Readers Write: Remote work, international students, antisemitism, e-bikes’ bad name

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

•••

Regarding the trend of large companies reducing the number of remote workdays for their employees (“Medtronic to require 4 days a week in office,” May 30, and “State workers head back to office,” June 2), I have to admit that I’m a bit perplexed. To quote a Medtronic spokesperson, “The collaborative energy generated through face-to-face interactions strengthens our operational efficiency and provides the support and community we need … .” However, I’ve worked remotely for three large corporations and have never once thought that we were being inefficient, unsupported or lacking community by meeting virtually. In fact, Medtronic admits in their own email about the change that “we have been successful in virtual and hybrid environments.” So why change something that is successful?

Furthermore, if meeting virtually is a problem, why are these same corporations allowing some people to still work remotely if they “qualify” for it? Also, why do these same companies continue to offshore work to countries like India? I’d say that if meeting virtually is inherently inferior to meeting face-to-face, the companies with this concern should not only allow no one to work remotely but they should have their IT organizations remove Zoom and Microsoft Teams from all employees’ work computers, as well as support business travel for whenever meetings require staff from multiple locations. Wouldn’t this maximize collaborative energy, efficiency, support and community?

And why stop at removing that egregious software? Aren’t phones and email also technologies that replace face-to-face collaboration with remote work? Why are they allowed in the workplace?

I think we can see why these companies’ positions about remote work are inconsistent, illogical and downright silly.

Kristofer Layon, Minneapolis

I grew up in suburban Minnesota, surrounded by people who mostly looked and lived like me — middle-class, white and born in-state. That changed when I studied abroad in Vienna at 19 through the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management. It was my first time leaving the U.S., and it reshaped my life.

Back home, I joined GLOBE, a student group that paired local students with over 100 international exchange students as buddies. We took them to the State Fair, Gopher football games, played intramural broomball and more — the full American college experience. In return, I made lifelong friends from Switzerland, Australia, Poland, Italy and Singapore. I learned that “trackie daks” are sweatpants in Australian slang, got into Celsius vs. Fahrenheit debates and gained a deeper sense of empathy and cultural awareness.

Those experiences didn’t end at graduation. Today, I live in Amsterdam in a 300-year-old canal house and bike 15 minutes to work. I work with 24+ nationalities in my 80-person department. My worldview, career and values were all shaped by my college experiences with international students.

That’s why I’m deeply concerned and disappointed by efforts to restrict international student access. These students don’t just benefit from being here — they make our campuses better. They broaden perspectives, challenge assumptions and prepare all of us for a global world.

In a time of division, we need more connection.

International students are a force for good. Let’s keep our doors open.

Melanie Vossberg, Amsterdam

•••

In considering whether or not to move ahead with a project or event, one must consider the costs involved. But there is a second parallel question — just as important — which must also be asked: What are the costs of not engaging the project? As the Trump administration moves forward with efforts to rid our colleges and universities of foreign students (“International students bring in $488M,” June 1), I am fearful that the costs of not having these thousands of foreign students with us have been overlooked. Clearly, in Trump’s myopic zeal to cleanse the U.S. of all foreign influences, we must count the costs of the many good things that we will give up by not having these people here among us as students. We would be losing many valuable outcomes. Examples: U.S. students learning by exposure to classmates from other nations and cultures, foreign students learning of U.S. democracy and related social values, strengthening bonds with other nations, benefits of new technologies and businesses developed by these students and enhanced research capabilities at our educational institutions. And, of course, by turning away foreign students we would forsake the many facets of common human decency, friendships and global partnerships that form with knowing people of other lands.

I submit these are real and huge costs to the U.S. if Trump goes forward with his negative and selfish approach in kicking out these foreign students. If he succeeds, we will all pay these costs. We should instead welcome these students and expand our efforts to gain more, not fewer, into our colleges and universities. Plans to reduce or eliminate thousands of foreign students coming to the U.S. to study are shortsighted, costly and wrong.

David Lingo, Golden Valley

A longtime friend, after reading about the attack on Jews who were peacefully demonstrating for the hostages in Boulder, Colo., told me she thought the attacker must be an Israeli agent tasked with making the “Free Palestine” movement look bad. I tried to explain to my friend how deeply antisemitic this was, and how, as a Jewish woman, I am terrified, for myself, my children, my grandchildren and for everyone in the Jewish community. She doesn’t get it.

We have been told, for years, not to let anyone know we are Jewish, to hide the Stars of David we wear around our necks. We’ve recently been told that Canada (Canada!) has become too dangerous for Jews, and we should avoid travel there.

We are being demonized because of the actions of the current Israeli government, actions with which the majority of us, American Jews and Israelis alike, find horrifying. I am a strong Zionist; I believe that Jews deserve and need a homeland of our own. Many will be surprised to learn that I also believe the Palestinians deserve a homeland too, but alongside the Jewish state, not as a replacement for it.

I am still shaking from my friend’s conjecture. If you have Jewish friends, please be aware that we are not OK. Antisemitism is becoming more and more overt, more and more acceptable, even among the associates of our current president. Please understand our fear, be sensitive and caring. We are not monsters, and we are not OK.

Joyce Denn, Woodbury

The May 30 interest piece “‘E’ is for bike” provides essential knowledge to readers to make an e-bike purchase. It’s an informative piece on the fastest-growing segment in the bike industry. We have many friends who have acquired them, to commute to work, to ride along side a spouse who is a stronger rider or to fight that dang “getting older” thing. They are great in many ways, but there is concern among seasoned cyclists and pedestrians alike that many e-bike users (especially the Class 3 bikes that look and ride like small motorcycles) are not paying close attention to cycling etiquette or safety.

So what photo does the paper choose to show the happy and informed e-biker? A rider with no helmet, wearing noise-cancelling headphones and riding with no hands on the handlebars! Really? It’s no wonder cyclists, and especially e-bikes, have a bad reputation among so many. It’s riders like that giving us all a bad name.

David Mott, Minneapolis