•••
I am compelled to respond to a Saturday letter in the Star Tribune ("Among many harebrained ideas … " Readers Write, Aug. 26). The writer makes the absurd claim that there exists "the GOP's voter suppression campaign, which has so far primarily been directed to Black people, other ethnic minorities and poorer people," without of course citing a shred of evidence to support such a preposterous assertion. Apparently, such a "suppression campaign" has not been very successful, since voting records show that the percentage of votes for President Donald Trump between the 2016 election and the 2020 election actually significantly increased among Black voters, Hispanic and Latino voters, and Asian voters as well. Moreover, the letter writer ignores the fact that Trump secured permanent funding for historically Black colleges and universities, enacted criminal justice reform (advocated by Black leaders) and attracted $75 billion in private investment for Opportunity Zones in economically depressed areas. If the GOP wanted to "suppress voting by minorities," why would it enact such policies?
If the writer is claiming that the GOP is attempting to "suppress" minority voting by advocating for voter ID, how can he then explain the fact that after Indiana enacted a voter ID requirement in 2005, voter participation in the presidential election of 2008 actually increased over the 2004 election in that state? Spewing forth absurd leftist talking points, belied by documented facts about the GOP and minority voters, obviously does not help advance reasoned political dialogue.
Mark R. Miller, Minneapolis
TEACHING
Autonomy matters, but so does salary
I don't doubt the data that Ted Kolderie used in his recent commentary ("Why is Minnesota short on teachers?" Opinion Exchange, Aug. 27). Teacher retention is absolutely a major concern, and it does seem reasonable to suggest that autonomy, not salary, is a major reason for teacher turnover as things currently stand. Anybody who chooses to teach today goes into the profession knowing that they're likely to receive a lower salary than their peers with similar educational attainment. They go into teaching because it's something they're passionate about, so it makes sense that they're pushed out as they're given fewer opportunities to engage those passions. Too much top-down control over what teachers do is absolutely a problem, and changing that fact could address some issues with teacher retention.
That being said, low salaries are also undeniably an impediment to teacher recruitment and retention. Lots of good teaching candidates never consider the profession because they're unwilling to sacrifice the money they know they could make pursuing other careers. Moreover, if entering teaching no longer required knowingly compromising on salary — if teaching could bring in those candidates for whom salary is a major motivator — it would also be better positioned to retain those candidates through better salaries.
Mike Phillips, Minneapolis