Readers Write (April 6): University of Minnesota football case; 'white male' comment at Legislature, energy subsidies; vouchers, abortion and ideology

In his April 3 commentary "Review of U investigation should raise these issues," Don Gemberling states, without any attempt to provide evidence, that the basis for much of the reporting on this case came from "a report illegally leaked by someone at the university." The university strongly disputes this assertion and is aware of no evidence suggesting that one of its employees provided the report to KSTP-TV. If Gemberling has any evidence to the contrary, he should come forward with that information.

The university understands its obligation to uphold the legal right to privacy on behalf of all of its students. In this case, adhering to these laws greatly limited the university's attempts to communicate internally and externally. Regardless, we consistently declined reporter and public requests for information that was protected by law.

Unfortunately, the prominence given to Gemberling's article on the Star Tribune's opinion pages gives it the credibility it does not deserve. The university has worked strenuously to protect, to the highest degree, the veracity of the investigatory process, the privacy protections of our students and the credibility of this institution.

Sometimes you just have to get people's attention in order to make them listen. That is what House Minority Leader Melissa Hortman did with her comment about white men not attending to the floor debate at the Minnesota Legislature ("Top DFL lawmaker's 'white male' comment sets off House spat," April 5). And get their attention it did. Rep. Greg Davids justified not listening, saying the speeches he was ignoring were "amazingly repetitive and boring." Isn't he displaying the reason Hortman made her comment? He seems to be saying that it's OK to decide which of one's colleagues is so boring that one can withhold the respect of listening to them.

The question is whether he would ignore his male colleagues in the same way. Perhaps he would. In that case, he is choosing not to put the required effort into his job that it takes to listen to colleagues' opinions in order to make an informed decision.

He also said he thought Hortman's comments were racist. The definition of racism includes the phrase "the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others." It seems here that he doesn't get that playing cards in the back room while others are trying to speak (those, it seems, who were mainly women or minorities) is in itself a display of feeling superior to the speakers and proves that he just doesn't get it. How many others need to be nudged to pay attention? This is democracy. Show up.

• • •

You're offended by Rep. Hortman's demanding respect from her colleagues and calling out their whiteness? You don't know what being offended is. I'll tell you what it is: Being offended is not having equal representation in positions of power. Being offended is not having equal pay. Being offended is living in a culture where rape isn't really "that" bad, and when it is it's usually the victim's fault. Or it's been committed by someone who isn't white.

Acknowledge your privilege, and we might actually get somewhere.

• • •

When we abolished slavery, we did not proceed to turn whites into slaves and blacks into masters.

We abolished slavery, period, because we decided (finally) that it was wrong.

Yet, when it comes to bigotry — racial, sex-based or otherwise — too many people on the left think the solution to the problem is not to abolish the practice, but to reverse its direction.

By any reasonable standard, Hortman's reference to the sex and race of her opponents was intended as guilt by association with a particular sex and a particular race.

If this is not bigotry, then the word has no meaning. Yet it is excused by those who normally condemn it, because of the misguided idea that bigotry against white males is part of the cure for bigotry against other groups.

White males should not be the only ones calling foul.

• • •

Thank you for making a stand for civility and respect in legislative debates. As a former House employee, I'm very familiar with members' use of the retiring room. I'm also familiar with reasons for asking for a call of the House. I fully support your asking for a call in the April 4 discussion of the public safety proposal imposing penalties for protesters blocking public thoroughfares. Disrespect for opposing views is common in public discussions these days. I'm dismayed to see it evidenced as well in legislative hearings and debates. And flat-out ignoring someone is disrespect taken to an extreme.

An April 5 letter on energy sources contained the statement that "solar and wind energy on a stand-alone basis cost multiples of carbon-based energy." This statement is simply not true. Instead of relying on ideological talking points, I turn to December 2016 research (http://bit.ly/2gV6fBw) from the investment banking firm Lazard that found that the levelized unsubsidized cost of producing a megawatt hour of electricity from wind energy is between $32 and $62. And although solar costs are all over the map, depending on climate, scale and technology, they can be as low as $46. The comparable cost for Appalachian coal is $60 to $143, depending on the extent of pollution controls.

As costs continue to come down with improving technology and economies of scale, renewables are clearly the way to go if we care about reducing our utility bills.

An April 5 letter writer ("Opposition to vouchers: Please make your liberal arguments consistent") makes a good point about commingling of funds. I find it interesting however that he only sees liberal hypocrisy in the differing treatment of school vouchers and abortion providers. If conservatives are so opposed to funding health care that could be commingled with abortion services, why are they not equally opposed to school vouchers that, as the writer readily admits, commingle funding religious education?