. It's laughing at the craft of hip hop.

[David Remnick]

It's saying the craft of enunciation and pacing and delivery and syntax.

[Carrie Batten]

Yes. But what it did was it paved the way for this very vast, rapid deconstruction of rap music itself.

[David Remnick]

So that means what, what is it left behind and what are you going to play for us today?

[Carrie Batten]

Basically, if you look at the hip hop charts now, it's very difficult to find a song that resembles hip hop in the traditional sense. Hip hop is extremely omnivorous and they're open to any style of music. And you see that some of the youngest and brightest rappers are sort of picking up influences wherever they can find them. They're referencing emo and rock from the 2000, they idolize Marilyn Manson and they're doing whatever they want right now.

[David Remnick]

So where to begin? What's your first choice from the legacy of SoundCloud rap?

[Carrie Batten]

So I think Juice WRLD is the name of a rapper and he's a young guy from Chicago and he's kind of like a gateway in the SoundCloud rap world. He has one foot in the SoundCloud rap world, one foot in the pop world. It's kind of the later class of SoundCloud rappers. And he has just had enormous success on the charts, on radio. And this song that we're going to listen to is called Ring Ring.

[Dominic Fike (performer)]

Ring Ring. I don't feel like coming to the phone today Everyone should just leave me alone I don't feel like coming to the phone today I don't feel like being alone I can't deal with the change.

[David Remnick]

So this is a pretty poppy sound. What's been the fate of Juice WRLD since his appearance on SoundCloud Rap?

[Carrie Batten]

He was kind of very quickly snapped up by Interscope Records. He got a huge record deal and I think he's released two projects since then of all varying styles, all of which have experienced enormous commercial success. Despite the fact that they're not very cohesive, they don't really sound like anything else.

[David Remnick]

So now we have somebody named Lil Nas X. What's his story?

[Carrie Batten]

So he is a kid from Atlanta who started out on an app called TikTok. He's maybe the first TikTok star to really break through to the mainstream. I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but it's a kind of a Chinese video editing and sharing app. And so he recorded this song just kind of tinkering around, and I think you will be shocked to hear how little it sounds like rap.

[Dominic Fike (performer)]

No more I'm going to take my horse to the old town road I'm going to ride till I can't no more I got the horses in the back horse stock is attached, head is matted black got the boosters black to match Riding on a horse milking whip your Porsche I've been in the valley, you ain't been up off that porch now can't nobody tell me nothing you can't tell me nothing can't nobody tell me nothing.

[Carrie Batten]

I think a lot of people understand hip hop as a, you know, the attitude of arrogance and of prowess and dominance. But Soundcloud rappers are very much about reveling in their depression and their hatred of the world and their emotional fragilities. I think you heard in that first Juice WRLD song that he's just, I don't feel like coming to the phone today. He's a sad, mopey guy.

[David Remnick]

Is that the case for Lil Nas X?

[Carrie Batten]

No, Lil Nas X is much more of a comedian. I mean, that is one thing that a lot of the Soundcloud rappers have is a comic sensibility. And I think Lil Nas X actually does share that. Although he doesn't use that to express sadness, he kind of uses it to play a character and build a world.

[David Remnick]

Now, I think you've written that there's parallels between the themes and language of SoundCloud rappers and the incel community. Explain what the incel community is. For those who might not know, right.

[Carrie Batten]

Incel is short for involuntary celibate, which are. Which is this sort of subculture that aligns itself with the alt right online guys who are just upset about the fact that they cannot seem to get a date. And they nicely said. And they peg the blame onto the women who will not date them. And they think it's this sort of mass conspiracy on the part of women.

[David Remnick]

But you're not saying these songs are incel, but what's uniting them is a kind of mopiness.

[Carrie Batten]

A mopiness. And especially with some of the earlier SoundCloud rappers and Juice WRLD, sort of an attitude towards women. And it also aligns very closely with sort of the emo rock of the 2000s, which is like, women suck. They're stupid. They hate me. Like, I'm all alone.

[David Remnick]

Now you've got a third pick, Dominic Fike, who's singing three nights.

[Carrie Batten]

Three nights? Yes.

[Dominic Fike (performer)]

Three nights at the motel under street lights in the city Palms. Call me what you want, when you want if you want? And you can call me names if you call me up? Three nights at the Mother Hotel under street lights in the city of Palms? Call me what you want when you want if you want? And you can call me names if you call me up? Feel like the least of all your problems? You can't reach me if you want to stay up tonight?

[David Remnick]

You can call me names if you call me up. I like that. So, Carrie, tell me about Dominic Fike.

[Carrie Batten]

He is sort of currently the buzz of the entire music industry. He's somebody who also started as a rapper. Qua rapper. And started making this way more poppy. Poppy pop, rock, guitar, strumming, beach bonfire music.

[David Remnick]

Now, you wrote a piece called How SoundCloud Rap Took Over Everything.

[Carrie Batten]

Yes.

[David Remnick]

And that was published in January 2019. Is it over?

[Carrie Batten]

Well, technically, the term Soundcloud rap has become passe. This is a style of music that isn't so much dying as it is kind of metastasizing and eating up everything else and then churning it out and coming up with new weird mutations of it.

[David Remnick]

And not to get all, you know, grandiose about it, but does it have anything to do with the political or economic moment? SoundCloud rep.

[Carrie Batten]

It might have something to do with the political moment, but it also has something to do with this social moment of rising numbers of mental illness and, you know, sort of the toxicity of social media and the sort of overall malaise that young people are suffering from these days. Nowadays, it's more pronounced because a, you're just absorbing so much more information and so many other and your friends malaise at all times and then you're living it all out through social media. So there's a tendency to kind of perform it.

[David Remnick]

There's so much irony in that explanation because people are obsessed with it and it's making them feel horrible and yet it can't be put away.

[Carrie Batten]

Exactly. Yes. Yes.

[David Remnick]

Now I feel much, much better.

[Carrie Batten]

Right. I can't wait to go check Instagram when.

[Heidi Schreck]

This is Carrie.

[David Remnick]

Thanks so much.

[Carrie Batten]

Thank you so much, David.

[David Remnick]

The New Yorker's Carrie Batten. We talked about Ring Ring by Juice, wrld, Lil Nas X with Old Town Road and Dominic Fike's Three Nights. That's our show for this week. I'm David Remnick. Thanks for listening. Have a great week.

[Announcer]

The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co production of WNYC Studios and the New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Meryl Garbus of Toon Yards, with additional music by Alexis Quadrado. Our team includes Alex Barron, Emily Bottin, Ave Carrillo, Rhiannon Corby, Jill Duboff, Karen Frillman, Callalea, David Krasnow, Louis Mitchell, Sarah Nix and Steven Valentino, with help from Terence Bernardo, Emily Mann and Mong Fei Chen. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Tsarina Endowment Fund.