Readers Write: Free speech at the U, Walz town halls, continuing resolution

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

•••

It’s very disheartening to hear that Minnesota’s flagship campus is moving to restrict speech at this critical moment (“U approves limits on faculty speech,” front page, March 15). Public universities are tasked with providing research, knowledge and education for the betterment of society, across subjects as diverse as medicine, art and politics. To do this effectively, a university’s faculty must be able to comment on the issues of the day with the confidence that their leadership will back them.

Stripping University of Minnesota faculty of the ability to address current issues and events will not make the university stronger. Columbia University has managed to lose support from all parties by acting with cowardice in the past 18 months, and is now desperately attempting to please the Trump administration. That is an impossible task for any institution that does not cater to President Donald Trump’s every whim. Nevertheless, Columbia is now cooperating with immigration authorities and stripping degrees from former students in a disgraceful attempt to salvage federal dollars. Columbia’s story should serve as a warning sign to universities who act timidly and reactively to political controversy.

Universities must stand up for truth and free expression in the face of threats, even if it means going to court. By giving in to external political pressure, institutions of higher education sacrifice both a core virtue and their ability to serve as a guiding force in our society. The University of Minnesota should reverse course and enable its faculty to speak freely.

Brian Wagenaar, Eden Prairie

•••

Several March 17 letter writers emphasized what they see as “limits” on free speech and academic freedom (“Free speech has its limits”). I question these limits. I see free speech in the academic area as fragile and worthy of more flexibility. These are mainly young people exploring ideas in a place where disagreement and exploration are encouraged.

On campuses all over, students of different faiths, races, ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds find themselves vulnerable and targeted. For those reasons, the schools ought to hold their administrations to high standards of review and discourse, but not censorship.

Regardless of what our governments decree, political parties around the world do exist, and ought to be examined and discussed — including those that are in place in Syria, Israel, Russia or in the territories being occupied by displaced persons. Instructors, professors, researchers and teachers are working with people who explore ideas. They ought to be free to look into legitimate subjects of discussion.

As for lies or racist, antisemitic, violent or offensive rhetoric, I find it strange that some people think students and educators should be held to higher standards than our top political and social leaders. I won’t pussyfoot around this topic. The Republican Party and its members of Congress have embraced lies about Haitians, people from Latin America and immigrants from predominantly Muslim regions. They have encouraged discrimination and violence against these people. They have suggested treating demonstrators and protesters with violence. They have lied about the character of immigrants. And Republicans defend this vicious, false and offensive speech as “free speech.”

I say protect speech on campus. Protect threatened students on campus in other ways than denying free speech. Enact meaningful sanctions against political leaders who incite violence, lie or preach hate.

Thomas Odendahl, Minneapolis

•••

In yet another concession to Trump’s threats, the University of Minnesota has given up its trust in the First Amendment. In the wake of protests over the war between Hamas and Israel, the Board of Regents has opted to muzzle the voices of those “addressing matters of public concern or public interest.” Since when does a public university have the right to determine what can be talked about and what can’t? What message does this give our students and faculty if their right to publicly protest is curtailed? Giving U President Rebecca Cunningham the authority to determine what institutional statements will be allowed is akin to granting Trump the right to determine whom the Department of Justice will prosecute. It makes no sense!

Alan Bray, St. Peter, Minn.

•••

I read through the March 15 article “U approves limits on faculty speech” and couldn’t find where it says faculty can’t participate in free speech on their own. Suppose there were departments at the U espousing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.‘s views on vaccines on their websites — would that be considered free speech?

The regents should be applauded for their courage. The U and its departments should not be taking positions on any issue. Want to peacefully protest? Fantastic. Grab a sign ... on your own time.

Jim Piga, Mendota Heights

Gov. Tim Walz holding town halls in Republican congressional districts is a great idea. Too bad he didn’t start in Minnesota with Rep. Brad Finstad, Michelle Fischbach, Pete Stauber and Tom Emmer’s districts.

Tom Shea, Owatonna, Minn.

•••

Walz is having town hall meetings in other states. Maybe he should be having them in Minnesota and explaining to us how he took us from an $18 billion surplus to an estimated $6 billion deficit.

Elroy Geistfeld, Lewisville, Minn.

•••

It’s a crying shame the way Republicans are trying to beat up Walz for holding town hall meetings in other states. By hearing our voices, he is upholding democracy, the very thing Republicans don’t have the guts to stand up for.

The threats to our elected officials who do not agree with Trump are a travesty, an utter abomination to the American way of life. Freedom of speech and the press are critical to a democratic society. To try and censor and threaten our elected officials who do not agree with the current administration is sabotaging the rights of every citizen in this country.

Jean Sheehan, Minnetonka

Somehow U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer found nine other fearful Democrats to join him in his misguided support of the GOP-written stopgap spending measure (“Dems acquiesce to prevent shutdown,” front page, March 15). Schumer’s rationalization for doing so was as flawed as the bill itself: that somehow supporting the bill would put some constraints on Trump and Elon Musk’s frenzied job-cutting activities. Nothing is going to stop Trump and Musk from doing whatever they want.

Schumer engages in politics like it’s 1995 — that doesn’t work with the MAGA Republicans. This is not the Republican Party of yore. They have torn up the rule book and have written a new one that suits their purposes. Democrats need to adapt accordingly and start by removing Sen. Schumer as Senate minority leader and replacing him with someone who has their finger on the pulse of 2025, before it’s too late.

Doug Williams, Robbinsdale

•••

A March 15 article noted that both Minnesota Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith voted against the Republican-led spending bill. They stood up to Trump, who has been having his democracy-threatening way, full speed ahead.

They didn’t buy into the “stop or slow him down later” strategy. There needs to be at least a pause, breathing room for reflection, comparison of approaches. Don’t embolden him. We all need to take a breath, examine what is happening and why it has to be so fast. It is too much like a coup, and our usual democratic processes are being threatened in a major way.

Thanks to our two senators for standing tall.

Jim Lein, Minneapolis