I am not sure that a simple transfer of power from white people to brown/Black people would entirely fix the injustice/corruption issue that exists. This reminds me of Justice Clarence Thomas, who is suspected of taking gifts and donations as forms of payment. Instead, perhaps becoming better involved and informed about our options can improve our chances of having BIPOC in positions of power.

Thus far I have learned that not having a concrete plan with qualitative goals do not lead to change. "Analyzing" appears to be a way to avoid doing the hard work that it takes to change a system or company's ingrained racism and/or sexism, such as adjusting salary equity. Through a good strategic plan, Ms. Tomkins' questions should have answers, but instead the vagueness of "analyzing" helps the company put off responsability.

I appreciate the tone in which Ms. Tomkin writes about the frustrations experienced as a result of the "bare minimum" being done by companies. While many are discussing the implementation of ED&I (Equity, Diversity and Inclusion), not much action is evidenced to being taken; and where there are steps being implemented, the goals are not on par with the restoration that is needed. I question whether we as a society have the right tools to dismantle the patriarchy or white supremacy if we have low expectations from companies such as The Public Theatre.

As a social worker, I have very mixed feelings about utilizing social media or online platforms in the job. I see myself utilizing online platforms in case the client is ill or cannot for safety reasons receive in person services. I also plan on sharing resources via social media and to my clients who have access to electronic devices. However, I do not see myself providing virtual services only, or creating an account solely to share my experience as a social worker, mainly because it creates room for unethical choices and poor rapport building with clients.

I believe the NASW Code of Ethics provides challenges with maintaining a set of rules across the board for Social Workers to follow. While the NASW Code of Ethics relies on the "individuals of good character" to make ethical judgments, it also states it has "formal procedures to adjudicate ethics complaints against its members." The Code of Ethics has more room to discern what constitutes as poor ethical judgment worth procedures to address complaints, define gray areas of ethical judgment, and address who or what agencies have the power to apply punishment on poor ethical choices by the social worker(s). This lack of clear definition leaves room for misinterpretation, easily making mistakes, and jeopardizing a social worker's job / licensure. This gap of information also allows certain agencies to punish social workers who've made mistakes differently, and perhaps be harsher on social workers of baccalaureate degrees over a masters, or even based on sex, race, age, religious belief, et cetera.

This specific section of the NASW Code of Ethics specifically reminds me of an event at my job where a In-Community therapist (IIC) violated boundaries with a client / youth. We define youths as any of our clients under 21 years old, whom we work to monitor and adjust services per their mental and behavioral health needs. In this event, the IIC sent her husband to the shelter where the youth was to send food to the client. While this was a nice gesture, it violated the youth's HIPPA rights and crossed many personal boundaries. In this instance, I think about the professional obligations that conflicted with the IIC's personal, ethical dilemmas. When receiving the call that the youth was hungry must have risen many ethical uncertainties for this therapist/ IIC.