Readers Write: Lutsen Lodge, education, End-of-Life Options Act, health care, the Twins

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

•••

The loss of the Lutsen Lodge is tragic (”Lutsen Lodge owner says suspicions add to grief,” Feb. 8). While flashy buildings like cathedrals and skyscrapers grab architectural attention, this structure spoke just as loudly in its quietude. It was not only a historic structure, but, in my opinion, captured the spirit of Scandinavian design and heritage like no other building in the United States. Every last detail of the place reflected Edwin Lundie’s genius for symmetry and simple elegance. While it was not a religious structure, if Minnesota had a church, this was it.

Chris Birt, Edina

Thank you for reprinting the Los Angeles Times editorial “Overreliance on adjuncts” on Feb. 6. I’ve fought unfairness to adjuncts in higher education since former University of Minnesota Prof. Chris Anson and I wrote the lead essay in the award-winning book “Moving a Mountain: Transforming the Role of Contingent Faculty.”

But I worry that readers may think adjuncts make on average “$64,000 a year.” They are more likely to earn far less and become “freeway flyers.” I did for several years. Not knowing how many courses I’d receive, I flew the freeways among colleges, working in up to six sites for four schools.

Colleges must save money. But does taking advantage of 70% of faculty accomplish this? One problem is while full-time faculty are hired by a committee, part-timers are selected by one dean or department chair who sometimes hires the inexperienced person and even legally suppresses pay levels. Excellent part-timers may quit or rebel. At one school I saw a new dean decide not to rehire several very good middle-age women. They sued for damages and won.

Adjuncts also are poorly supported. As freeway flyers, they don’t have the time to work with colleagues and administrators, who don’t notice them anyway. And untenured instructors often avoid asking for help. They might get in trouble and lose their jobs — as happened notably to adjunct faculty member Erika López Prater at Hamline last year.

Richard Jewell, Minneapolis

I’m president and CEO of Achieve Twin Cities, a nonprofit that provides career and college readiness services to 18,000 Minneapolis and St. Paul high school students each year, and our organization was troubled by the Star Tribune’s Jan. 19 editorial, “The haves, have nots of local high schools,” which focused on a new study by the University of Minnesota Law School’s Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity.

We share the Editorial Board’s concerns about the harmful impact of historic racism, segregation and wealth stratification on postsecondary access and outcomes for our young people. We know that because of these disparities, the opportunities available to Twin Cities youth are still overly determined by the neighborhoods in which they grow up. But we believe that oversimplifying and framing these complex realities as “Golden Ticket” vs. “Dead End” schools, as the study and editorial do, disparages and blames our school communities and the dedicated professionals in those buildings who work tirelessly to counteract the very effects the report seeks to highlight.

We call on our community to truly recognize and address the root causes of our wide postsecondary gaps and advocate for the resources our schools need to guarantee college preparedness and access for our most marginalized young people. Let’s direct our energy toward supporting our public schools in this work and recognizing that they are not the problem when it comes to postsecondary access, but rather an essential part of the solution.

Danielle Grant, Minneapolis

I was taken aback by one of the assertions in a Feb. 5 letter about the End-of-Life Options Act. He asserts that religious objections to the bill come down to an opinion that “my religious views are more important than yours.” This seems like anti-religious bigotry to make such a broad assertion. Insert some other group in there and see how it sounds to you.

I do not deny that there is a tendency for people to argue by expressing an opinion without reason or facts. However, as a person with religious beliefs, I am also still a citizen of the state of Minnesota and the United States, so I do get to express my opinions on all matters that are up for discussion. (See the First Amendment right to free speech.) I wonder if there also isn’t a tendency to think religious people are unreasonable. As a Catholic, I believe that human beings are a combination of the physical and the spiritual. Both “parts” are good and important. The brain, as part of the physical, is good, and we are to use our intellect and our ability to reason things out. Faith and reason work together. This is why the Catholic Church was responsible for expanding education beyond just royals. This is why Catholic schools of all levels teach the full spectrum of science and art. Education is one way to seek truth, and seeking truth is part of seeking God. The belief in the goodness of the physical is also why we fight for that which upholds the dignity of life (the body) or against that which moves against the dignity of life.

As human beings we have an inherent worth, no matter whether we are “productive” or not. This is one reason I oppose this “end of life” legislation — it works against the inherent dignity of people.

So when a person of faith expresses an opinion, don’t give in to any anti-religion bias you might have. Pay attention to the individual and what they are saying. There may be reasons for their belief!

Leo H. Martin, Minneapolis

An overlooked benefit of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is that it allowed for small businesses to offer health insurance coverage without requiring employers to intervene in an employee’s private health care decisions (”Protect ACA as enrollment grows,” editorial, Feb. 7).

A legacy of Obamacare is it led to the creation of Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Accounts (ICHRAs). These accounts empower companies with fewer than 50 employees to subsidize health insurance while granting employees the autonomy to select from any plan available on their state’s ACA marketplace.

It’s a win-win scenario with no downsides. Employees benefit from robust, employer-supported insurance tailored to their family’s needs. Employers are relieved from the necessity to master the intricacies of insurance policies and are spared the anxiety of potentially facing steep premium hikes due to a single catastrophic claim in any given year. Furthermore, the premiums are tax-free for everyone, just like with traditional employer-sponsored coverage.

It’s ironic. The ACA, despite its past controversies, offers the most free-market health insurance options available to employees.

Sean Murphy, Minneapolis

The writer is co-founder and CEO of DemoHop.

I have to agree with the Feb. 6 letter about watching the Twins, “So much for streaming this season.” The Twins are losing their fans. The Twins’ top brass need to get their heads out of the dugout and let us fans watch them on TV. I’ve been a fan since 1969 and am going to the opener this year (sticker shock), but after that I have no option to watch them unless they are on national TV. Radio only keeps me interested for so long! Wake up, Twins ownership, before you lose us old dudes and the young ’uns!

Gary Jensen, Franklin, Minn.