It would have been far better for James Robert O'Neill to have captured Osama bin Laden than to have assassinated him ("Bin Laden's killer leaves shadows," Nov. 7). Bin Laden could then have been brought to trial, and the U.S. system of justice would have been on display for the world to see. As it is, his assassination set the stage for President Obama to continue on authorizing these illegal and immoral assassinations all over the world.

Polly Mann, Minneapolis
'#POINTERGATE'

Good policing harmed, but not by the mayor

Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges was recently photographed with a get-out-the-vote canvasser in a playful pose on a north Minneapolis street. The silly picture of them smiling and pointing at each other was tweeted out, and if we were living in a sane world, everyone would have smiled at the picture and moved on with their lives. We aren't, of course, so the picture prompted John Delmonico, president of the city's police union, to ask, "Is she going to support gangs in the city or cops?" and a former police officer to exclaim, "She is legitimizing gangs who are killing children in Minneapolis!"

It sounds like a lazy Onion article, but thanks to KSTP-TV's recent report and a ridiculous overreaction by a few people in blue, here we are ("KSTP points finger, critics gang up," Nov. 8).

Hodges promised on the campaign trail to bring some much-needed accountability to a Police Department that cost the city almost $9.5 million between 2009 and 2013 in settlements and judgments for officer-involved cases (figures taken from a 2013 Minnesota Public Radio report). The police union made it very clear that she did not have its endorsement during the campaign.

So, deep down, does Mr. Delmonico really think Mayor Hodges is cruising around town flashing her support for north Minneapolis gangs? Or is he just bitter that we elected a mayor who is tired of writing checks to cover for the behavior of a (very) small number of bad-apple police officers?

Max Thyen, Minneapolis

• • •

I was saddened, but not surprised, to read the Star Tribune's coverage of the controversy, which has become known by the Twitter hashtag "#pointergate." The allegation that Hodges endangered police by flashing gang signs is ludicrous, but also typical of a mentality that takes hold when police engage in so-called "gang enforcement."

Seven years ago, I co-authored a comprehensive national assessment of gang enforcement strategies that was published by the Justice Policy Institute ("Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement Tactics and the Need for Effective Public Safety Strategies"). Our research found that gang enforcement efforts are more likely to promote than to deter gang activity, by providing gangs with the notoriety they need to thrive, and by disrupting the natural process by which most youths "age out" of gang activity.

Unfortunately, one common pitfall of gang-oriented policing is that law enforcement begins to participate in the myths gangs seek to perpetuate — that they are stable, highly organized criminal enterprises. Agencies that fall prey to gang myths see gangbangers in every shadow and gang influence at the highest levels. By trumpeting overblown threats, they promote the very gangs they seek to weaken.

If law enforcement personnel truly believe that their mayor is throwing gang signs, and that their duty is to broadcast that claim into the home of every alleged gang member, then it's time for a course correction before gang myths further derail law enforcement and degrade police-community relations.

Kevin Pranis, St. Paul
SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS

Could a solution be any more wrong?

The policy change that requires the approval of the superintendent's office before students of color in Minneapolis public schools can be sent home for behavioral reasons ("Schools need OK to suspend," Nov. 8) is about as racist a procedure as I have ever heard of.

Is it too politically incorrect to state the obvious — that maybe there are more behavior problems with families that do not have biological fathers present? The "elephant in the room" commentary by Mitch Pearlstein on the same day's Opinion Exchange page hit the nail on the head. Without fathers present, there will be problems.

If there are disruptive students in the class, they must be removed in order for the teacher to teach the students who are there to learn. Of course, more blacks will be disruptive if black families are less likely to have two biological parents present in the rearing of the children. Until this cultural problem is addressed, nothing can or will change.

This is the problem with political correctness — the core issues can never be addressed; consequently, no substantive changes will occur. Getting the superintendent involved in suspensions (and only of black children) is the most ridiculous remedy of a bad situation that I have ever heard of, yet it is being implemented. How tragic!

Scott Sayer, Long Lake

• • •

Minneapolis schools Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson was quoted in the article as saying that she wants to disrupt the pattern of more-frequent suspension for children of color "in any way I can." She went on to say that "[t]he only way I can think of doing that is to take those suspensions back to the individuals and try and probe and ask questions."

Perhaps what is needed is a think tank here. From my experience in teaching in the Minneapolis public schools, I would direct the MPS research and evaluation department to investigate how frequently parents are involved in the suspension process beyond a single notifying phone call. My recollection was that students were routinely readmitted after suspensions without parental accompaniment. It was policy to require parents to return with their children after suspension, but it rarely happened, and their absence was rarely challenged.

Parental involvement is the key to effective suspension. Otherwise, it's just the inconvenience of having an unsupervised child at home, and that isn't enough of a disruption of family life to require any changes on the home front.

Dale Hulme, Minneapolis

• • •

The immediate effect of this policy will be that principals will communicate that teachers will experience a grilling (conversation) if suspension of a student of color is even considered. The next effect will be that teachers, even those with violently disruptive students, will choose to avoid one more administrative and ineffective knothole and just allow the students to remain in the classroom.

Voilà! Suspensions will go down for students of color, but with lowered teacher morale and student learning. Then that pesky achievement gap will only get worse for all students of color, because they are concentrated in the schools with the most suspensions. Short-term, incremental thinking at its finest.

Maria Henly, Minneapolis