It is noteworthy that the most inspiring and humanitarian news printed in the past week was in the obituary section. Two admirable women of 87 and 94 years, respectively, died within three days of each other and were eulogized in the Star Tribune.

Hope Elaine Ryden ("Her camera lens captured human, animal rights abuses," June 29) was a conservationist, photographer and filmmaker, an animal rights activist, naturalist, and author of adult and children's books. She was a native of St. Paul who produced documentaries, including the Emmy-winning "The Loving Story." She was an eternal optimist who wrote that "man's strangulation grip on nature may not yet be fatal."

Mary Lillian Aufderheide ("Over 94 years, she excelled in medicine, music and science," June 30) was a "nurse, musician and paleopathology pioneer." She was a professional violinist who performed into her 90s with the Duluth Superior Symphony Orchestra and spoke multiple languages. Her husband, Dr. Art Aufderheide, was my pathology professor and mentor at the University of Minnesota Duluth medical school in the early 1980s.

Both of these women were exemplars and role models for compassion in a time of moral distress. The poet Mary Oliver asked: "What is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" Hope Ryden and Mary Aufderheide served others, were stewards of the earth and humanitarians to the end. Each had a reverence for the sacred and a commitment to improving the lives of others. May their example not be lost on us in these egocentric and turbulent times.

R.S. Bovard, Minneapolis
STATE BUDGET

With federal cuts looming, Dayton's approach looks prudent

If Gov. Mark Dayton needed an "I told you so" moment, he got one with Minnesota's recent Department of Humans Services report ("Agency: State stands to lose billions under GOP health bill," July 6). The report highlights projected losses of federal aid to Minnesota for medical assistance contained in the Republican-sponsored federal legislation. The numbers are truly staggering: $10.4 billion lost by 2025 and $31 billion by 2030. As it stands now, our rainy-day fund would evaporate in the next 24 months. It is blindly optimistic (and irresponsible) to enact deep, long-lasting tax cuts for the already wealthy in the face of such fiscal uncertainty. I'd much prefer the sound of grumbling over a stabilizing state budget surplus than despair over painful, community-crushing deficits. The state economy is performing well. From where I sit, many of the state-GOP-proposed tax cuts appear as a (reckless) solution in search of a problem.

J. Kurt Schreck, Minneapolis

• • •

The July 4 article on Mark Dayton's legacy is a great job of spin-doctoring his veto of the Legislature's budget. He vetoed the 2016 session's compromise tax bill to save the surplus for the DFL Legislature, which was to be swept in by the Hillary Clinton landslide in 2016. Having bet on the wrong horse, he found himself with a less-friendly Legislature in 2017. He chose to negotiate the bills not out of an altruistic love of the people but because he feared the backlash from yet another state shutdown. To ensure that the tax bill would be signed and with the 2016 veto over a single word in mind, the Legislature inserted a poison pill in the bill. Concurrently, all of the DFL constituencies lined up to scream about all of their cherished policies and money that Dayton had given up, so he had a temper tantrum and punished the Legislature by taking its funding away.

All of this has nothing to do with the fiscal health of state government and everything to do with politics. The DFL constituencies are angry because the governor gave away their money and some of their job-protecting policies. To get them back, they will need to vote for more taxes, which is always a tough sell, and the policy changes may work, which makes it worse. The governor is angry because some of his cherished spending disappeared and because his own people screamed at him for not getting a better deal.

If the Dayton legacy is fiscal health, it will not be Mark Dayton's fault.

Gary Bartolett, Edina

• • •

I read with great interest "A concrete dilemma: Patch vs. redo" (July 5). All this information about road maintenance, of course, was available as this year's state budget was being drawn up. Faced with an enormous, statewide need for road and bridge repair and having a little extra money to throw at it, the Legislature stuck in its thumb, pulled out tax cuts and said: What good state stewards we are!

Infrastructure is one of the core government responsibilities, one that was neglected while we went through years of recession and budget shortfalls, and now that our state is finally stable financially, the Legislature threatens that stability while dumping our problems on our grandchildren.

Jonathan Pinkerton, Minneapolis
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

'Go all in' on online learning? Offerings are already extensive.

The Star Tribune's opinion page featured a recommendation for the University of Minnesota ("University of Minnesota should go all in with online learning; its competitors are," July 5) that appears to be several years out of date. The author is apparently unaware of the scope and impact of the university's online-learning platforms, which are extensive. We serve online learners from nearly every U.S. state and 20 different countries. We were an early member of Coursera, a consortium that offers more than 2,000 courses online. In addition, our Crookston campus was one of the first universities in the country to offer online degrees and it remains a leader in this area. And our researchers recently developed a tool that enhances learning by allowing students to interact with peers and educators through video. It's called Flipgrid, and it's used across the globe. Ironically, more about our efforts can be learned online at online.umn.edu.

The author also offers the partnership between Purdue and Kaplan as a model — without mentioning, as reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education, that a "U.S. Senate committee investigation revealed that Kaplan in 2009 allocated more money to marketing and profit than to actually teaching students."

Online education represents only one aspect of learning. We believe strongly in the power of place-based learning where students live, engage with and ultimately learn from each other and the leading faculty and staff present across the university's five system campuses. Finally, while continuing the online component to education at the University of Minnesota is important, the writer is ignoring the important research and outreach missions of the university that occur daily, and in person, across the state.

Matt Kramer, Shoreview

The writer is vice president for university relations at the University of Minnesota.

GOVERNMENT AND RELIGION

Contrary to letter's assessment, Sanders defended Constitution

I was quite befuddled by a July 6 letter that, to me, indicated a misreading of the U.S. Constitution with regard to Sen. Bernie Sander's line of questioning of Trump administration nominee Russell Vought. Sanders did not ask Vought about his religious qualifications for the position for which he was nominated (deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget); thus, he did not, by the letter of the law, violate Article VI, Clause 3. The honorable Sen. Sanders did seek clarification on Vought's 2016 blog post (a public statement), in which Vought stated: "Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned."

Thus, Sanders was clearly quite concerned that Vought's statement indicated that he might be incapable of upholding the First Amendment and that Vought might consciously or unconsciously violate Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution if appointed to the position for which he was being reviewed. Moreover, Vought's answers to Sanders in that regard did nothing to address the distinguished senator's well-founded concerns.

It seems to me that what any U.S. citizen or person should find deeply disturbing is nominating, then appointing, anyone who is clearly incapable of upholding the Constitution. Such an act, by definition, shows contempt for the Constitution and, ultimately, We the People.

Dan Challou, St. Paul