Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The Star Tribune Editorial Board recently wrote about the "nation's report card" and how scores for math and reading are way down ("Bad marks on the 'nation's report card,'" editorial, June 30). It stated that 13-year-olds showed historically low (since 1990) math test scores. Although much of that might be attributed to COVID lockdowns, it said the drop "erases earlier gains in the years leading up to 2012."

This is serious and very concerning, but what I also find incredibly baffling is how students with limited math skills are being admitted to colleges, including private colleges. A Star Tribune article earlier this month described students struggling with the possibility that they will actually have to pay off their loans. One gal, who graduated from St. Olaf College in 2013, is in debt for $84,000. Gosh, didn't she have the math skills to figure out that would be a lot of debt to take on? She studied social work but switched to food and beverage industry … not exactly industries that require a prestigious private college degree! She claims her monthly loan payments are $825. Who would choose to go to a private college knowing that would be the debt they would incur?! She said if the loan wasn't forgiven, she'd have to abandon her "meager attempts to getting a savings account." Really? You graduated from high school and a private college and you're just now figuring that out? 
How did this generation get so entitled? Yes, college is ridiculously expensive these days. All the more reason not to attend private colleges. And live with your parents, like I did, if at all possible.

Why should these students' loans be forgiven while others who already paid off their loans or who will incur them in the future get stuck paying them off? It looks like math wasn't the only skill she was lacking. How about common sense and an understanding of what a loan actually is?

Pam J. Pommer, Bloomington

Thank you to the Star Tribune for bringing attention to the No. 1 challenge I have faced as an educator the past 15 years: cellphones ("Phones still touchy issue in classrooms" and "Teachers and the curse of phones," July 2). They are supercomputers with the ability to discombobulate hormonal teens' cortisol, dopamine, serotonin and, most important, attention. The ability to focus, think, question, engage, dig into and sit with problem-solving and inquiry is 100% lost due to cellphones.

Joseph Michael Adams, St. Paul

•••

The report in Sunday's Star Tribune concerning smartphone use in schools made for grim reading. First, there was biology teacher Nick Jasiczek's sad account of how "a handful of students don't even lift their gaze from their cellphone screens" when he announces lab work and experiments, projects that students would previously "beg" to do.

Then there was this extraordinary and deeply troubling sentence: "The question [of cellphone use in the classroom] was recently raised in Minneapolis, where the school board is considering a new policy that would allow teachers to define their own rules for each class, with the input of their students."

That a debate is taking place to decide if teachers should be allowed to define their own classroom rules helps explain why students are failing so miserably to meet proficiency standards. And allowing students to give input, too many of whom would spend their entire days gazing at their screens if it were up to them, opens up all sorts of problems, not the least of which is already vulnerable teachers being intimidated by students or parents or being prompted to engage in popularity polls.

Cellphones are a toxic presence in classrooms. Get them out. No long-winded debates. No difficult-to-enforce compromises. Just get them out of the classroom. They do not belong there and are a menace to all concerned.

Bernard Carpenter, Chanhassen

The writer is a retired teacher.

There haven't been many rulings of this Supreme Court that I agreed with, but I do agree with its ruling on affirmative action. And in fact it should be taken to level of removing special privilege for legacy admissions and donors' children. At the same time, diversity is an important goal and opportunities for people of color need to increase. These are universities, supposedly run by highly intelligent people — this should be relatively easy to figure out. For example, using the relationship to the federal poverty line would yield a demographic that embraced a high percentage of people of color without discriminating against any one skin color. One-parent families would also work. It is not rocket science to identify demographics that, if given a preference, would increase diversity even more effectively than did affirmative action. Put the sociology and statistics professors to work on the problem. This should be their meat and potatoes.

Robert Veitch, Richfield

The 303 Creative ruling really brought me up short ("High court says government cannot compel speech that violates beliefs," July 1). What will be the impact of this ruling on my beloved young relatives who are gay or transgender? Will they be forced to go from one supplier to another and be turned down again and again because suppliers have religious reasons to not serve them? Didn't we all agree before that Jim Crow wasn't a good thing How far will we take this use of religion to deny help to others?

And then to understand that the whole case is based on hypothetical circumstances.

Now that I think about it, I have some hypothetical circumstances that I would like to get a Supreme Court ruling on. There are things I am sincerely bothered by that I would like to take to the highest court in the land for an opinion!

But wait — I don't have a seat on a jet plane to offer a Supreme Court justice, nor do I have a fishing trip I could invite them on. I don't have the wherewithal to buy a home for one of their relatives. So I guess I won't be able to bring my hypothetical case forward.

I'll just have to ask you, my fellow citizens: Is this really justice?

•••

Two readers in last week's paper stated that a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allows discrimination because of religious beliefs (Readers Write, July 1). One says: "The Supreme Court is at it again, this time ruling in favor of discrimination because of religious beliefs." The other writes: "Does the Supreme Court decision allowing a vendor to not serve LGBTQ customers because of her religious beliefs mean that a devout fundamentalist Christian vendor can refuse to have me as a customer because I am not a Christian?"

The court's ruling did not allow any business to refuse to serve people because of the customer's religious beliefs or sexual orientation. A baker cannot refuse to serve a gay couple. A website designer cannot refuse to serve a gay couple, either. However, the court's ruling means that the customer cannot force a designer to design something that is against his or her religion. There is an important difference between the statement: "I'm happy to design a website for you, but my religion forbids me from designing one that promotes gay sex," and "I won't design a website for you because you are gay."