Readers Write: Harvard funding freeze, state education budget, DEI in the military

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

President Donald Trump’s threats against universities like Harvard for refusing to conform to his narrow, politicized worldview are not just attacks on higher education — they are attacks on the foundational American principle of free thought (“White House freezes $2B to punish Harvard,” April 15). Our universities are meant to challenge ideas, foster innovation and prepare future leaders — not to serve as echo chambers for any one individual’s ideology. Intimidating institutions into silence or submission is the behavior of authoritarians, not democratic leaders. We must resist the erosion of academic freedom and defend the right of institutions to uphold truth, diversity and intellectual integrity without fear of political retribution.

And let’s get real about something else. For all Trump’s bluster about fighting antisemitism on college campuses, it’s clear he doesn’t actually care about protecting Jewish people — it’s all performative. His version of “antisemitism” conveniently labels any sympathy or support for the Palestinian people as hate, silencing real conversations about justice and human rights. What he really cares about is using Israel as a political pawn to further his influence in the Middle East — turning tragedy into opportunity, and eyeing Gaza as a geopolitical prize for himself.

Paul Niebeling, Minneapolis

•••

Sometimes doing the right thing costs billions of dollars. Thank you and congratulations to Harvard for doing the right thing by not caving to the bully.

•••

My question is, why is a private institution like Harvard, which has its own endowment of $50 billion, getting any grants from the federal government in the first place?

Dick Seidenstricker, Eden Prairie

“The exclusive private schools in the Twin Cities are going to be fine. It’s the public schools that welcome every student, in every community, that the Legislature needs to worry about now.” That’s how Denise Specht, Education Minnesota’s president, was quoted in a recent story (“Governor seeks to cut private school subsidy,” April 16).

At Ascension Catholic School in north Minneapolis, no one is turned away due to financial circumstances. Ninety percent of the operating budget for Ascension Catholic Academy, which operates our school and three others in Minneapolis and St. Paul, comes from donors. Many of our scholars take the bus to and from school. The elimination of nonpublic pupil aid would be devastating, impacting many of the most vulnerable in our society.

Exclusive? Hardly. One Minnesota? Absolutely not.

As a state, we can and should do better by ensuring all scholars have access to transportation, supplies, nurses and counselors made possible by these funds.

Benito Matias, Minneapolis

The writer is principal of Ascension Catholic School.

•••

Folks, it’s about priorities. For those who are moaning about proposals to cut public funds to private education, try to look beyond your selfish interests. Ask yourself: What is more important to the community at large? Private education for those with financial security? Or public education for those from less fortunate families?

Richard Masur, Minneapolis

•••

Public education should be fully funded in Minnesota. It is not. Children endure crowded classrooms, teachers are underpaid and overworked, and in many districts, a good portion of education is subsidized by a acombination of local referendum and intrusive fundraising efforts. Private education should be funded by the private money put up by those who decided to eschew the public education system. It is their right to do so, but it is not their right to take, or expect, state money to support their decision. It has never been their right. Rather, it has long been a Republican policy to divert public education money into the private sector, and through the process of compromise (by Democrats) and deal-making, they have managed to inappropriately grab a piece of the public pie.

With a budget shortfall looming, the people of Minnesota should stop funding elite private institutions with public money. Rather, we should fully fund public education.

As a retired Navy captain, I was repulsed by the latest action taken by the White House in discontinuing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in selecting its next group of academy officers.

During the Vietnam conflict, our enlisted sailors/soldiers were drafted from a pool of eligible men with various social and ethnic backgrounds. It was important then, just as now, to recruit officers that reflect our enlisted service persons’ ethnic backgrounds and experiences in order to better lead and relate to them.

As the only Black officer in the wardroom, I was able to share my own personal life experiences with other officers as their peer. In those discussions, we were able to openly discuss what our crew’s diversity brought to support our ship’s mission.

I was also taken aback by the notion that having a diverse cadet class would be seen as lowering the standards to become a military officer. I do not believe that any officers or sailors that I supervised over my 26 years were not served in a competent and professional manner. It should be noted that white sailors also benefited from working with minority officers by gaining the insight that leadership comes from the person themselves, not based on their ethnicity or gender.

As we go forward, it is important to note that our officer corps should reflect our volunteer service members’ backgrounds as we continue to be the world’s best trained, educated and motivated military. This is the link that makes us the strongest military in the world.

The story about bike theft in Minneapolis and the need for secure bike parking in public places identifies a sad paradox: In a city with a strong bike culture and extensive, much-admired and costly bike infrastructure, bike theft is an underappreciated barrier to participation and use (“Bicycle thieves are everywhere. Secure parking isn’t,” April 7).

One huge problem in attacking the problem of bike theft here is the apparent lack of detailed information about it: Where, when and — very specifically — how does it occur? Are there particular neighborhoods, events, places or circumstances where bike theft is more prevalent? Many bikes are stolen from detached garages and not public places; what are the details about how thieves break in that can guide us in prevention? And what aspects of the stolen-bike market can be changed to make it less lucrative?

We need data, data, data, and not simply assumptions about bike theft; collecting it in sufficient detail begins with what’s observed by police officers who respond to bike theft reports. It must then be crunched, assembled and presented in useful formats to guide users and decisionmakers.

Bicycles are not merely toys, and bike theft is big business. I’d encourage the city to organize a symposium or other event that brings together cyclists, homeowners, police, businesses and other affected stakeholders to present relevant datnd discuss prevention strategies that strengthen the city’s reputation as a bike-centric community.