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

•••

A March 11 commentary on protest states that the point of any protest is "to cause discomfort for people in power" ("Discomforting the status quo is what protest's all about," Opinion Exchange). Really? I thought the purpose of protest was to advocate for a particular point of view. A focus on discomfort allows for a wide range of very destructive actions and behaviors and has little to do with helpful discourse. Discomfort is the sign of narrow thinking and a love of the volume of the conversation rather than its content.

Charles Wanous, Bloomington

•••

One opinion piece on recent Minneapolis City Council work stood out to me. The writer of "Discomforting the status quo is what protest's all about" said, "Although these are just recommendations to the Legislature and may not lead to new laws, the fact that the majority of our City Council approved these steps scares me."

You know what scares me? Looking back from a parking lot on the north side of Lake Street as the Third Precinct went up in flames. When the "protests" took a turn, I got out of there as fast as I could. You know what else scares me? The burning and destruction of Lake Street businesses and elsewhere that will take years to return to normal.

Protesting has taken a dramatic turn in the last three years since the murder of George Floyd. Today's "activists" are out of control.

You know what else scares me? People like this writer, who try to justify actions that threaten and harm people in the name of her right to protest. She seems to have lost track of where her rights end and where someone else's rights begin. Our elected leaders should not be threatened and held hostage so she can get her point across.

Teresa Maki, Minnetonka

•••

No one is disputing the importance of protests in bringing social change.

The internet has spawned violent extremists throughout the country. These individuals are few in number but can cause a lot of damage. The majority of the country wants stability and therefore goes in the opposite direction of what the extremists are trying to accomplish.

Want to change Minneapolis? Protest peacefully, nominate electable candidates, do the groundwork and accept the results. There will be another election in two to four years.

The alternative? Progressives shook up the Democratic establishment in Florida for the gubernatorial election in 2018. They insisted on having a progressive person of color as their candidate. His name was Andrew Gillum, and the establishment candidate was congresswoman Gwen Graham (a popular politician who polls indicated had a strong lead over any Republican candidate).

Gillum went on to lose to a Republican candidate named Ron DeSantis. Florida at the time was considered purplish red. Since 2018 it has become solid red in favor of the Republicans.

"Discomforting" the status quo often results in bringing about the opposite of what you intended.

After reading "Free lunch might have hidden cost" (Feb. 20) I couldn't help but wonder if some have forgotten what our mission is. As a school board member, I'm grounded in our mission to educate students to reach their full potential. As Dr. Gigi Chawla of Children's Minnesota stated in her recent commentary ("There's nothing 'excessive' about feeding children," Opinion Exchange, Feb. 20), no child can reach their full potential on an empty stomach. A core belief in District 196 is that students come first. Therefore, the opportunity to make sure every child has access to school breakfast and lunch should be paramount to the concerns about measuring student poverty going forward.

Worried about levels of state compensatory aid? Fear not! Thanks to a change the state pursued this year to incorporate data on students whose families qualify for Medicaid, districts are seeing substantially more funding through direct certification. Anoka Hennepin Schools' compensatory revenue nearly doubled from fall 2019 to fall 2022! I implore district leaders to work alongside the state to solve school hunger and develop a modern system for determining compensatory aid vs. relying on charity to pay off lunch debt.

I applaud Rep. Sydney Jordan and Sen. Heather Gustafson for leading the charge to pass school meals and Rep. Sandra Feist for tackling the issue of finding a new way to measure student poverty levels with HF 1547/SF 2017. I challenge districts to be part of the solution. With the spirit of innovation and continuous improvement, we can achieve both important goals.

Bianca Virnig, Eagan

•••

The strike of a negative balance account during lunchtime is rough. For some individuals, worrying about having enough money in an account or trying to stretch every last penny has become normal. It becomes a painful reminder of status and stress. This is why school meals for all is about more than meals and money but the mental and physical health of us kids.

So, what are the perspectives of those who debate school meals? Well, if no-cost breakfast and lunches become statewide for all, the legislative priority of this bill will be translated as "fiscally irresponsible." Those opposing this policy said they were uncomfortable passing meals for all students instead of just students from low-income households.

I ask, if we're willing to pay for tax cuts for all, why not school meals for our kids? There has to be a better solution for Minnesota!

I'm proud to be represented by the Senate author of the universal school meals bill, Sen. Gustafson. If I could vote, she would've received mine. But kids don't get a vote. We rely on adults to create policies that directly affect our lives and our futures. I hope other senators consider this when the bill lands on the Senate floor.

Wonser Mongrue, Vadnais Heights

Talgo, of the conservative Heartland Institute, makes no mention that internal communications from Fox's Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham ridiculed the election-fraud lies and the people, such as Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who were telling them. Despite holding those ideas and those people in contempt, the Fox personalities continued spreading the lies to appease the Fox audience, which apparently could not bear to hear that Trump lost. The internal communications among Fox personalities are documented by material Dominion gathered for its defamation suit against Fox.

It's too bad the Star Tribune gave Talgo and Heartland a forum for such a flimsy attempt to defend Fox's unconscionably unethical "coverage." The neutral-reportage privilege that Fox will doubtless try to hide behind shouldn't protect the network or its employees from promoting claims that they know to be dubious at best.