A field trip for middle-school students to "the progressive sex toy store for everyone" sparked outrage in the Twin Cities last week. According to the Star Tribune, students as young as 11 sat in the library section of the Smitten Kitten and were offered access to products that could be used to practice safer sex. Many were relieved to hear that Gaia Democratic School receives no taxpayer funds. It should. The parents of the children at this school freely chose it and believe it is the best place to educate their children. Unhappy with the school's decision to take their 11- and 13-year-old daughters to the sex toy emporium, the parents profiled by the Star Tribune pulled them and their 9-year-old daughter out of the school.
Unfortunately, decisions such as sending your kids to Gaia and pulling them out when Gaia disappoints are limited to those with the means to afford private school tuition. The best way to improve education is to allow more parents to make the choices they feel are correct for their children's education using school vouchers, causing schools to be responsive to parents' priorities. Some might send their kids to religious schools. Some might send them to the library section of a sex toy store, or beyond. The Minneapolis school superintendent told the Washington Post, "Minneapolis schools still suspend 10 black students for every one white student, for the same types of infractions. The inequities exist not in student behavior, but in adult response." A parent forced to send their child to that school might well prefer an occasional trip to the Smitten Kitten.
Frank Piskolich, Minneapolis
U RESEARCH ETHICS
Credit Elliott and Turner for prodding people into action
As a member of the implementation team at the University of Minnesota whose recommendations concerning human subjects protection are being hailed as "Markingson's legacy" ("The best thing for the U now is to move forward," May 31), I need to demur. While I think our recommendations if seriously implemented will greatly improve human subjects protection, the ground on which that edifice will stand is still problematically unstable. Unanswered questions and failures to hold individuals accountable remain and need to be addressed. Furthermore, credit for what we have accomplished is misplaced. Neither the team nor the external review on whose recommendations our work was based would have existed but for the efforts of Carl Elliott and his colleague Leigh Turner. Those of us in the Faculty Senate who called for the outside review deserve credit only — and this is no small thing — for refusing to go along with the clear message from successive administrations that Dr. Elliott was not to be taken seriously, and that while academic freedom afforded him some protection from direct retaliation, others' academic responsibility lay in shunning him.
The university administration owes Profs. Elliott and Turner an apology and a debt of gratitude, but, most important going forward, it needs to grant them the credibility they have earned.
Naomi Scheman, St. Paul
The writer is a professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota.
• • •
As a 2013 graduate of the University of Minnesota, I was appalled by the May 31 "counterpoint" from university President Eric Kaler. As a student, I was active sharing my comments, concerns and criticisms with Kaler and his staff. I have always believed in the excellence of the University of Minnesota, but that faith does not extend to Kaler, his administration or our Board of Regents.
Kaler mischaracterized the legislative auditor's report, the scope of which was on the broad institutional "culture of fear" that systematically ignored "serious ethical issues."