Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Over the past week debate in two recent letters (Aug. 22) responding to a front-page article about charter schools ("Charters costing students, districts?" Aug. 18) pretended that the issue is black and white: that charter schools are failing students and all of these students would be better off in public schools. This argument presents a false dichotomy. Like most of the education issues facing our state today there are many shades of gray, with no clear-cut, easy answers.

Sadly, due to the current state of our public school system, educational opportunities and outcomes are largely determined by address. I live just a few blocks from the Columbia Heights/New Brighton border. Which side of the border I live on has a big impact on the quality of the public schools my children have the option to attend. Since I live on the New Brighton side, my children can attend Highview Middle School, which in 2022 had 42% of students meeting standards in math and 53% of students meeting standards in reading. If I lived a few blocks away in Columbia Heights, my children would attend Columbia Academy, the local public middle school. This school had significantly lower achievement in 2022 with only 14% of students meeting standards in math and about 25% of students meeting standards in reading. Is it any surprise that my neighbors in Columbia Heights would not be satisfied with these educational outcomes for their children and would seek out alternatives? Is it any surprise that the two local charter schools, Prodeo Academy and Global Academy, both have waitlists? Both of these charter schools serve the same diverse population that Columbia Academy serves but with better outcomes for their students. Prodeo Academy in 2022 had 30% of its students meeting standards in reading and Global Academy had nearly 50% of its students meeting standards in reading.

As this data from the Minnesota Department of Education shows, there are charter schools that succeed and produce better outcome than local public schools. Does this one example mean that all charter schools are successful? Certainly not. However, it does demonstrate that there is and should be a place for charter schools in the puzzle of education in Minnesota. Shutting down all charter schools would not magically improve failing public schools like Columbia Academy. It would only restrict parental choice and force parents to send their kids to the failing local public school. Until educational opportunity is evened out across the metro, who can blame parents for seeking out alternative schools in the hopes of providing their children with the same great education that their neighbors in a different city, just blocks away, often take for granted?

Daniel Couillard, New Brighton

Regarding Tuesday's Opinion Exchange and the commentary "'Oppenheimer' and the treason of the intellectuals": My reaction to the story is quite different from the author of the piece.

As an 18-year-old U.S. Army private at the time, I had quite a different reaction to the use of the atomic bomb. I had a personal interest in the success of the atomic bomb even though I, and most Americans, didn't know it existed up to that time.

I was scheduled to head to Japan for an invasion that would be the bloodiest in the entire war. The Japanese showed no intention to quit the war up to that point. The Japanese had demonstrated the most brutal and ferocious fighting spirit throughout the war and indicated any attempt of ours to land in Japanese home islands would take the lives of thousands of Americans.

The commentary mentions the fact that the Germans and the Japanese had been working on atomic weapons, and there is no question that had they been successful they would certainly have used it on their enemies, including the United States. It's also important that the unprecedented devastation delivered from the first atomic bomb was not sufficient reason for the Japanese to stop the war. Fortunately, we had a second atomic bomb ready and that finally convinced them. Even then the Japanese demanded that the emperor be retained or they would continue fighting.

Stanley Goldstein, Golden Valley

•••

Calling on my "inner Oppenheimer": Along with a recent Star Tribune letter to the editor and a commentary by Kathleen Bangs ("Is your 'inner Oppenheimer' operating? Is government's?" Readers Write, Aug. 20, and "There's a little Oppenheimer in all of us," Opinion Exchange, Aug. 13), I join the majority of the people of the world saying we cannot afford nuclear weapons. The letter writer mentioned a portion of the cancer-causing pollution from nuclear weapons production that is both eon-lasting and irremediable. People and other living beings for generations into the future will be threatened and harmed by this waste. What could possibly be worth this curse?

And our government plans to increase this! Plans are to modernize the current bombs. Yes, there will be more eon-lasting pollution, and the dollars are astronomical! The race is on to build new plutonium pits costing, not just endless pollution, but billions. Estimates for the new weaponry alone are hundreds of billions. Kiss every government service you care about goodbye. Expect even fewer healthy children.

And this is so unnecessary! The world is working diplomatically to prohibit nukes via the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, now with sufficient support that it has the force of international law. Every nuclear power is under internal pressure to sign on, such as by actions of both the Minneapolis and St. Paul councils. Signing on does not obligate unilateral action.

Oppenheimer learned that just because you're smart and rich enough to do something, that doesn't mean you should. If the world is on fire, stop adding accelerant!

Nuclear weaponry is not a necessary evil; it's just pure evil.

Amy Blumenshine, Minneapolis

I believe the writer of "Another element: life potential" (Readers Write, Aug. 22) is wrong if he actually hopes we would all easily decide to save a 10-month-old instead of trying to help a dozen elderly, nonmobile folks. That would be an impossible, heartbreaking choice. It is in no way similar to the choice offered in the article he was referencing (saving a 10-month-old infant v. a dozen 10-day-old embryos). I hope he is showed more compassion than he deserves when he is elderly, perhaps with limited mobility, and his "potential" has already been "maximiz[ed]."

Heidi Wrenson, St. Paul

•••

I appreciate Walter McClure's plea that pro-life and pro-choice folks let each other disagree ("A friendly letter to pro-life believers," Opinion Exchange, Aug. 21). There is not enough of this kind of attitude, where we respect another person even if we passionately disagree. While I could write about the scientific evidence for when life begins, I would rather look for areas where we can agree. What are the reasons that drive women to have an abortion? Babies are not "ruining the lives" of women, as McClure posits. Rather, the circumstances of women (before pregnancy is even a concern) are holding them back. (Check out womendeservebetter.com.) If a woman has an abusive partner and does not want to bring a child into a violent home, offering an abortion is a cop-out. Take action to provide her with a safe home. If a woman must strive to be just like a man in order to advance her career, is a baby ruining her life, or has it already been ruined by the culture that demands that she disavow her life-giving capacity? If a woman lives in poverty and cannot afford a child, an abortion just eases our consciences that another child won't live in poverty. What about the woman? We should work to elevate her from poverty.

We argue too much about abortion and, in the process, miss all of these other questions. Let's agree to disagree on abortion and find common ground where we can work together.

Adrienne O'Connor, Minnetrista