Opinion editor's note: Published in Star Tribune Opinion letter We hear from readers online and in print every day.Click to contribute here.
•••
Concerns about professors indoctrinating their political philosophies into impressionable students are intense and highly politicized, but they are nothing new (extremist ideologies are already common in state public schools). They are taking over the school,” Exchange of Opinions, April 7).
When I started teaching law students in the 1970s, I was concerned about exactly that issue. I worked with colleagues to develop a survey to measure students' attitudes toward crime before and after a criminal law course. We wanted to see if students' attitudes were affected by our instruction. As part of this research, we decided to publicly advocate diametrically opposed positions on the issue of insanity. My colleagues argued for a broad insanity defense that provides a broader range of mental states to pardon defendants. I argued for a more limited defense in which it would be extremely rare for a defendant to successfully claim insanity as a defense.
To my surprise, my students' attitudes changed toward the opinions expressed by my colleague, and his students moved toward my supportive position. Although the results were not statistically significant, they were interesting and a bit humbling. After that, I thought that if I wanted to indoctrinate my students (which I didn't), I should take a position that I didn't believe in. It also occurred to me that we may be underestimating students' ability to think for themselves. After all, that's what we're trying to teach.
Peter Nicholas Thompson, Minnetonka
presidential debate
It would be a clown show. Please skip.
In response to my April 15th article, “Trump, Biden Urges Debate,” I (strongly) believe that President Joe Biden should not be debated – for multiple reasons.
First, Biden has said that whether he will debate Donald Trump “depends on what he does.” President Trump's attitude will never change. Second, news organizations that have signed on to encourage debates describe presidential debates as part of a “rich tradition.” President Trump has overridden tradition by denying what our democracy has always meant: that the loser accepts the outcome. Third, Trump lies. How can we argue against falsehoods and lies? You can debate disagreements, but you can't debate falsehoods. Fourth, I think the news organizations that signed on to encourage the debate did so because a Trump-Biden debate would be the sensation of the century. It might even surpass the infamous sight of O.J. Simpson in a white Bronco.
And finally, what many of us (especially the media) are looking for is a gaffe, a momentary lapse. Do we want that moment, that moment, to become the dominant image of who we choose to be our next president? I'm afraid not.
Lynn Bolman, Minneapolis
•••
Regarding the April 15 article “Trump, Biden Urges Debate,” I offer the following.
In a fixed political atmosphere in which we basically obtain information selectively according to our personal political leanings, we do not know whether the proportion of people who like or dislike a candidate will change significantly. yeah. I want major networks to provide the best voices on the same stage in discussions about issues and policies. This allows everyone to see things they don't see or hear in regular news coverage and fills in information gaps.
It seems like we are now living with a fourth branch of government: the media. A high level of integrity will be required of the media. This format may not have the drama of a presidential debate, but it will hopefully better separate fact from fiction.
Tom Page, Cohasset, Minnesota
2024 Election
Democrats, please get your message right.
Democrats will easily win the November 5th election if they do two things: 1) Stop talking about “abortion” and “women's reproductive health,” and 2) Make Trump and the Republican Party more aware of women. He began to harshly criticize the fact that he was so happy to talk about his health. her right to personal bodily autonomy;
Democrats, you need to frame your message better. Context is everything, so look at the big picture. Remember, no one likes abortion, no one thinks it's a good thing, and no one enjoys talking about abortion. (Yes, it's important and certainly women should have access to abortion if they need it, but it's not an overly persuasive strategy to get votes.) Also, Women's reproductive health care is essential and absolutely necessary, but it is not. It's a sensational topic that moves most voters. But highlighting how Trump and the Republican Party were willing to strip women of deeply personal rights could energize voters and bring them to the ballot box.
Half of American voters are women. These women now have fewer rights than they did 50 years ago. Please tell me more about it. Civil and human rights are important to voters. President Trump boasts that he is the one who took away women's right to bodily autonomy. he is proud of it. He becomes furious and angry in response. Make that topic the centerpiece of your campaign rhetoric. Framing your message effectively is how you win elections. (Republican political strategists already know and understand this. That's why the Republican Party has essentially controlled the political discourse in this country since the days of Ronald Reagan. Learn from it. ) Forget the rhetoric about abortion and health care. Focus instead on how Trump and the Republican Party gleefully and insidiously disenfranchised women, and you will win, Democrats.
Vanessa Sheridan, Apple Valley
small town newspaper
Do a story that no one else is doing
Helen Warren's response to Reid Anfinson's lament about the demise of local news media ('Eight more community newspapers will soon disappear', April 10) ('Community journalism has a choice', April) 13th) is missing the point, I think. A small local news outlet in New York first sounded the alarm about George Santos. That's the ultimate value of local news. As a former small-town news editor, I covered all the necessary community and personal events, including weddings, school festivals, church dinners, and fundraisers. They are all important. But I think Mr. Anfinson's point was that issues of local governance and even the occasional shenanigans need to be addressed for the benefit of the community. Critical journalism goes beyond press releases to reporters who leverage their contacts to uncover information to keep residents in their communities safe and informed about the important issues of the day. will be applied. Most of these news organizations break even or barely make a profit, but they provide a needed voice in this era of clickbait journalism.
Paul E. Lakeman, Minneapolis
•••
I appreciated reading Reed Anfinson's commentary on the disappearing community newspaper. In addition to the loss of school board, city council, and county commission meeting reports, accounts of small-town sporting events will also be silenced. As stated in the same editions of “We embrace our sports heroes…'' and “Let's overcome March Madness with basketball day'' (exchange of views), we have a tournament that was almost canceled. Tell and retell long-remembered stories about being a part of. It's caused by snowstorms in March and when future stars are honored, such as when Kevin McHale was named Minnesota's Mr. Basketball during his senior year playing at Hibbing High School. Whether it's basketball, baseball, softball, hockey or wrestling, student-athletes become our hometown heroes. Without community support through locally published newspapers, teams will lose regardless of their winning record.
Jane Stock, Fergus Falls, Minnesota
