by Jacob Puhr
Saturday, November 12th, was the closing night for Tremper’s Admissions. The following article is less of a review as it is a combination of general thoughts I have on the play. Before I indulge into the play’s subject matter, which will be this article’s main concern, I’d like to offer my praise to the actors and director.
Every one of these actors delivered a stellar performance. Despite many of them being classmates, I could not see them as such, instead I only saw them as their characters. I believe that is a testament to their abilities and skills. Not once did I catch any obvious mistakes or even a misspoken line; the entire show seemed to be fantastically flawless. I’d say Enzo (Bill) and Jack (Charlie) possessed the best chemistry together. Enzo truly appeared as an adult where Jack expertly emerged with the energy of a teenager whose dreams had been crushed. The two played off each other well and added believability to the play.
I believe Ghost, as Ella prefers to be called, (Sherri) was the heart of the play. Her character doesn’t undergo a transformation, at least a major one, but as she sympathizes more with her disheartened son, we connect to her. Even though we see her as a hypocrite (more on that later), we can’t help but like her as she defends Charlie when Bill harangues him during the rejection scene. We perceive her as flawed while seeing her as a mother nonetheless who cares for her son. Abby and Lucy were admirable in their respective roles as well. Abby in particular added comedy to an often tense drama.
Lastly, I’d like to offer praise to Mr. Cicerale. His play utilizes a very minimalist structure, a new experience for him. There were only five actors and one set atop a small “runway style stage”; the play itself is held in the theater room instead of the large auditorium. He made the most of little. Perhaps the minimalist approach worked best as the audience was just feet away from the actors, as if we’re in the play itself. Like Cicerale elaborated in the program, “The intimacy that this creates, along with forcing the audience to not only watch the actors, but in a way, face themselves” was enabled by the play’s personal location. The simple set fit each scene to where nothing felt out of place, and his work with the costume designer paid off as each actor’s appearance further reinforced their character and our perception of them.
Without further ado, I’ll be indulging into the politics embedded at the play’s core.
Admissions is an odd play to examine. As paraphrased from one article, it offers critiques without any solutions. I can point out what it’s critiquing, but how those issues should be resolved is up to the audience to decide. It’s not implausible to suggest that after seeing the play, two people can take away the same criticisms but propose the exact opposite solutions.
In case you didn’t see the play, here is a brief summary. Charlie, an overachieving senior, has applied to Yale, as has his mixed race friend, Perry. The central conflict of the play arises when Charlie is deferred while Perry is accepted. Before Charlie arrives on stage, we spend time with Charlie’s mother, Sherri, a white liberal admissions officer at a well off prep school, Hillcrest. During the play’s first scene, Sherri demands that Roberta, an old fashioned white lady, insert more pictures of POC into the school’s catalog. Her main goal is to increase the minority rate to 20% in the school. Needless to say, her whole world view of equity and diversity is challenged as Charlie delivers a scorching monologue of how race is the only reason Perry was accepted over him, and the whole idea of who belongs to what race is preposterous. The hypocrisy aspect of the white liberal view held by Sherri is exposed, as she and her husband Bill use their privilege to obtain Charlie acceptance into an Ivy League college, after he decides to pull his other applications and attend technical college, so that his parents can achieve their goals of furthering diversity at their school by funding a scholarship for a minority student with his tuition money.
A short, satirical piece named How Can I Help to Promote Diversity Without Relinquishing Any of My Power? is similar in message to Admissions.” Both criticize well off white liberals for claiming to promote diversity while using their privilege nonetheless for their own gain.
How was this hypocrisy seen in Admissions?
Well, as said earlier, Charlie was deferred from Yale. He came home enraged and confused. In an impressively fiery and lengthy monologue, Charlie essentially berated his parent’s worldview and fixation on race. For instance, he said that his Jewish grandparents are counted as white while the descendants of Nazi’s who escaped from Germany to Argentina aren’t. The race based admissions benefits those Nazi descendants over Jews like himself. How is that fair? He also pointed out Perry underachieved in terms of academic rigor and extracurriculars but still got into Yale over him for simply being black.
After hearing Charlie’s rant, Bill calls him entitled and privileged, and scoffs they’ve successfully raised a Republican. He thunders to Charlie perhaps he just wasn’t good enough while everyone else was, such as those people of color like Perry. I believe he even labeled Charlie’s words racist at one point. His rebuke of Charlie’s speech was so harsh that even Sherri was appalled and ran to Charlie’s defense. From this scene, we see that Bill is passionate in speech, so clearly he must be in action, right?
This is where the play strikes its main critique against the white liberal. Both Bill and Sherri use their connections with prestigious universities to get Charlie into them. However, Charlie was upset upon hearing this since he pulled all of his applications and told his mother to use his tuition money to fund a scholarship for a minority student. If his parents had done so, they would have reached their goal of increasing the minority rate to 20%. As Charlie confessed, he needs to give up his seat at the table, as a white man, to open it to those more disadvantaged. This noble action seems like one his parents would love and commend him for.
But they don’t. They’re enraged, refuse to obey his wishes, and get him into a prestigious college. In short, the play suggests that many of those who fight the crusade of equity and diversity are strong in words but flimsy in action. They may say they’re for equity and diversity but when their power is challenged, when the obstacles are against them, they use their privilege to help themselves. The same idea was evident in the satire article as it critiqued a well of liberal offering an internship to a person of color. It reads, “Might I point you to my company’s internship? It’s a program that’s committed to diversity…we have hard evidence to prove it: the internship application specifically says we’re committed to diversity.” In the end, they go with a white man named Michael.
A common theme in the play and article involves appearance vs reality, perhaps, more accurately, speech vs action. Like the fictional company in the article, those fighting for diversity support doing so in speech but are hypocrites in action. They accept the status quo because it benefits them in the end. To the credit of the Admissions family, they live by their word for the most part. But, as the article points out, that only happens while they’re in power; when they’re in a tough position, their power and privilege is used to its fullest extent.
The messages in the play and article hold a basis in reality. Anyone who has ever watched the Oscars or Golden Globes is well attuned to how celebrities advocate for left-wing policies. Universities are usually more left wing then right. However, as committed as they are to equality, they’re hypocrites. Remember when we loved to watch Full House? Who would have thought Becky would pay millions of dollars to get her child into an Ivy League? That’s exactly what occurred in “Operation Varsity Blues.” In this scandal, wealthy families and celebrities paid admission counselor William Singer to place their children into universities based on them being athletes, which they weren’t. Among the colleges that participated in this scandal was none other than Yale, who claims they “want students from historically underrepresented groups to take part in every opportunity Yale has to offer.” How many prospective minority students were rejected in place of a wealthy white student? Among the celebrities are Felicity Huffman, a liberal who has donated to Stacey Abrams, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and multiple Democrat groups such as ActBlue.
Once more, these celebrities and colleges represent an illusion of equity. They’re committed to the noble fight in speech, but when push comes to shove, they choose their self privilege and self interest every time.