Note to opinion editors: Published by Star Tribune Opinion letter Readers submit their submissions online and in print every day. To submit, here.
•••
The Minnesota Legislature passed a bill banning book bans, but a recent letter writer argued that the rule discourages public involvement in content instruction (Readers Write, May 22). The opinion is that the restriction motivates parents to choose non-public school options that harm public schools. Bottom line: banning book bans will be counterproductive and will harm rather than help public education.
I disagree. Public education should reflect public values. Private values - values that are religious, moral, or culturally rooted – should be, at best, secondary to public values in determining the purpose of public education. Private values should not interfere with public education's role of teaching public values, such as good citizenship and the ability to think critically about difficult issues, including cultural and moral perspectives. In other words, education should aim to enhance the ability to remain rational in the face of deep disagreements. Seeking cultural stability by limiting the ability to think rationally is a false sense of security.
Every society has its own internal disagreements. A well-ordered society has not only laws but also citizens who respect the differences in the ways we choose to live and the values we uphold. Pluralism is the hallmark of a well-functioning democracy. We allow different ways of living because we want this freedom for ourselves.
Public education should aim to equip young people with the ability to think well and respectfully about other points of view, not just their own. It should be liberal, not insular in promoting a particular moral or religious view, and it should aim to improve how we think, not what we should think. It is not “what to think” that matters, but “how to think.”
This goal of strengthening thinking is a value, but it is not just a value. Rather, it is rooted in democracy and its inherently pluralistic foundations. It is a primary value in a democratic society.
Banning books is therefore antithetical to public education. Such attempts to erase difference reflect fear rather than support for pluralism. In essence, they are deeply undemocratic.
Craig Peterson, Minneapolis
education
There's a reason why classical thinkers have survived
On May 21, the Star Tribune published an editorial titled “More Plato and Socrates: That's What Higher Education Needs” (Opinion Exchange).
Why this curriculum? Human nature has not changed for tens of thousands of years. We are still guided by the same desires, needs and actions as our ancestors. We are still driven by the same motives, suffer the same fears, commit the same sins and are deserving of the same virtues.
We continue to wrestle with the same themes that define the human experience: religion, race, economics, governance, etc. The details of these themes vary from generation to generation, but they are still bound by the fundamental laws of human nature.
Humanity is a fairly predictable group, not just because our behavior hasn’t changed and we haven’t faced the same human themes for millennia, but also because of the paradoxical predictability that, despite everything we’ve experienced over the centuries, no generation has been able to learn from the underlying patterns of human behavior.
We are not without playbooks to learn from and understand, operating manuals for humanity. Our libraries are replete with playbooks written by people like Aristotle, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and John Locke whose insights into human behavior are as relevant today as they were when they wrote.
Despite this wealth of intellectual property, we are forever blinded by an ignorance that we should have overcome by now, but instead we keep repeating the same things over and over again.
Joseph Tilley, Wayzata
government
It's easy to criticize, but hard to implement
After reading “What the Delegation is Working On” (May 19), I waited for a letter from a member of Congress expressing his or her opinion that the bills they were pushing were inconsequential (“So Far for the Major Issues,” a reader submission, May 23.) To evaluate the delegation’s work, one needs to look at more than just the bills they propose.
For the past five years I have volunteered with a faith-based organization (Friends Committee on National Legislation) that lobbyes Parliament on peace issues, and I am still learning how Parliament works.
Fewer than 10% of proposed bills become law. After a bill is proposed, it goes to a committee. To pass a bill in committee, the sponsor must find a sponsor; they must convince the committee that the bill is worthy of consideration in the valuable chamber of the House or Senate. If the bill passes one committee, the sponsor must find a colleague in the other committee to move the bill through in parallel.
Our senators and representatives are dealing with a dizzying number of bills on hundreds of issues. They are surfing the chaos.
“I'm sure the Star Tribune's new Washington correspondent will cover the hard work of our delegation every day. I look forward to regular coverage of our delegation's activities and committee work. And I hope that these reports will inspire voters to communicate with their senators and representatives. Voters need to hear our wishes, not our cynicism.
James Hefemeyer, Minneapolis
Samuel Alito flag controversy
Imagine the opposite.
An upside-down American flag, a symbol often used by election deniers, was flown outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. It was also discovered that an “Appeal to Heaven” flag was flown outside his vacation home (“Provocative Flag Flew to Alito's Vacation Home,” May 23). The flag has been used as a symbol of support for former President Donald Trump, religious conservatism, and members of the “Stop the Steal” movement, which challenged the results of the 2020 election won by President Joe Biden. When the upside-down flag was reported, Senator Mitch McConnell said Alito should be left alone. Senator Tom Cotton accused the media of using the incident to “incite another mob to threaten the justice, harass him in his home, or do something worse.” Alito appeared on Fox News and blamed his wife for flying the American flag upside down. He has not yet revealed who decided to fly the “Appeal to Heaven” flag. But not surprisingly, no one in the Republican Party sees any reason why Justice Alito should recuse himself from cases related to the 2016 election or January 6th.
So imagine what would happen if Justice Sonia Sotomayor were to hang a Pride flag outside her house, or Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson were to hang a giant “Black Lives Matter” sign in her yard. How would McConnell and Cotton react? How do you think Fox News would react? Do you think Sotomayor and Jackson's impartiality would be called into question? Do you think Republicans would call for them to be barred from cases involving LGBTQ+ rights or anti-Black discrimination? Thankfully, that won't happen, because both Sotomayor and Jackson have a moral compass that Justice Alito clearly does not.
Roland Hayes, Shoreview
