Readers Write: University of Minnesota regents, data centers, Russia-Ukraine war

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

•••

I agree with Michael Martin’s observation that the University of Minnesota Board of Regents has fallen short of expectations (“Current U regents don’t measure up to boards of the past,” Strib Voices, Dec. 11). Any student who bears the costs of the latest tuition hike and new $200 athletic fee could tell you the board is disconnected with the public interest. However, I disagree with Martin’s insinuation that students are disinterested in pushing back against the board.

Last spring, the Undergraduate Student Government and Graduate Labor Union lobbied the Legislature for regent candidates, including me, who prioritize affordability and students. Both groups supported Kowsar Mohamed’s successful candidacy for the student seat. Mohamed, a Ph.D. student, was the best candidate in the entire field. Her commitment to affordability, citizen input and student concerns are among the reasons she was the best voice to represent everyday Minnesotans.

Students are speaking out. But they’re up against a status quo fundamentally disinterested in their input. Look at the regent selection process, for example. Students are guaranteed only two seats on the 24-member Regent Candidate Advisory Council, and the screening process encourages candidates to spend all their time at the Capitol and none on the campuses. It is no wonder that most regents are wealthy retirees disconnected from the struggles of the average student, much less the public interest.

I echo Martin’s call for the Legislature to choose regents committed to oversight and the public interest, starting with a selection process that gives students and their working families a real voice in shaping the university’s future.

Dylan Young, St. Paul

•••

After reading Scott Laderman’s column (“Will regents uphold academic freedom or undermine it?” Strib Voices, Dec. 11), which highlights the chilling effect on scientific information, I see the Board of Regents’ action as directly supporting the repressive federal government’s policies of restricting speech. This fails Minnesotans who care about scientific accuracy and freedom from government interference.

Scientific information should be easily accessible and freely available to counteract the misinformation and politically tuned “scientific information” from our federal government. Our institutions in Minnesota must stand against the lack of scientific rigor and posturing of this federal government.

As a once-proud graduate of the University of Minnesota, I want the university to stand for academic freedom against all forms of repression. I urge the Board of Regents to rescind the current resolution related to institutional speech and adopt the thoughtful recommendations as detailed in the institutional speech task force. Make us proud to be graduates of the University of Minnesota again!

Joe Tretter, Minneapolis

The University of Minnesota Les Bolstad golf course is a gem that needs to be protected. In an effort to preserve the course a group of concerned citizens have repeatedly tried to engage with the appropriate channels at the university. Unfortunately we have found the following comment by Martin to be exactly the case: “Board [of Regents] leadership simply deferred to the U president and her team ... despite obvious gaps in planning and public consideration.”

Isn’t public consideration the main purpose for U regents to exist?

They are seemingly unaware of the impact on the community with the sale of the property. There’s been minimal communication other than an email this past spring that a sale was planned for the golf course, which is profitable. After owning the property since the early 1900s, we were told to expect a sale and subsequent development. Housing, light commercial and roads. Heartbreaking and not fair. (One mile or two in any direction from the course is already developed, a more practical option for the urgent affordable housing crisis.)

The landscape is home to beautiful flora and fauna including red oaks, coyotes, migratory birds and pollinators. The University of Minnesota Department of Horticulture uses the property for two ongoing studies there, including how native plants on the course affect pollinators.

The course also has mercury and arsenic in the soil from many years of fertilizer use. The property is also more than 60% peat moss, which is unstable for development purposes but acts as a carbon sink. Any development would require stripping land bare. Devastating and not right. Therefore, if a sale were to occur, we are prepared to pursue environmental litigation.

President Rebecca Cunningham and regents: Please do not sell the Les Bolstad golf course. This group of concerned citizens is willing to work with the university and help find a solution for this issue, including fundraising for upgrades. Green space is invaluable and facilitates recreation, athletics and impacts community health and well-being.

Readers are encouraged to visit savebolstad.org for more information.

Tim Kersey, Roseville

The writer is an organizer in the campaign to save the golf course and the cross-country and track and field head coach at Como Park Senior High School.

Real estate developer Joe Ryan’s article (“Minnesota should be fighting to build data centers,” Strib Voices, Dec. 10) promoting data centers for Minnesota is typical of Trump-era economic development gaslighting. Embracing the latest big tech and financier scam will supposedly secure “billions in private capital, thousands of high-wage jobs and new anchors for long-term tax stability.” Nonsense. In the new “no regulation at any cost,” “high tech can do no wrong” economy, the true aims of the tech kings are abundantly clear. The purpose of data centers is to replace tens of thousands of human jobs with robots, collect as much data on the citizenry as possible and use it to suck money out of us at every opportunity.

Until the billionaires who bought the Trump administration are tamed, Minnesota should resist the sales pitches of their frontmen and put a moratorium on data centers.

Tom Salkowski, Buffalo

Following the defeat of Germany and its allies in World War II, the U.S. was instrumental in creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to deter stronger nations from overpowering weaker ones. An article in the Star Tribune on Dec. 10, “Zelenskyy meets with pope as he works to rally support,” confirms that President Donald Trump is walking away from our NATO allies, choosing instead to placate Russian President Vladimir Putin in his imperialistic invasion of Ukraine.

Deterring Russia’s quest for Ukraine’s sovereign territory is exactly the reason that NATO was established. For the strongest member of NATO to back out of that mission now, when we are most needed, is unconscionable and devastating to the future of world peace. The U.S. under Trump has become a trepid bystander, allowing a bully nation to assault a weaker foe. There are two possibilities to explain this abrupt policy shift: cowardice or collusion. Neither is acceptable.