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

•••

It was wonderful to read about the Dakota language course at the University of Minnesota ("Racing against time to save the Dakota language," Feb. 26). It was disappointing to learn that it may not survive. I was privileged to be one of a very small group of students who made up the very first Dakota language course at the U — back in the early 1970s. Our instructors were two older Dakota women who had both grown up on reservations, one from Sisseton-Wahpeton and the other from Santee reservation, both in South Dakota. We were together for three quarters, so one entire school year. I have many great memories of that time, including the Dakota name they gave me, which translates to "Laughing Woman with the Red Hair."

We benefited so much from their wisdom. They told us stories about their own lives in addition to offering a lot of individual practice with their tutoring. Since neither had the qualifications to be on faculty at the U, our professor of record was a faculty member from the Anthropology Department, who was at the same time capturing the language in writing, which had not been done before. In May that year, we celebrated American Indian Month, and we attended a department gathering where these two women witnessed what must have seemed like a miracle to them: In their lifetimes, they had experienced being punished at their boarding schools — which they had been forced to attend — for speaking their native language, to finally celebrating the first year of that language being taught at as austere a school as the University of Minnesota.

I would love to have read more about the current class and how it has developed at the U over these many years.

Jan Meyer, Rochester

After reading "Student debt hangs in the balance" (front page, Feb. 26), about loan forgiveness, I can't figure out why no one can find an acceptable and equitable solution.

After struggling for 35-plus years, our kids are finally debt-free. But this was not without making many hard decisions.

"Paying off" someone else's student loans is not fair, nor does it teach money management, and in the long run it could make the those people irresponsible in their lives financially.

We need someone to look into a program that monitors the eligibility of interest-free education loans. There should be limits on loan amounts, of course, and verification with schools that these are, in fact, legitimate claims. But it could and must be done.

Cecelia Johnson, West St. Paul

•••

The Biden administration plan to cancel some existing student loan debt will not make higher education affordable once again. We need to design a different way to operate and to finance higher education.

The Affordable Care Act requires health insurers in large group markets to send rebates to customers if their administrative costs and profits exceed 15% of premiums ("Health insurers must pay up or pay back," Star Tribune, Aug. 17, 2014). In a similar manner the Legislature should require the University of Minnesota administration to send rebates to the state treasury to the extent that the costs of administration exceed 15% of the total expenses of the university for the fiscal year.

Student loans have provided the fuel for the skyrocketing cost of higher education, which has risen even faster than the cost of health care over the past 30 years. Our current system of financing much of higher education with student loan debt lacks sufficient financial incentive to control costs. Making the university the guarantor of student loans would provide that incentive.

Payments on student loan debt should be a percentage of the earnings of each student for a certain time period, such as five years. The primary responsibility for repayment should remain with the students and their parents. The university should have the secondary responsibility to pay any remaining balance on the loans. This would inject a much needed dose of accountability into the system.

The university president began her term in 2019 expressing her aspiration to make the university "the North Star of pricing" in higher education ("New U of M president strikes upbeat tone," July 12, 2019, final paragraph) . She was referring to tuition, not her annual compensation (which the regents increased last year to more than $1 million with "supplemental" retirement contributions).

Now is the time to make that aspiration a reality.

Michael W. McNabb, Lakeville

I read with great concern the front-page Feb. 26 article "It's 'full speed ahead' for DFL." The last sentence of the last paragraph says it all: "By giving us the trifecta, by putting us in the majority, it was a clear mandate." It seems to me that a DFL majority of +1 (1/67 = +1.5%) in the Senate and a DFL majority of +6 (6/134 = 4.5%) in the House is not a clear mandate. How quickly the DFL is forgetting that Minnesota has had divided statehouses very recently and may soon have such again — probably the reason for the rush to pass bad legislation. This now includes:

• One hundred percent carbon-free electricity by 2040. (This is neither needed or achievable; Xcel Energy had a goal of 2050 and is the largest electricity provider in Minnesota.)

• An additional state holiday. (Another burden on employers and Minnesota taxpayers, since the majority of those who will receive a day off will be those in the public sector.)

• Abortion as a fundamental right. (It is not considered this by a majority of Minnesotans.)

• State-mandated paid leave for employees. (How many legislators even know what is involved in managing a business and meeting payroll?)

• Legalized (so-called "recreational") marijuana.

• Driver's licenses for unauthorized immigrants.

• Restored voting rights to people released from prison.

• Other legislation!

While some of these passed/proposed laws may make marginal sense if properly drafted and compromises are made in committee, there does not appear to be a willingness on the part of the DFL majority to compromise and make new legislation reasonable — it's "full speed ahead." Unfortunately, some of this hasty legislation will not serve Minnesota well over time. Also, why is it not "full speed ahead" to eliminate income taxes on Social Security and return some of the budget surplus to the income taxpayers who, in essence, overpaid their income taxes in recent years? I have heard some reports that some DFLers want some of the budget surplus "returned" to lower-income residents. The problem with this proposal is that many of those residents may not have paid any Minnesota state income taxes.

Dennis Martenson, Corcoran

•••

The Feb. 26 article, the online headline for which was "Minnesota Democrats rapidly advance the most progressive agenda in a generation," failed to recognize how long Minnesotans have waited for such a historic agenda. For many past sessions when the Republicans had control of either the House or Senate, their favorite mantra for a bill they refused to hear even in committee was that it was "dead on arrival." The Minnesota Republican Senate and House should not be shocked that our current majority is eager to help One Minnesota.

Mike Menzel, Edina