I am increasingly sensitive to opinion content passing as news. A common form such articles take is reporting the "fact" that a person or group holds a particular opinion. A typical headline: "So-and-so says [insert attention-grabbing opinion here]"

This type of reporting is especially confounding when it conveys race-related public policy views. Very often, opinions are presented not only as the views of an entire racial group the source purports to represent, but as fact that need not be challenged in the reporting itself.

A Jan. 25 article, "Legacy of fear lives on for Native families" (Published online as: "Minnesota foster care system perpetuates legacy of racist boarding schools, Native mothers say") is a case in point.

Presented as local news, the story didn't need to be read for a reader to understand its gist, which is fleshed out in predictable detail in the text. Native "parents and experts in Native child welfare," it is reported, believe Minnesota foster care providers are essentially an extension of the cruel boarding school headmasters of the 19th century, under whom Native kids "often were starved, beaten and forced to sever their connection to their Native heritage and language."

As is often the case in this type of reporting, the opinions offered are bolstered by including the speaker's racial (in this case, tribal) identity. Few hard facts are presented, no balancing information is provided. Each of the quoted speakers is identified as a Native woman. Some are experts or professionals in the field; others are merely extrapolating their own personal experience on behalf of all American Indians.

It would have been interesting to learn about the specific legal standards one featured mother objects to, standards she had to overcome to regain custody of her daughter. Instead, we get her hearsay claim that foster care providers tried to poison her child's mind against her.

Another local mother who lost custody of her child when she overdosed in a public park, is given space for her policy opinion that addiction should never be a reason to remove children. I'm sure there are mental health and policy experts (and laypersons who, like the mother, have personal experience with addiction) who might disagree. No such opinions are presented here, nor do we get reporting on the rates of addiction among the parents of removed children, Indigenous or otherwise.

MartinRogers's expert opinion is that middle-class white women, like the Indigenous community, share a homogenous view that informs their attitudes and ability to protect children. For Native Americans, it is generational trauma, passed down from having grandparents and great-grandparents in boarding schools. The white woman worldview remains undefined; their singular, out-of-touch perspective is simply taken for granted.

Such shallow, racialized public policy arguments are not strengthened by categorizing them as "cultural," rather than racial. If MartinRogers believes there are legitimate and compelling differences between "white" and Native cultures about what constitutes abuse and neglect, and how we can best protect children, it would be useful to have those illustrated. The story does not elaborate on this point.

At the very least, when "racist" is in a headline, and expert opinion can be summed up as "too many white women," this newspaper would do well to place such a story on its opinion pages, rather than under the heading of local news. We paint ourselves into a corner when we seek to make policy decisions based on race-based social science.

This is merely my personal (not expert) opinion. But if you prefer to publish it on the news pages, please consider this headline: "Opinion pieces published as news confuse public policy discussions, white readers say."

Nathan Hines, of Minneapolis, is an attorney.