I appreciated the articles in the Sports section leading up to the Women's Final Four in Minneapolis. Last year's event certainly did bring into light the sexism in the NCAA and its president, Mark Emmert. While some of the highly visible issues have been resolved, major matters await.

Male team's schools receive hefty payments for making the tournament. Additional cash for each win is awarded. Successful teams can bring home millions of dollars. That's a powerful incentive for schools to invest in their male basketball team.

Women's teams receive $0.

That's not a surprise to any of us who've paid attention to the NCAA's efforts to sabotage women's sports. They bid TV rights to male sports separately, but bundle women's into other sports so there is no separate accounting. Then Emmert says women's hoops have less value. Corporate America disagrees. The only college sport whose players make more names, images and likenesses (NIL) money than women ballers is football. The investigation of the NCAA found that money was left on the table by not bidding TV rights for the women's March Madness separately.

As a former college baller, I am very pleased to see the progress that has been made since my era, the early days of Title IX in the 1970s. And we are not there yet. Equality is equality. Women's and girls' sports deserve it. The law demands it. Emmert and his cronies in the NCAA need to deliver.

Deb Geelsdottir, Northfield

Wonderful coverage of our northern U.S. Border Patrol agents honorably doing their job of monitoring our border and rescuing — when they can — victims of human trafficking ("Vast with danger, and desperation," front page, March 27).

Most interesting was the quoted remark of the head of the village of the Patel family of four (who tragically froze to death in January while trying to meet their smuggler): "Children in our village are raised with the dream of moving to the U.S. or Canada—and why not?"

I suspect, by the numbers of people from all over the world illegally crossing U.S. borders (hundreds of thousands at our southern border in some months), millions of children worldwide are raised with this dream. Why not raise children to love their country and dream of ways to make it better if that is the issue? Is it physically possible for the millions who dream the "American dream" to realistically live in the U.S. (raising our population) without destroying our natural areas and increasing our nightmare global footprint in terms of climate change?

Perhaps our First Nations people dream of reoccupying or preserving for posterity some of the lands of their ancestors who were displaced, lands now used by descendants of immigrants. Or should these dreams be disregarded? Or perhaps our continental land mass will magically, like a dream, enlarge itself to accommodate all who dream to come, saving us from making realistic and responsible decisions.

Linda Huhn, Minneapolis

The March 27 front-page article about the Republican candidates for statewide office ("Big lies, big choice for GOP") speaks volumes about the qualifications of the candidates. While the physician running for governor might be excused for buying into former President Donald Trump's stolen-election fantasy, the candidates for attorney general should know better.

As members of the Minnesota Bar, with an obvious interest in politics, the AG candidates presumably paid close attention to the flood of post-election lawsuits. They must also know that court proceedings differ in important ways from the social media and sound bites that have promoted the Big Lie. Courts require facts and evidence provided, under oath, by witnesses who are qualified to opine on the matters at hand. Mechanisms exist to ensure the discovery, disclosure and presentation of admissible evidence. As demonstrated by the summary dismissals of virtually all lawsuits alleging election fraud or irregularities, the Big Lie never had a chance in a forum that rigorously pursues the truth.

Minnesota's attorney general must understand, and have faith in, the administration of justice. Proponents of the Big Lie are palpably unfit for the office.

Frederick Grunke, St. Cloud

The writer is a retired district judge.

•••

Kudos to the March 27 "Doonesbury" cartoon. It was spot-on. The cartoon character tells Trump that you can only be elected president twice, according to the 22nd Amendment. To this day, Trump says he won the 2020 election, so will he finally have to concede that he really lost in 2020 to run again?

Ilene Holen, Richfield

Thank you to a March 27 letter writer ("Omar's record, rendered fairly") for reminding us of how critically important it is to look at issues "in context."

Seeking context challenges us to activate our critical-thinking skills and commit to the hard, often tiring work of probing into an issue for greater clarity, more details and, yes, broader context. I take heart from the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s acknowledgment of this challenge in his sermon titled "A Tough Mind and a Tender Heart" (Strength to Love, 2010 edition): "Rarely do we find [people] who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think."

Beth Rademacher, Minneapolis

I can't help but comment on the March 27 Business section article on how to deal with inflation. The article opened with an example of a woman paying "$53 for a partial tank of gas." The woman was quoted as saying that it was "$20 more than what she normally pays."

Let's take a closer look. Assuming $4 per gallon for gas (based on the current average from AAA), she bought 13.25 gallons. She says that was $20 more than what she normally pays. If that's true, it would mean she "normally" pays only $2.49 a gallon ($33 divided by 13.25 gallons). Gas hasn't been at $2.49 a gallon or lower for more than a year.

I don't blame the woman for her complaints — she's right, we are paying more for gas. What I blame is the Star Tribune's acceptance of her statements without taking a closer look at the facts. Just a little bit of skepticism would have shown whether the statements were correct. But this is the risk the paper runs when using anecdotal evidence.

Douglas Wobbema, Burnsville

Regarding the March 27 Science and Health article from the Washington Post about feeding wild elk:

The Star Tribune either needs some new proofreading people or a really good reason why an article all about elk was illustrated by a quarter-page photo of moose antlers.

Joy Ramaley, Minneapolis

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.