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

•••

I read the commentary "Confessions of a Minneapolis landlord" (Opinion Exchange, July 3) with some interest. My grandmother rented out a triplex in Minneapolis for decades. One winter, a tenant had no safe place to park his motorcycle. So he wheeled it up the stairs and parked it in the upstairs kitchen from October to April, the months when the streets are too icy for driving. Decades later, the floor still sags after this display of tenant logic and caution.

David Wiljamaa, Minneapolis

Minnesota is at an inflection point. Like all states in this union, Minnesota is divided on how to treat marginalized people. Some call upon religion as the guiding light and others call on their own compassion. The Minnesota I know is committed to ensuring that everyone matters.

As the daughter of Indian immigrants who moved from New York to Minneapolis 12 years ago, some may see me as an outsider. Instead, this gives me a fresh perspective into the untapped potential of Minnesota.

Minnesotans live by the same values that Hindu philosophy cites as essential for material prosperity:

Consistency: forward movement toward a focused goal.

Cooperation: working together in community to achieve those goals.

So where does Minnesota go from here? It must keep moving forward with this system.

Concentration on the present is evident in Minnesotans' connection to nature and their ability to find joy in any weather. The state should continue to protect existing and create new nature-based centers for community engagement.

Consistency is seen in Minnesota's entrepreneurial founders, who contribute their multifaceted talents and prioritize solving meaningful problems for our communities. The state must maintain its commitment to serving humanity.

COVID lockdowns and slowdown had the lasting impact of encouraging us all to rethink what is important in this life. For those of us who choose the path of building — and living — what matters, Minnesota is our True North.

Aneela Idnani, Minneapolis

The writer is a mental health advocate and co-founder of HabitAware Inc.

I want to express our thanks to legislators, Gov. Tim Walz, former Govs. Tim Pawlenty and Mark Dayton and members of our university community for their support of the University of Minnesota health sciences and the recent passage of legislation that protects the clinical resources on our campus from out-of-state or for-profit control.

We know that our ability to continue our mission of improving the health of Minnesotans through patient care, medical research and training future physicians and other health care professionals is something that can benefit everyone in the state. That's what motivates us to come to work every day.

When solutions don't yet exist, we are driven to discover them. Our goal is to improve the practice of medicine, something we've been doing for the past 135 years.

We are always working on improving access to health care. One way we do this is by producing more physicians, particularly ones who will remain in Minnesota. For 50 years, our Duluth campus has specifically focused on training doctors to serve rural and Native American communities. We are working to open a St. Cloud campus that will train physicians for greater Minnesota.

The people I work with view their time at the university as public service. We want our work to serve the citizens of this state. We are grateful for the passage of legislation that helps ensure our ability to continue to do so.

Dr. Jakub Tolar, Minneapolis

The writer is vice president for clinical affairs and dean of the University of Minnesota Medical School.

I agree the criminal justice system is not designed to make victims and their families whole and that nothing will fill the void left behind from the death of the young man here — but this is lunacy. It's a mockery of our DWI laws, public safety and justice for the victim and his family. I can imagine a circumstance where there is a bona fide "accident" resulting in the death of an innocent human being where this type of plea bargain and sentence would make sense, but this is not it. I would suggest that in this case, the driver's vehicle is like a handgun. He owned and operated without a license (because of previous violations) and used it while drunk in a grossly negligent manner, resulting in the death of an innocent human being. Four years with time off for good behavior and he could be out to do it again in 2.3 years. Not nearly enough!

David R. Witte, Plymouth

The June 30 Opinion Exchange page included a piece with the screaming headline "Conservative court revolution claims another victim," referencing last week's affirmative action decision. Why "conservative"? Labels can be misleading and serve to perpetuate unfair stereotypes. Was it a "conservative" court that last week gave Democrats a huge win rejecting arguments from North Carolina Republicans that courts don't have the authority to challenge legislative redistricting maps; or when the same court in two decisions (written by Justice Neil Gorsuch) seconded the arguments of Native Americans recognizing the rights of tribes as sovereign nations; or when the court decided 9-0 that a postal worker could not be required to work on Sundays in violation of his religious beliefs (not to mention several other unanimous decisions of the court this term); or when, several terms ago, the court went to great lengths to uphold Obamacare?

I spent a couple of hours reading the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions in last week's affirmative action case. After doing so, it occurs to me that a new label for the court, for all of its clunkiness, might appropriately be the "rule of law" court.

The joint opinion of the dissenters is embarrassingly bad and more appropriate for a hearing before a legislative body concerning what the law should be rather than what it is. The ad hominem attack on Justice Clarence Thomas in Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissenting opinion is similarly way out of line. Read Thomas' concurring opinion and then Sotomayor's response. You'll see what I mean.

•••

May I respectfully suggest that people choose employment that is compatible with their religious commitments? ("Religious rights for workers broadened," June 30.) If you won't scan pork, don't take a checkout job. If you won't fill a prescription for birth control or the morning-after pill, don't become a pharmacist. If you won't drive a support animal, don't become a taxi driver. Following your religion is your burden. It should not put on employers and the public at large. Hasn't something gone wrong with religion when it is used to exclude or burden other people?