Our interactions and our language are suffering from hyperinflation. Every encounter with a clerical or service person elicits replies of "awesome" or "perfect" if you simply come up with the correct change or manage to give a waitress your order. These are not incredible feats, and are neither awesome nor perfect. We used to get along without these over-the-top inaccuracies.
In a bad mood, I have indulged in a guerrilla strategy of answering "Awesome" with "Really? Awesome?" And I love correcting the pronouncer of "perfect" with, "No, it's far from perfect." They may give me a look of fear or pity, but I'm usually feeling rather self-satisfied and smug. Then I smile.
The point is, wake up, people! Those words have meanings, and we know what they are. We should save them for truly exceptional achievements.
And now, let's revert to "thanks," "that'll work" or "OK" for everyday transactions. I think that'll work.
Mary McLeod, St. Paul
TEACHER-TENURE LAWSUIT
Step back and remember that it's not just some ridiculous perk
I read the recent story about the teacher-tenure lawsuit. About an hour later, I met a woman who by chance mentioned an excellent public school teacher from several decades ago who was fired because he was gay.
Tenure ensures due process, so that teachers won't be fired for irrelevant reasons. I'm all for firing ineffective teachers, and I've seen it done. But let's not remove the protections that make it a fair and transparent process.
Mark Brandt, Minneapolis
• • •
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a long-standing principle. Teacher-tenure laws support that principle (even though the process to fire someone doesn't necessarily involve criminal charges). Tenure laws can slow the process of dismissal, but that is definitely on purpose. Removing someone from a career is an extremely serious decision. Removal requires careful deliberation, and almost always takes time. Removal can actually be shown to be unjustified. Granted, if it is justified, some harm can happen during the interim. But due process, part of the "rule of law" that we all depend on, must have priority. Breaking that standard at any time can have long-term ramifications that eventually would endanger all our freedoms.
Jim Bartos, Brooklyn Park
• • •
Education problems need a much more immediate solution than a lawsuit that will go on for years. Regularly, people offer cures for some of the schools' problems. I assure you, teachers are constantly looking for more ways to engage the students, present the curriculum, create a safe learning environment and improve test scores.
Teacher tenure is a thorn in the side of many outside the field of education. A teacher is not granted tenure until he/she has completed three years in the classroom. School administrators and peer tutors are part of this process, and parent comments are included. This should be enough time to determine those who are not meeting job requirements and the needs of the students and have not earned tenure.
We do know that removal of teacher tenure would be a quick solution to local budget shortfalls, but what other benefits would there be? Are experienced teachers with tenure less desirable?
Do these activist groups have a system for identifying teachers who should be removed from the staff and who should forfeit their license? Can the views of a California judge and a former New York CNN anchor improve education in Minnesota? Really?
Phyllis R. Sands, Kasson, Minn.
The writer is a retired kindergarten teacher.
POLYGAMY CONSTITUTIONAL?
That this is now getting coverage is cause to contemplate media
The April 15 commentary by Noah Feldman advocating the legalization of polygamy and polyandry ("Why the Constitution would protect polygamy") means the Star Tribune has decided that this topic has become sufficiently "respectable" to warrant serious coverage. Even 15 years ago, anyone advocating polygamy would have been considered "nutty," and his opinions would have been unworthy of coverage by a mainstream newspaper.
Such formerly "radical" topics as gay and transgender rights, medically assisted suicide, the legalization of marijuana, drastic climate change and unrestricted smoking were shrouded in shadow and, until recently, considered too controversial to be covered by the mainstream press unless they were to be reflexively dismissed by, for example, citing the myth that marijuana causes brain damage. During the decadeslong delays before advocates for these issues forced discussion of them into the open, gay and transgender people suffered brutal discrimination, millions of dying people suffered needlessly to the bitter end, and nearly a million marijuana sellers and users were thrown in jail. The first medical evidence definitively proving that smoking causes lung cancer was published in 1950; many millions of smokers have died since. It took the in-your-face Black Lives Matter protests to finally focus the press on the endemic police brutality against blacks that has been blighting and buffeting black neighborhoods for decades. Where was the press on these issues during the 20th century?
The first purpose of journalism is to inform us about public issues and problems, not to delay discussion of them until they become "safe" to talk about. Just as a man needs to be ahead of his time, the press needs to be ahead of the issues so it can confront as quickly as possible those that cause harm and suffering.
Dean DeHarpporte, Eden Prairie
• • •
Feldman uses tenuous legal reasoning to conclude that the U.S. Supreme Court should legalize polygamy. The way our legal system is supposed to work is that our elected representatives have the power to write laws. Those laws are legal unless they conflict with the Constitution. Feldman's reasoning is basically that if something is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, it is constitutional. By that reasoning, almost everything is constitutional. That is not the purpose of the Constitution.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee certain fundamental rights like freedom of religion and speech. It wasn't to allow everything not explicitly prohibited. This type of reasoning is flawed and dangerous. It would have the affect of overturning laws that are, in the normal sense, constitutional.
James Brandt, New Brighton
NYE'S CLOSING
An unfortunate loss, an incredible opportunity
With the demise of Nye's, there now exist no piano bars in the Twin Cities that feature an open mike where singers can strut their stuff. From the shoulder-to-shoulder crowds that I observed being entertained (and spending money) at Nye's these past months, I believe there is an opportunity for some enterprising bar owner to profitably fill this void, and I am aware of several excellent accompanists who would be available to play. Should you be interested in pursuing this, I can put you in contact with them. E-mail me at: sbeitsch@yahoo.com.
