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

•••

The July 1 editorial on the affirmative action decision, "Diversity still critical in higher education," states that the nation is "still plagued by ... race-based discrimination in many areas, including health care, housing, policing and employment." But it's high time we had a thorough, detailed analysis of the current state of racism in America. Who is doing what? After all, only a tiny amount of racism needs to still exist for racism to exist. How much and where? Systemic racism can't just be a phantom or a hand-wave — there must be some racism in there somewhere. It needs to be enumerated before it can be eradicated. And it's not enough to say, "redlining, for example." We need to see all the examples. We can't just look at disparate outcomes because the causes may be difficult to grasp — or admit to. And it's important to distinguish between ongoing racism and the lingering effects of past racism, since past racism isn't racism in the same sense that a dead person isn't a person. And this kind of analysis needs to take place every few years, since by now you'd think the erstwhile racists would realize that the heat is on and dial it back.

Patrick McCauley, Edina

In the lead front-page article in Tuesday's edition on the need for schools to rethink ways of disciplining lower elementary students, we learn that teachers are essentially no longer going to be able to remove disruptive, disrespectful and out-of-control students from the classroom, nor remove playground privileges as a means of motivating a misbehaving student to behave. ("Schools rethink discipline ahead of new laws," July 4.)

What, then, is left in a teacher's arsenal of methods to effect proper behavior? What message is being sent to misbehaving students concerning their responsibility to conform to behavior consistent with creating a positive learning experience for the rest of the class?

Let us fast-forward to adulthood. Where do people who have not learned self-control at an early age and who been allowed to display disruptive, disrespectful and out-of-control behavior as a teenager or young adult tend to end up?

All children need to learn in a safe, secure and orderly environment in order to thrive and mature into productive, happy, well-adjusted and contributing adult citizens.

A very wise and respected elementary principal once told me as a young student teacher that before a student can learn self-discipline, they must first experience external discipline when they misbehave. I observed a lot of learning taking place in that school.

Paul Gausmann, Brooklyn Park

•••

The practice of denying children recess time is not only archaic but ineffective.

School administrators and faculty might consider a more updated method for helping a child change their behavior rather than adding anger to their list of choices.

For instance, take five minutes to explain, rather than blame or shame, the immediate danger/show of disrespect and ask what the child perceives as the outcome to their response. Who was harmed or hurt? What other response could have happened? Give the child time out in the room in order to allow them to make a statement (either oral or written), helping them to choose a more acceptable response. And, on one sheet of paper let them write a contract for a change in behavior. Example: "I will choose to take my own time out"; "I will make a plan not to do the same behavior next time"; "I will ask for help if I need it."

Children who irresponsibly act out are responding to an unmet need and become impulsive and angry.

By charting a simple path of choices, the staff can enable the child to readdress the unmet need and gain power over nonproductive behavior.

To institute this process there should be a simple flow chart listing potential responses and outcomes.

Claire Grubich, St. Paul

Why should Minnesotans care if notorious multinational Glencore owns all of PolyMet Mining Corp., rather than the 82% majority Glencore owns now? The answer: secrecy ("Glencore bids for full control of PolyMet," July 4).

PolyMet/Glencore proposed Minnesota's first copper-nickel mine in headwaters and wetlands upstream from the Fond du Lac Reservation and Lake Superior. PolyMet's major permits have all been reversed or revoked because its mine project would violate laws, including downstream water quality standards. But PolyMet and Glencore have not given up on sulfide mining. In fact, Glencore, under the "New Range" brand, seeks control of massive copper-nickel deposits in the Lake Superior (NorthMet) and Boundary Waters (Mesaba/Teck) watersheds.

Today, PolyMet is a public company regulated by Canadian securities law. Much of what we know about PolyMet's expansion plans was hidden in permitting but disclosed in reports required by securities law to protect investors. You can read these reports online. If Glencore has its way and PolyMet goes private, that disclosure goes dark. You and I won't be able to find or verify data about mine costs, profits, jobs, mineral reserves, liabilities or expansion plans.

Minnesota agencies have yet to hold Glencore responsible on a single one of PolyMet's (failed) permits. We cannot assume they will defend taxpayers or the environment. Glencore, the world's biggest mining company with a long and sordid record for bribery and corruption, would own PolyMet behind a veil of secrecy. Whether we Minnesotans care about the future of our economy, our communities or our clean water, Glencore would "own" us.

Paula Maccabee, St. Paul

The writer is advocacy director and counsel at WaterLegacy.

I'm grateful for the clarity of an embryologist letter writer's statement that "biological sex is an unalterable biological construct, not a social construct open to whim or misinformation" ("It's all about the chromosomes," Readers Write, July 4). But I question whether that biological difference gives an "unfair" advantage to biological males competing as females. It's clearly an advantage; males are typically bigger, stronger and faster than females, and that's why males generally win when competing with females. But can a biological difference be unfair? Is it unfair that I washed out in high school athletics because so many of the boys in my class were bigger, stronger, faster and better-coordinated than I? Is it unfair that some 12-year-olds can throw or hit a baseball better than some 25-year-olds?

I doubt that anything will satisfactorily settle the fight about transgender athletes. I wish, though, that we'd be more honest with ourselves about the differences between the world as it is and the world as we wish it were. It's self-delusion to think there is or should be a fix or accommodation for every biologically determined difference. And it's worse when we accuse those we disagree with on such issues as being motivated by hatred.

Steven Schild, Winona, Minn.

•••

A letter writer argued that the idea of binary biological sex is a social construct, and that biological sex has five components ("It's not so simple," Readers Write, June 29).

Given five components and two possibilities for each, there are 30 possible combinations in addition to the ones in which all components are female or all components are male.

So, I am confused. Is the letter writer suggesting that there should be 30 additional kinds of sports teams, or that girls' sports teams should be eliminated and there should be only one kind of team?

Rolf Bolstad, Minneapolis