Our local teachers union has voted to authorize a strike once more ("Minneapolis, St. Paul teachers and support staff authorize strike," StarTribune.com, Feb. 18).

In St. Paul, we've seen this melodrama many times before, and here's what I've learned over the years.

Our schools are running a $43 million annual structural deficit. If the St. Paul (and Minneapolis) teachers unions were truly interested in solving problems, they'd have invited the public loudly and often to lobby with them for needed funds at the State Capitol. Instead, our teachers union's aim is to channel community frustration of every kind into the one tool at the center of their existence: their contract with the school district, and a biennial strike threat, and to pretend it can magically resolve the financial constraints that keep them from getting the kind of schools we'd ideally have.

I've noted the core parts of their approach: Make people angry at a school board that is powerless to do much to solve problems; decide major public policy issues and financial trade-offs between teacher and community priorities behind closed doors in mediation; speak for parents and community members, denying them the agency they themselves as union members enjoy, agency that any kind of organizer would recognize as central to empowerment; run people who disagree with them off the school board; and buy the silence of public officials by trying to dominate every level of governance, helping "blind" officials to the toxic parts of the unionism, snuffing out actual community-rooted voices.

In a word, they are anti-liberal in the very way they hold power. As a progressive-minded person, I'm admittedly philosophically inclined to support unions. But watching the actions of this union, my thinking has evolved. As a government worker, I belong to a principled union I'd always trust and support. But when you abuse your place in the community, threaten strikes every two years for a decade and lose trust, the crying wolf wears as thin as any sense of our unquestioning support for the labor movement.

Our kids and community deserve actual problem-solving; whether they recognize it or not, our teachers union is selling us all short.

Bob Spaulding, St. Paul

The hoped-for (increased) starting salary for Minneapolis and St. Paul education support professionals of $35,000 is appalling because it is so low. Composer Charles Ives earned a living for his family by selling life insurance and thought a lot about what the nation needed to be strong, including that the highest paid people in our nation should be the essential workers: teachers and farmers. They are the ones without whom we couldn't live: We could neither eat nor learn.

Today we are in a struggle over the direction of our nation. David Brooks' Feb. 17 opinion piece in the New York Times addresses the question of how we got to this point, ending with these words: "If the 21st century is to get brighter as it goes along ... we don't only have to worry about the people tearing down democracy. We have to worry about who is building it up." Teachers and educators strive to do that work of building-up. They have endured far too much denigration. We need them. We should pay them well.

Melinda Quivik, St. Paul

I do not always appreciate a "back when my kids were in school" letter, but here I am writing one. "Bill wants parents informed of studies" (front page, Feb. 15) reminded me of something that happened when my son was in middle school. Several parents were unhappy with a science teacher (the complaint was he was not "sticking to the curriculum"). I got a call asking if I would sit in on one of his classes to monitor his lessons. Other parents would sit in during his other classes. I was working full time at the time. I am an interior designer. I had not and have not spent one minute in a class as a student learning how to educate others. I very politely declined this parent's request and jokingly told them if this teacher ever needed help picking out carpet for his home, I would be glad to help.

My children are now contributing members of society, and both are grateful that their mother and father stayed in our lanes and gave them the freedom to discuss what they wanted/needed to share with us from school. This combined with parent-teacher conferences a few times a year was all the information we wanted (and needed).

Last week's article "Tennessee parents, teachers push back against 'Maus' removal" expounds upon an issue central to American identity. It is necessary to examine the company Art Spiegelman's graphic novel has found itself in. The titles included in the American Library Academy's list of the 10 most banned books in 2021 were identified as having been banned because of concerns over anti-police views, profanity, sexual references and abuse, LGBTQIA+ content, public opinion or allegations against the author, and racial slurs and stereotypes.

These topics cross political lines, representing conservative and liberal issues and creating a question outside what is right or wrong but who gets to decide. This is of particular importance because those primarily affected are students, not those advocating for the changes. The degree to which the student experience is centered is variable. One of the books banned, "Of Mice and Men," was noted by the ALA to be "banned and challenged for racial slurs and racist stereotypes and their negative effect on students." "George," on the other hand, another of 2021's most banned books, was objected to for "not reflecting 'the values of our community.'" Books like "Maus" aren't being removed because their relevance is debated. They aren't being removed in spite of their relevance. They are being removed because of their relevance. Jason Reynold's and Brendan Kiely's "All American Boys," which follows a white and a Black high school student as they navigate their coming of age in the context of racism and police brutality, was banned for being "too much of a sensitive matter right now."

As former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought." In addition to being hatcheries for student thought, our public libraries and schools are essential forums where we can exercise our duty to uphold these freedoms. Understanding the harms and healing in literature is complex. We're going to get it wrong. But, we can decide how much room for error we allow ourselves. We can decide how disastrous those mistakes have to potential to be. Censorship drastically increases those risks. The solution is rarely to ignore but to contend with.

Greta Cunningham, St. Paul

•••

Kids know how to hack into things you don't even know exist.

Stop being afraid of books and teachers and start paying attention to what your kids are doing. Discuss things with them. Listen and listen again to everything they are saying. Teach them how to respond instead of how to react. Teach them how to stop and think. Encourage them to come to you with their questions and concerns.

Validate your own sources. Social media is rarely a credible source of anything. It is the epitome of the old game of telephone.

Be the adult in the room. You'll sleep better, too.

Janet Bates, Eagan