The only available intensive care bed was on the designated Covid-19 unit, which did not yet have any patients. The attending physician in charge of the unit did not allow the woman to visit her husband, ostensibly to protect her fro​‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‌‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌‍‍​m contracting Covid-19 and then potentially transmitting it to others in the community. With no other patients on the unit and given she had already had close contact with her husband, even if he did have Covid-19 her risk and the community’s risk would not increase if she had visited him. But in the general sense of alarm and fear of making exceptions to brand-new policies, she was barred from visiting. Her husband died without getting a chance for either of them to say goodbye. After the fact, the ethics committee made recommendations to individualize the policy and to use technology such as Facetime to allow patients and their loved ones to connect as much as possible. Often, institutional policies are not designed to further oppress already marginalized populations, but they can still have that effect. Which populations do you think would be most affected by a rigid no-visitation policy? Could age, income, educational background, more collectivist cultural background, or language barriers have an impact? How would you design a visitation policy that would keep people safe from a highly transmittable virus while still honoring the need for communities to support each other and mourn together at a time of loss – especially those communities with fewer resources? Cultural humility here means being attuned to the differential impacts of organizational policies and asking questions that shine light on those impacts. We often think of different types of institutions as having missions that are either supportive of human rights and diversity, or harmful. The reality is that all organizations, including those that are tasked with protecting, educating, and healing, are part of a society in which inequality is endemic. Think about your practicum site as if it were a person. If it is practicing cultural humility, then it too is engaged in lifelong learning and critical self-reflection, so that it too can recognize and challenge power imbalances to create respectful partnerships. Intersectionality Crenshaw (1991), a feminist lawyer and researcher, sought to understand why women of color experienced forms of oppression, especially intimate partner violence and sexual assault, beyond either gender discrimination or racial discrimination. She coined the term intersectionality to name the ways in which both types of discrimination combined to disadvantage women of color. She identified three ways that this happened: structural intersectionality, political intersectionality, and representational intersectionality. Structural intersectionality involves ways that society limits access to economic and social resources especially for women of color, such that their ability to escape abusive situations is much more limited than either men of color or white women. Immigration law further keeps women of color who have uncertain status from being able to leave abusive partnerships. Political intersectionality denotes the ways that anti-racist and anti-sexist political agendas often invalidate each other and fail to account for the specific experiences and needs for legal and policy protections of women of color. Crenshaw calls on progressive movements to become more aware of the voices of women of color and understand how their experiences get lost when the sole focus of an advocacy organization is on race or gender. Representational intersectionality means the ways that mainstream culture erases aspects of the experiences of women of color by reducing them down to either gendered or racial experiences alone. When all three types of intersectionality are combined, it is easy to see how oppression of women of color continues unrecognized in its unique