Readers Write: Trump’s sentencing, phones in schools, education, health care

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Trump’s sentencing has been postponed until after the election (“Trump will be sentenced post-election,” front page, Sept. 7). Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan explained he was doing this “to avoid any appearance ... that proceeding has been affected by ... the approaching presidential election.”

To my thinking, this means: “To demonstrate that I am not changing anything because of the coming election, I am changing the sentencing because of the coming election.”

Mark Thelen, St. Cloud

•••

A symbol of American justice is Lady Justice, blindfolded to show impartiality and holding the scales of justice as guilt or innocence is weighed without regard to status or power. Unfortunately, in the real world, we are not blind regarding justice, and money and power seem to rule. The Supreme Court ruling granting presidents immunity for crimes committed in office is a whopper.

Now, we have delayed sentencing in Trump’s hush money case. The sentencing was delayed until after the election so as to not influence the election! Most of us would not be accorded this courtesy by the court if we had something important in our lives that conflicted with our sentencing, but if you are Trump, the rules don’t count.

This is why people have lost faith in the judiciary. A partisan Supreme Court rules in favor of nearly unlimited presidential immunity while another judge delays sentencing in order to not be political, while delaying the sentence has political consequences for a felon. Shame on the judicial system.

Steve Caster, Minneapolis

Doug Johnson misses the mark on several counts in his recent opinion piece (“Glad I don’t have to come up with that school phone policy,” Strib Voices, Sept. 6). For most of my 37 years as a public school teacher, phones were not an issue, but since my retirement in 2013, I’ve subbed in our local districts and have had considerable experience with the nemesis that is cellphones in the classroom.

Johnson would have us believe these devices are “brain extenders,” but I would contend that they more accurately function as “brain negators.” Accessing “almost all human knowledge” with these devices is not the same as real learning, and I would submit that to the extent that we allow phones to substitute for cognitive recall and problem-solving, we’re actually diminishing our brainpower and physiologically altering our brains themselves in ways that scientists are just beginning to understand.

Add to that the highly addictive nature of these things, utilizing pure Pavlovian conditioning, and the algorithms they’re programmed with, and you have something that runs counter to many of the goals educators have for their students.

Johnson asserts that “banning student phone use during the school day feels like an exercise in futility.” In my experience, a unified policy prohibiting cellphones in the classroom can work; during my last stint in a middle school with that policy, I never saw a cellphone the entire day. Teachers were on board and administrators made it clear that enforcement was required on their part. Not sure how big Johnson’s sample size was in arriving at his conclusion, but failures in one district don’t make the case that limiting cellphone use is pure folly.

Giving over our autonomy to AI and applied social algorithms is a slippery slope. We don’t serve our students well by leading them unquestioningly down this pathway. Critical thinking is a primary goal of any educational process, and students should be helped to gain an understanding of what this means for them and given guidance in examining their own use patterns. Johnson’s argument would have us subvert that aim in favor of the chaotic classroom environment where students are constantly distracted and our already overburdened teachers have to compete with pings and dings in their efforts to provide the best education for all.

Steve Pearson, Danbury, Wis.

•••

Our government strikes again. The Sept. 10 editorial “More schools wisely limiting phone access” mentions a proposed bill in Congress that would give up to $5 million annually for five years for a pilot program to fund packets in which to secure cellphones during the school day.

Why not just discuss the issue with administrators of St. Paul schools who have already implemented a successful plan?

Local control rules.

Jennifer Becker, Cambridge

•••

Attempts by schools to ban student smartphones in the classroom will be as ineffective as gun control laws, and for the same reason. To borrow and modify a slogan from the gun lobby, “Students today will give up their phones only after you pry them from their cold, dead hands.” Don’t underestimate addiction.

David Wiljamaa, Minneapolis

Attendance is not the issue; the graduation rate is the issue (“Strengthen efforts to keep kids in class,” editorial, Sept. 5).

Whenever you wish to go somewhere, you first look at where you want to go and then decide how to get there. Our goal in Minnesota should be a 100% graduation rate for our students.

The overall high school graduation rate in Minnesota is about 84%. American Indian students (56%) and Black students (69%) have the lowest graduation rates.

Data show that we are not addressing the needs of students who are not graduating. If we wish to increase our attendance, we first have to start with having a goal of a 100% graduation rate for every school district and then create schools and programs that are significantly different than what we now have. Until we do this, our attendance levels will remain unacceptable, as will our test scores.

John R. Eggers, Bemidji, Minn.

While the pandemic brought many changes to health care, one of the most positive outcomes was the increased use of telehealth. This innovation has greatly benefited communities across greater Minnesota, allowing patients to receive care from the safety and comfort of their homes. Telehealth has continued access to essential health care services and proved vital in rural and underserved areas where transportation challenges and harsh winter conditions often make in-person visits difficult. The importance of these benefits cannot be overstated.

With COVID-era telehealth flexibilities set to expire Dec. 31, 2024, these communities now face the potential loss of this critical service. The imminent loss of this vital service calls for urgent action. For many Minnesotans, telehealth isn’t just a convenience — it’s a lifeline.

Congress now faces a critical decision with three potential paths: allowing these flexibilities to expire, extending them for another year or making them permanent. Each option carries significant implications for health care access in Minnesota. Allowing the flexibilities to lapse would undo much of our progress, while a temporary extension would only prolong uncertainty. The best solution is to make these changes permanent, ensuring telehealth remains an accessible, equitable and reliable option for all.

Telehealth is vital for Minnesotans, providing care when travel is challenging and providing access to specialists when needed. As these flexibilities expire, the role of our congressional delegation in safeguarding health care access for greater Minnesota is crucial. Telehealth isn’t just a service; it’s a necessity. We cannot afford to lose this essential connection between patients and providers.

Wade Swenson, Fergus Falls, Minn.

The writer is a medical oncologist.

•••

I don’t normally write letters to the editor. A couple sentences in a Sept. 9 letter about health insurance caught my eye, and I felt compelled to respond.

The writer said she dreads the day she needs expensive medical care. She also said, “It’s time we wake up from our coma and realize that universal health care can’t be as bad as this,” referencing the article “The $3,300 surgery bill that wasn’t” from Aug. 31.

Be careful what you wish for. I know people who live under that system, and from what I gather, you’ll be praying you stay alive long enough to see a doctor.

Craig B. Larson, Little Canada