Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
It's too bad that liberal mouthpieces need to characterize the Claudine Gay matter as a racism issue ("The persecution of Claudine Gay," Opinion Exchange, Jan. 5). Former Harvard University President Gay plagiarized — with details such as whole paragraphs copied nearly verbatim having been revealed — several times throughout her earlier career, and she published scant original work on her own.
On the other hand, how did the man who now sits in the White House get away with the many times he did the same thing (which chased him from the 1988 presidential campaign)?
I guess the common thread is the hypocrisy of those responsible for both today. In the same way they dilute the curriculum to advance some students to the detriment of us all ... including those they claim to be helping.
David Paton, West St. Paul
•••
I'm troubled and disappointed by Bret Stephens' commentary in the Jan. 4 Star Tribune about the recent resignation of Claudine Gray as president of Harvard University ("The real problem is why Gay got the Harvard job to begin with," Opinion Exchange). His assertion that hers was simply an affirmative action hire is based on little information and lots of assumptions. For example, he tells us that her scholarly publications are few but tells us nothing about her record in the other two areas upon which college and university tenure is generally based — teaching and service. His narrow focus ignores the skills required for higher education leadership in an increasingly complex and challenging environment, including fundraising and responding to an array of political and social demands. He also shows no evidence of understanding how gender and race can limit an individual's pathway toward leadership, participation in research projects and publication. In short, he overlooks the very approach he articulates in closing his commentary — the importance of the role of universities to "identify and nurture and liberate the best minds." Perhaps in hiring Gay, that was precisely what Harvard was wisely seeking to do.
Cyndy Crist, St. Paul
COLLEGE
Legacy admissions must go
During a time when college applications are on the minds of millions of high school seniors, it's important to talk about the income disparity that the college admissions process allows to benefit some students and harm others. Though the practice has gone down in usage among many universities, hundreds still use the practice of legacy admissions. There is no reason why universities should be using a system where already economically advantaged students are helped further while many other more qualified but less fortunate students are passed up to admit legacies.
I think that the U.S. Department of Education should enforce a widespread ban on legacy admissions. A large argument for keeping legacy admissions is that it promotes alumni donations, but alumni donations for schools that ended the practice in the last couple of decades have seen no significant decline, which you can see for schools like Texas A&M and the University of Georgia. I believe that, in general, the Department of Education can do more to close the wealth gap in our education system.
Some courses of action that groups like the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation have endorsed are decreasing college application fees, making financial aid and fee waiver discounts more clearly communicated, and training college admissions readers to be more sensitive to each student's economic background and comparing students' grades and test scores to other students with similar wealth. Enforcing ways to favor lower-income students will allow them to earn much more than they were given in their youth.
Evan Hsieh, Medina
ENDORSING TRUMP
Don't keep going back to him
A few months ago, former President Donald Trump ended Rep. Tom Emmer's dream of becoming speaker of the House, a job he has sought for years. Not only did Trump thwart his ambitions, but Trump, in characteristic fashion, called him names (including a "globalist RINO"). But this week Emmer came crawling back to Trump, endorsing him for the presidency ("Emmer, GOPers bow down to Trump," editorial, Jan. 5). This sounds more like an abusive relationship than politics. Do we need to arrange for an intervention for Emmer?
Sharon Decker, St. Louis Park
•••
I shuddered when all four of Minnesota's elected Republican representatives embraced the re-election of Trump and his frightening contempt for American democracy. He's a candidate who will further pull the Minnesota Republican Party into financial and electoral irrelevance. At a time of brown winter, when the people of Minnesota plainly see the effects of climate change, Trump denies it with the mantra "Drill, baby, drill" that once helped sink candidate Sarah Palin. And do Reps. Emmer, Michelle Fischbach, Pete Stauber and Brad Finstad really support a man who overtly embraces the Adolf Hitler of our time, Vladimir Putin, and his murderous assault on democratic Ukraine and beyond?
No question that Trump is a media magnet, garnering nearly as many mentions as Taylor Swift. But, unlike Swift, who consistently delivers brilliant performances, Trump delivers only political chaos and instability. Infamous for stiffing vendors, employees and victims of his business catastrophes, it is obvious he seeks the presidency to weasel out of his many indictments and growing convictions. These are not hypothetical knocks on his character but in plain view of the electorate. Meanwhile Nikki Haley's campaign gains traction by making good Republican sense, with real policy chops and no baggage, who would have been seriously helped by Minnesota representative support. As state Republican Party leaders routinely complain, we need better candidates. Instead, the Minnesota Republican franchise dragged itself further under the "nightmare candidate" campaign bus.
James P. Lenfestey, Minneapolis
•••
Thank you, Tom Emmer, for your endorsement of a man who incited an insurrection. Thank you, Michelle Fischbach, for endorsing a man found liable for sexual abuse. Thank you, Pete Stauber, for endorsing an anti-environmentalist who would destroy (y)our wilderness. Thank you, Brad Finstad, for endorsing all the other stupid and treasonous things surrounding the 91-count accused defendant Donald Trump. We need real "leaders" like you to show us how corrupt and treasonous "Republicans" have become. Former Rep. Bill Frenzel surely is rolling in his grave — perhaps you remember him but I suspect not, given this idiocy. Don't you get it that your behavior is why the extreme left is on the rise? I'm a proud independent with equal concerns about the radical left, but I see just how your corruption and stupidity only fuels it — and for good reason. So, tell me, how do your endorsements make any sense to one who seeks facts and the truth? Spaceship Earth deserves better.
Mark Thornsjo, Crystal
SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL
Can't we use parts of it?
OK. The light rail infrastructure in Eden Prairie has been mostly completed. Every day that I drive by the idle terminal station, I can't help wonder why they haven't opened this segment to Hopkins or West Lake stations. The Kenilworth conundrum should not prevent the use of the line that is essentially finished. Buses could be used to supplement the unfinished route until the final Kenilworth segment is done.
When I moved to Chaska 20 years ago, they opened Hwy. 212 in stages, allowing use of the completed segments. This made sense.
Kevin Wendland, Chaska
