Welcome back. I want to spend a few minutes on this video talking about the ways in which the COVID-19 crisis illustrates large-scale inequities in society, and how we in the law might address some of those inequities through targeted legal responses. So let's begin with something that I'm sure you've all been exposed to in looking at news reports, media descriptions, statements of public officials, and others about COVID-19 crisis over the last few months, and that is the suffering. By suffering, I mean certainly the health suffering, injuries, and tragic fatalities, but also economic suffering. It has been disproportionately impacted communities of color, the poor, and society's most vulnerable. Perhaps, we shouldn't be surprised by that. But nonetheless, it is striking, indeed, I would say shocking how much suffering has been concentrated on individuals that are part of society's most vulnerable. I won't quote the statistics at you, I'll leave that to you to investigate. But I think we can stipulate that there has been inequitable suffering. Perhaps it's not surprising when you think about the ways in which the shelters in place and the lockdowns, and other regulations have taken place have evolved. So take for example, the exceptions in all of the sheltering orders for so-called essential businesses. We know from those essential businesses and essential facilities, including but not limited to the medical care ecosystem, talking about grocery stores and deliveries and others that a disproportionate number of the workers in those particular areas are among societies most vulnerable, and are in fact communities of color. Not everyone has the discretion, or even the luxury to be able to work at home. So they're some impacts that come to individuals by the sheer fact that they're in harm's way and a more vulnerable to catching the virus and suffering. But not only that, we know that individuals who are part of communities of color have disproportion amount of pre-existing conditions, what public health officials call co-morbidities. We certainly know that the coronavirus has special impacts on individuals who have those conditions. So we would expect to see what we in fact see which is a greater fatality rate and injury rate among those communities. In addition, you think about the context of these lockdowns. The fact that more of the poor are likely to be in-home settings in which they are caring for elderly relatives, and not to mention other vulnerable population. So we will expect to see what we do see again which is a greater risk in those areas. So those are the reasons in the explanation certainly not justification for why we see a disproportionate suffering on the part of those communities. What if anything can the law do to help redress and remedy? This is not a complete list. Indeed, I invite you to post your ideas on the discussion boards to help illuminate this important conversation. But here are a few that come quickly to my mind. So first, let's talk about the direct economic support provided in particular by the federal government, who, after all comparatively speaking, has the resources to be able to do this. Direct financial support that goes into the hands in particular of individuals that have disproportionate suffering, so whether that's in the form of extended periods of unemployment compensation, low-interest or no-interest loans for giving a student debt. There's a variety of different techniques and tactics that the government can use. But let's think creatively and constructively about enhancing the resources that can be made available to individuals who might face a disproportion impact, both economic impact and also public health impact as a result of COVID-19. In addition, think about the employment setting. We have a variety of issues that we covered in last week's class, or maybe a better way to say is starting to scratch the surface of how we deal with employment law in the context of COVID-19. Particularly after the lockdowns are lifted and businesses return if not back to business as usual, then to more opening. If you think about just to take one example of many, the restaurant industry where we know that individuals who work in the restaurant industry, particularly in the back but also in the front are disproportionately members of communities of color. We can think about the ways in which employment law deals with and helps protect all employees as is reasonable and responsible. But there may be room, or some particular targeted responses whether through legislation, administrative orders and regulation, or through judicial decree that has it's objective the protection of individuals who might be especially in harm's way. So think about some of those devices. How we think about doing this from a legal perspective is just one element of a larger conversation that involves ethics and morality, involves politics to be sure. But really gets it the heart of the question of how we the people can address structural inequalities that have a particular and pernicious impact on society's most vulnerable. As we think about these issues in connection with criminal justice throughout this week. I hope you'll think about some of these wider issues of how we deal with these real struggles, and how law can play a very important constructive role in this domain. Thank you.
