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

•••

Do white children in Minnesota have greater protections from abuse than Indian children? Yes, they do, under a new law authored by state Sen. Mary Kunesh and signed by Gov. Tim Walz. This isn't hyperbole. In a law designed to "strengthen" the Indian Child Welfare Act (a federal law passed in 1978 in a laudable attempt to reduce the disproportionate out-of-home placement rates of Indian children), Sen. Kunesh's bill prevents county social workers and judges from removing Indian children in neglect or abuse proceedings unless the child has suffered "imminent physical damage or harm."

Sounds reasonable, right? Except the law took pains to define "imminent harm" as "immediate and present conditions that are life-threatening or likely to result in abandonment, sexual abuse, or serious physical injury." By contrast, non-Indian children may be removed if the child's "health or welfare" is "endangered." So your "ho-hum" cases of domestic assault on a child, cigarette burns or emotional abuse don't meet the standard for Indian children — they are not "life-threatening" cases. Effectively, this new law gives a pass to Indian families to harm their children so long as it isn't "life-threatening."

Indian children deserve better. County attorneys across the state vehemently objected to this legislation, but they gave up fighting, because no one wants to offend the tribes. Well, this tribal member (Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa) is deeply offended by this new law, and it should offend all Minnesotans who believe all children are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

Mark Fiddler, Minneapolis

The writer is an adoption attorney and counsel for plaintiffs in Brackeen v. Haaland.

What is going on with the judicial system in this state? Friday's Minnesota section in the Star Tribune gives us two unrelated but perfect examples of the judicial system failing to protect the citizens of our state, the victims of horrific crimes and the taxpayers of Minnesota. In the first article, "Victim's family objects to plea deal for fatal Mpls. crash," we have a repeat offender, allegedly drunk at nearly three times the legal limit running a red light at 85 mph and killing a 22-year-old young adult who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. All of this and Hennepin County prosecutors and a judge are going to allow a plea deal calling for "slightly more than 2 1/3 years in prison." In addition, "The plea deal also includes dismissal of a criminal vehicular homicide count." If ever there has been a case calling for more than what is recommended under state guidelines, this is it. There should be no plea deal here. Who is looking out for the victim, and who is looking out for the future victims of this repeat offender?

Not nearly as outrageous but still a staggering outcome is the story on the same page titled "Probation for businessman who skipped $800K in taxes." This case takes us down to Rochester where another repeat offender is getting off with another deal. We have a business owner "failing to pay nearly $800,000 in taxes owed during multiple years." This deal allows him to "[plead] guilty to one count of failure to pay business and personal taxes." The remaining 25 counts (25!) were dismissed. Again, this is a repeat offender who had been caught before. He was then "extensively educated and advised by the Minnesota Department of Revenue on the correct procedures and his duty to file and pay what is required." All of this happened before the latest episode of him not paying his taxes. Yet here we see another plea deal and no prison time for this white-collar crime.

Are we left to wonder who is looking out for the law-abiding, taxpaying citizens of this state we call home? I sure am, and our county prosecutors need to be held to task here. Plea deals are appropriate from time to time but I think most of us will agree they have been offered far too often, and this trend seems to be getting worse.

Matthew Rand, Edina

Regarding the June 4 call for submissions: "Where does Minnesota go from here?"

The potluck dinner. Some say it was invented by Minnesotans. I have no idea on where the first potluck was held. But I do know many of us have a variety of these cataloged in the memory archives. It could be a memory from a school event, neighborhood gathering, a funeral, or maybe it was something required for work. Any of these could have been met with trepidation or excitement — either way, it was happening and you were asked ("required" in Minnesotan) to bring a dish to share.

What would it be? Do you dive deep into the family recipe box or quickly search for the latest trend online? Do you look in your fridge and craft something with what you already have? Or do you try to make something totally out of your comfort zone that might require a specialty grocery store, which results in a field trip to someplace new? Where do you fall on that scale?

We've all been there at some point, and maybe it's time to bring it back. What would it take to get our state residents to gather together and share a meal? We already have the Great Minnesota Get-Together once a year in St. Paul. What would a Great Minnesota Potluck look like? Does every town have a gathering? Each and every resident brings a dish? We make one long table from Angle Township to Peterson, and Cook County to St. Vincent? I love that idea. I think we could do that; after all, we are humans and most of us love a gathering once in a while!

My hope for us and for our future would be to open our fridges, crack our recipe books, visit a new market or grocer and whip up something that is great to share with another.

It all starts with a smile, a handshake and a good old-fashioned potluck.

Laura Hotvet, Excelsior

As a member of Veterans For Peace, I agree with the position of the national organization to suspend military arms to Ukraine along with an immediate cease-fire and the beginning of peace negotiations ("Antiwar activists split on Ukraine," June 5). This is the view of the majority of VFP members as well as nearly all peace organizations.

I have had many discussions with my fellow peace activists who hold contrary views. These people want unlimited arms shipments to Ukraine and for Russia to begin immediate withdrawal from all Ukrainian territory. While we all would like to see a Russian withdrawal, that is a very unrealistic position to hold. For the Russians to simply withdraw does not address their reasons for invading in the first place. We will not understand their reasons for invading without peace negotiations.

We need to think long-term. Driving Russia out of Ukraine, with none of their original intentions met, will not create a lasting peace with a country that holds a huge nuclear weapons arsenal. The Russians would sulk and be forever angry. What comes to mind is a Germany defeated and humiliated after World War I, only to start another war 20 years later. Let us think long-term and begin negotiations now and prevent WWIII.

Bill Habedank, Red Wing, Minn.