Kudos to Abby Honold ("When a rapist went free," Oct. 23) for demonstrating tremendous courage. Because of her perseverance, a serial campus rapist is behind bars. According to the article, 1,000 sex assaults had been reported to the Aurora Center, and the total number of rapists who had been prosecuted was zero. Honold is a strong woman who made it abundantly clear she would not tolerate abuse. She stood up for herself. She stood up for justice. She stood up for us all.
Tracy Uttley, Mahtomedi
• • •
I'm so angry after reading the story about Honold that I'm writing this letter. I have a daughter who is a sophomore at North Dakota State University, and, as a dad, I easily imagined Abby as my daughter. I can't express in words how my heart goes out to her and her courage to fight back. I am very sorry this happened to her. The creep who raped her gives every man I know a bad name. Real men do not rape women, and they certainly do not treat women as objects. That is so important I'm going to say it again: Real men do not rape women, and they certainly do not treat women as objects. Guys like this rapist never learned that. I have ongoing conversations with my daughter at NDSU about ways for her to minimize her vulnerability. I really wish that colleges (and society at large, for that matter) had a way to identify and weed out predators in the college application process.
Bob Doyle, Savage
• • •
How is it that the roommates of rapist Daniel Drill-Mellum were not charged with witness-tampering, evidence-tampering, or aiding and abetting in connection with the rape of a young woman at the University of Minnesota? I think there should be consequences for this kind of behavior. This man was a predator. They helped him prey on his victim.
Belinda Flanagan, Bloomington
• • •
After reading the article, I asked these questions:
Why isn't the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity closed? Why is the U, with its inherent conflict of interest, involved in rape cases at all? Why weren't the two frat boys who tried to cover up the rape charged with obstruction of justice? Why have I been paying so much tuition for my daughters to attend a university that allows rape with impunity? And how safe are they there now?
I don't have these answers, but I do know this: If we want things to change, we need to break up the old-boys' network where sexual assault is a laughing matter (think Donald Trump and Billy Bush). We need more women running our institutions, more women judges, more women college presidents, and a woman U.S. president. Enough is enough!
Kathy Rogers, Minnetonka
• • •
I greatly appreciated the article concerning U sexual-assault survivor Abby Honold and the work of U police investigator Kevin Randolph. Honold's courage and Randolph's tenacity are a rare bright light in the endemic problem of sexual assault against college students.
The article closed a loop for me. I retired in July 2015 from the U police department. Some months prior, Randolph approached me about seeking the transfer of this investigation. The case was not being actively pursued, and he had a strategy in mind. Better response to campus sexual assault was an explicit priority from the White House on down. I contacted a prior partner of mine at the Minneapolis Police Department who was handling sex crimes. He agreed, but also emphasized their crushing caseload and the limited number of investigators available. I understood this.
We were fortunate at UMPD to have the resources to pursue these cases as fully as they should be. We were equally fortunate to have courageous survivors and officers committed to justice. In the current climate, I must also add that some of their finest work has been on behalf of survivors of color. Justice must also be colorblind.
Well done, UMPD.
Gregory Hestness, Minneapolis
The writer is a retired University for Minnesota police chief.
PRESIDENTIAL ENDORSEMENT
Editorial Board really blew it; better to have endorsed no one
I certainly understand the Star Tribune Editorial Board not endorsing Donald Trump for president. However, by endorsing Hillary Clinton (Oct. 23), it has chosen to back one of the most shady and corrupt politicians of all time. Shame on the Editorial Board. It would have been much better to endorse no one.
Gary F. Haberman, Chanhassen
• • •
With all due respect (and I sincerely mean that every bit as much as you think I do), methinks that members of the Editorial Board intentionally attempted to obfuscate the issue of Clinton's actions and intentions when they endorsed her for president and noted her "tendency for obfuscation and evading the truth when cornered." Perhaps those words would have been more credible if they had eliminated the sugarcoating and used more accurate language, such as "her compulsion for lying and hiding the truth when cornered." Or replaced "relies too heavily on a small coterie of longtime loyalists" with "is too easily influenced by those whose loyalty she has purchased with top-paying jobs and/or high-profile positions and who continue to encourage her to avoid and distort the truth."
I agree: A "formidable intellect" she might have, perhaps second only to her ability to use it to obfuscate her intentions and the means she is willing to justify in order to reach her ends.
Barb Holmquist, Buffalo, Minn.
• • •
I kind of expected that, with the two top candidates who are running for president, some searching might have gone on with the paper's Editorial Board. I have voted in many presidential elections, and it has never been such a dismal choice as it is this year. I can't in good conscience vote for either of these people, because I don't think either is qualified to run this country, or probably anything else.
I think it's a shame that the board didn't look at some of the third-party people and come to the same conclusion that I have: These people are more qualified than any from the major parties.
Boyd Matzen, South St. Paul
POLITICAL CONTRASTS
Paulsen would squander his vote on Rubio; Emmer is a stalwart
The Oct. 23 Star Tribune offered a stark contrast between two members of the House of Representatives form Minnesota.
The article about Erik Paulsen, the three-term Third District congressman, facing a stiff DFL challenge ("Paulsen's dual threat: Trump factor, DFL blitz," Oct 23), notes Paulsen's tepid disengagement from his party's nominee for president, Donald Trump, and his intent to cast a ballot for Marco Rubio, presuming in order to exercise his civic duty to vote. But his vote will not even be counted, because Rubio has not officially asked to be considered as a write-in, a requirement in Minnesota for ballot-counting purposes. In effect, Paulsen is wasting his time — and his vote — and implying that others should do likewise. So much for civic virtue!
Lori Sturdevant's column about Paulsen's Republican colleague in Congress, Tom Emmer, offers a striking contrast ("Emmer can help the GOP rebuild after Donald Trump," Oct. 23). Facing only token opposition in the strongly GOP Sixth District, Emmer has enthusiastically endorsed his party's standard-bearer. While there is much to deplore about Emmer's position on some vital issues, including backing of Trump, he has shown a streak of independence and even bipartisanship in his single term, such as his support for President Obama's normalization of relations with Cuba, among other aisle-crossing steps.
