Recently, Harvard student Facebook newsfeeds and national news networks alike were flooded with the knowledge that a large group of women had signed up en masse to audition for the all-male Hasty Pudding Theatricals troupe. Women are allowed to be a part of every aspect of the organization (tech, business, script, etc.) except the actual acting. Her Campus Harvard sat down with three of the women who are seeking the change that.
L-R: Tess Davison, Olivia Miller, and Megan Jones, all Class of 2016
Her Campus: When did you start developing the idea to audition for the Hasty Pudding Theatricals?
Olivia Miller: Tess and I always wanted to be a part of the Hasty Pudding cast, but our jokes about their gender exclusivity became far more serious after Amy Poehler spoke at her Woman of the Year roast last winter. Hearing one of our comedy heroes publicly voice the same jokes that we had been making about the lack of women in the Pudding cast resonated with us. We started to more seriously question the system – why shouldn’t women be considered serious cast members? Women in drag are just as funny as men in drag. The women on campus are just as talented and committed to a professional theatrical career as men on campus. These questions and thoughts gained momentum as we comped Pudding Script this summer, so much so that we knew we needed to act upon our beliefs once we got back to campus.
Tess Davison: As a freshman and sophomore, I was so in awe of Harvard and everything about it that I never thought about things in a critical way. I used to joke with friends in the Pudding about which girls would be perfect for the Pudding shows if they were men. It wasn’t until last year, and in particular at Amy Poehler’s Pudding roast, that I started to think about the inequality in the theater community on campus. Around the same time, the administration was beginning to point out gender inequality and inclusivity in the Harvard social scene, and it became clear that this was a perfect time to try to make a change in something that we felt needed to catch up with the times.
HC: Were you surprised by how either the media or the current undergrad members of HPT responded to your decision to audition?
Megan Jones: Yes, very. I was really surprised and overwhelmed by the immediate media attention we received. I did not at all expect the public response we got. The conversation we started is a really important one and I am so glad (and proud) that it gained national attention. Gender exclusivity and gender inequity, especially on college campuses, are really pressing issues; and I was thrilled that these crucial dialogues were reaching such huge audiences. The media attention helped us reach an audience we never thought we could engage and it helped us gain visibility. Increased visibility is always great, but press attention certainly comes with some difficulty and discomfort. We never expected (or planned for) the reception we got and none of us have had any real experience with media attention. So it was definitely a whirlwind. There ended up being a lot of misquoting and a lot of misrepresentation. Our own messages and motives ended up being distorted or misunderstood or clouded. In several instances, we were painted as these angry instigators, as women who wanted to attack or destroy the Pudding. And that’s not right at all. That’s not the point. And the members of the Pudding were also, often, painted in an inaccurate/distorted light – as sexists or traditionalists, as totally resistant to having women in the cast. And that’s not true either. The current members of the Pudding (i.e. the College students who make up the Theatricals) – many of whom are our friends – have been, overall, supportive of having a co-ed cast. Our frustrations are not with them, with the members. Our frustrations are with the institution at large, with the leadership (the Graduate Board, the alumnae, the ‘men in power’). As with many institutions and clubs at Harvard, the power lies not in the hands of the student members but in the hands of predominantly white, male, wealthy alumnae coalitions. It was the bias and bigotry of this larger institution, of this tradition, against which we were campaigning. We were challenging the institution and its exclusionary policies, but we were not engaged in any kind of student-on-student war. And that was one of the most upsetting results, for me, of the media blow-up – that, to some, it looked as though it was us against Bobby [Fitzpatrick, Hasty Pudding President] or David [Sheynberg, Hasty Pudding Cast Vice President] or the Pudding Executive Board. And that’s not the case.
OM: Absolutely, I was surprised by the attention. We obviously wanted the attention of the Hasty Pudding Theatricals, but we never anticipated the local and national excitement about the movement. I think that some of my own surprise came from an idea that this sort of thing shouldn’t be news in 2015 – women shouldn’t have to fight for equal treatment in the arts in the 21st century. But I suppose that since that scenario happens to be the case, it is in fact newsworthy. And I find that a little sad – it’s 2015, people, gender equality and gender inclusivity should be a given by now!
TD: Oh my gosh, so surprised. I suppose looking back, I should have realized that the media loves stories about Harvard and exclusivity, and would jump on it. But we originally set out to get the attention of the Pudding, and particularly the grad board and professional staff. I remember saying to Olivia, “ooh! Maybe the Crimson will want to do an article about this!”
HC: How were the auditions? Were you considered and treated the way male auditionees were, as far as you know? Did you feel like you were being taken seriously during the course of your audition?
MJ: The audition environment was much more supportive and welcoming than I thought it would be. There were a lot of people watching me – the three student-writers of the show, the President, the Executive Board, and two professionals (Director and Music Director). All of them took the audition very seriously – they were warm, receptive, and engaged. I was impressed (and honestly surprised) with how professional they were. I felt comfortable and supported. I felt strongly that they were treating me (and the other women) just as they would have treated a male auditioner. I was excited about that. I went into that audition feeling really nervous. I was nervous that I was going to be on the receiving end of a lot of hatred, that the room was going to have this overwhelming negative energy. And it didn’t at all. The audition atmosphere was encouraging – it made me feel like we were being taken really seriously as performers and as potential cast-members, that the Pudding was thinking really critically about casting us. This is one of the (many) reasons their decision to cast no women was so disappointing and upsetting – because it was so discordant with the way they treated us in the audition room.
OM: While the atmosphere inside the room definitely felt supportive and welcoming, I also loved the atmosphere outside of the audition room. Women came and went as they needed to, but many of us stayed through our peers’ auditions for support. It was awesome to come out of the audition and see all of my friends quietly cheering me on — I don’t know if I’ve ever had an audition that had such an inclusive community waiting for me outside of the room. There wasn’t any negative competitive edge outside the audition room as there often is in other auditions — here, everybody wanted to see everybody succeed, which I thought was really cool and spoke volumes about the character of the women in the theatrical community here on campus.
TD: I agree with Olivia that the thing that struck me the most was what was happening outside the audition room. Usually at auditions, it’s everyone for his/herself, and people aren’t too friendly. At this audition, all anyone wanted was for one of us to get in, and for us all to show that women are funny and worthy of being in the pudding, so it felt so supportive and wonderful. I think my friendships with the women who auditioned have all grown throughout this experience.
HC: Were any women called back after their first audition?
MJ: No. No women were called back. All the women who auditioned received an email on Saturday evening explaining that no women would be called back and that the cast would remain all-male for HPT 168.
HC: What was your reaction to the news that no women had been cast in the show?
OM: I was extremely disappointed, of course. To that point, I was also surprised that no women had even received a callback, a decision that was made based on the decision that the Pudding would retain an all-male cast even before seeing what creative potential women could bring to the callbacks. However, the important thing is that this conversation does not end with an all-male cast list. Regardless of this casting decision, this is a discussion that will certainly continue on campus, and I am so optimistic about the future. There is so much energy behind this movement for a co-ed cast, and I feel very optimistic about what may happen next year.
MJ: Yeah, I was really disappointed. And pretty surprised. But then again, maybe it’s not so surprising — we see gender-based exclusion everywhere today. It is exceptionally depressing and in no way justifiable, but it is somehow still the norm. We had some truly talented women audition and as I sat in the hallway waiting for my own turn, listening to these women absolutely crush it in their auditions, I thought “how could they not cast these women?” “How can they listen to these exceptional performers, to these really funny, talented women and think “Nope, we don’t need that. Our show is perfectly fine without that.” It’s clear that the decision was not merit-based; it was gender-based. No women were called-back; so this was a blanket decision from the men-in-power to, once again, exclude on the basis of gender, regardless of talent or merit or fit. So, I was really disappointed for us (and for women performers and artists everywhere). This is some really distressing messaging for young women who want to perform, who want access to these incredible resources. The Pudding is sending a really negative, discouraging, and harmful message to women performers. I am so upset on behalf of the young freshmen women who just began their Harvard careers. And all the high school women involved in musical theater who are beginning their college searches, who are looking for college women to look up to, who are looking for programs that will welcome them and benefit them and give them the best education in performance. The Pudding could have been that great beacon of hope for young women artists everywhere. But now, with this decision, it’s just another all-male space. So I’m disappointed for us and for the women who were watching us, but I’m also disappointed for the Pudding — I think their show could have really benefitted from including women performers. And now their show will be worse off because they have chosen to exclude them.
TD: As sad as I was that I wouldn’t see women up on stage this year, I am extremely confident that it will happen in the next year or so. I am so proud of everything that we did in terms of starting a conversation that was long overdue, and while I think that the Pudding made the wrong decision, I’m optimistic about the direction in which the college is headed.
Her Campus: What do you think the next step is in this process? How can we best proceed as women and as members of the Harvard community?
MJ: I think it’s important for us women and the rest of the Harvard community to keep talking. Change effectively occurs through open and honest communication, and I think that as long as the community keeps gender inclusivity a priority and keeps engaging in these conversations about inclusivity, we will be able to achieve amazing progress.
OM: I totally agree with this! Dialogue is crucial. We have to keep talking and we have to make sure that everyone (especially the leadership at the Pudding) keeps listening. And, I sincerely hope that next year, women will audition again.
TD: I agree that the next step is to keep the conversation going. I am very confident that the underclassmen won’t give up after this year, and will keep signing up every year until it happens.