Readers Write: Against phones in schools, Minnesota’s future, the election, Eagle Brook Church

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I appreciate Myron Medcalf’s thoughtful Oct. 6 column regarding cellphone usage in school as Minnesota school districts grapple with implementing a policy by March 15, 2025 (“It’s time to revisit cellphones in school”). Metcalf says he is not convinced of an outright cellphone ban as he “feels more comfortable knowing that in a world of mass shootings and other emergencies in our schools, I can communicate with my girls when necessary.” As a father of three school-aged children, I can empathize with him, as I would want to know that my child is safe during an emergency. However, connecting with my child during an event or vice versa could do more harm than good.

Last year, the St. Anthony-New Brighton School District implemented emergency protocols known as Standard Response Protocols (SRP), an initiative that the school board fully endorsed. In the SRP training, staff learned that communicating on cellphones during emergencies uses considerable Wi-Fi and cellphone data that will overwhelm and disable the network that is critical for police, fire and EMS services to use within that location. Using cellphones during these times also invites students and others to potentially post incorrect information on social media.

When we govern our school districts, school boards need to approve cellphone policies that should cover everyday needs. The district administrators should also implement SRPs for those unfortunate “what if” events that could offer solutions for families wanting to communicate with students. However, for the safety of everyone, we should not conflate the two.

Ben Phillip, St. Anthony Village

The writer is chair of the St. Anthony-New Brighton school board.

The Minnesota Star Tribune was generous in providing a full page to community storyteller Brandon Ferdig (“Is Minnesota in trouble?” Strib Voices, Oct. 6) but I fear many readers may have found the rich mélange of ideas hard to digest. Allow me to summarize its central conclusions:

Ellen Lowery, St. Paul

•••

I just wanted to compliment the Star Tribune for obtaining and printing Ferdig’s commentary in the Strib Voices section.

The content of the article was fair minded and fact-based. Ferdig captured the zeitgeist of our state accurately. As a native and lifelong resident who has witnessed the events and timeline the author describes, I can personally validate that opinion. I especially liked his insight into the Minnesota psyche regarding the way we view and respond to “outsiders.” This traditional mindset is colliding with the effects of globalization as portrayed, and it is happening all over the Western world.

Ferdig’s treatment of the new vs. old flag and its symbolism is spot on. I’ll wager that a properly conducted poll would reveal that more than 70% of Minnesota residents would not be in favor of the new flag. To me this represents the recent political reality that our state leadership (especially our governor) is not fairly representing the majority of its constituents.

Finally, I am pleased that the decision was made to publish this article, as it appears to me that the recently rebranded Minnesota Star Tribune is making an honest attempt to rebalance its political countenance and content.

Mark Beshears, Maple Grove

The Oct. 6 article about the candidate push in seven key states is one of the best arguments for getting rid of the Electoral College one could ask for (“For next 30 days, 7 key states are the trenches”). Out of over 160 million registered voters, this election hinges on the whims of voters in those seven states. In fact, only a small section of those voters will decide the election.

This is what the two-party system and the Electoral College have wrought: 6 million Republican votes in California in 2020 — for nothing. Three million Republican votes in New York. Five million Democratic votes in Texas. Five million Democratic votes in Florida.

You think this helps the small states? Think again. About 70% of all campaign spending is in those seven swing states. You can do the math for the rest of us. Same with candidate visits. How many visits for the Dakotas, Wyoming and Arkansas, or even California and Texas? If you said next to none, you would be correct. If you’re in a blue state or a red state or a small state, the candidates don’t care about you. Actually, you’re not really a part of a democracy. And yes, I know, we are a republic, but we are a republic through democracy.

The Electoral College (actually, just electors) is in the Constitution, a document written in the 1700s when we had about 3 million people and slave states. It long ago lost its original purpose of making sure that only prosperous old white guys could pick the president. I believe that if we don’t do something to ameliorate its impact then this silly clause could be responsible for the next civil war.

Think about this: In 2020 Joe Biden beat Donald Trump handily by about 7 million votes. Yet had Trump just won tens of thousands more votes in those swing states we would have been stuck with him for another four years.

At what point will the majority of Americans revolt over this silliness? I suggest the first time a Republican candidate is on the wrong end of it.

D. Roger Pederson, Minneapolis

The Sunday article on Eagle Brook Church reads like a publicity release by the church itself — a glowing advertorial (“Minnesota’s biggest church grows as most keep shrinking,” Oct. 6). The article starts by pointing out the growth of Eagle Brook in contrast to overall declining attendance at the majority of churches, then loses this important thread by detailing at length all the great things Eagle Brook “offers.” I don’t look to the Star Tribune and independent journalism to promote a specific business, church or nonprofit. I do look to the news source I read every day to critically explore and report how important issues are being addressed or exacerbated, sometimes by a specific entity, but always in service of understanding the issue and the implications for us everyday folk. You can do better.

Craig Britton, Plymouth

“Refugees come together” (Oct. 7), about a group of Russian and Ukrainian immigrants to Minnesota who went camping together, so vividly illustrates how war and other long-term problems affect people’s loyalties and hatreds. It provides a road map on one way that it’s possible for people with disparate views to increase understanding of each other. Publishing this article on the one-year anniversary of the Hamas attack on Israel offers hope that future encounters of people affected by that long-term conflict with ancient roots might bring similar gatherings, sharing and understanding.

Lois Willand, Minneapolis