Readers Write: Target and DEI, guns at the Capitol, funding charities, civics

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

•••

Maybe “Target still doesn’t get DEI,” but neither does Nekima Levy Armstrong in her July 2 polemic against the company for having “quietly rolled back its DEI efforts” (“Target still doesn’t get DEI — or why we’re not shopping there,“ Strib Voices). In particular, the writer doesn’t understand how disconcerting many Americans find DEI — not because these Americans are cruel or spiteful, but because DEI is corrosive. It undermines the U.S. Constitution, equality under law and unity and strength in America. It’s alarming that Levy Armstrong, as a lawyer, seems to have not the least regard for the above nor for those outside her way or thinking and being.

Her commentary does not offer any evidence of bigotry or racism at Target — only squishy notions of “patriarchal patterns,” “cultural competence” and some favored groups feeling “unsafe, unseen and unwelcome.” And perhaps most significantly, “the erasure of [Levy Armstrong and other organizers’] work.”

In truth, it doesn’t matter what Target or any other entity does in the name of “reparative” action. Not a “$300,000 donation” to a DEI-friendly organization, not “having people of color in its C-suite,” not a pledge to commit “$2.1 billion toward that effort.” Target hired out-of-state Black male ministers and thereby “erased Black women’s leadership.” In fact, nothing will ever satisfy rebels without a cause like her.

Target at some point forgot that it is a commercial, not political, interest, and now its survival may depend on this absurdity.

Mary Riley, Mendota Heights

•••

Thank you, Nekima Levy Armstrong. I am a white woman who was giving Target a pass until I read your commentary. In discussions with white friends, I claimed that Target took leadership in DEI action and has done so much over the last five-plus years. Certainly, Target was preferable to Amazon or Walmart. Your commentary reminded me of how easy it is to claim I support racial justice without standing as an ally when it makes a critical difference. My white privilege has been on display — saying the right thing while doing what is convenient. I am rejoining the boycott.

Peg Mitchell, Minneapolis

•••

A lot of people are upset with Target for dropping its DEI initiatives; Levy Armstrong is one of them. Levy Armstrong wants commitments from Target to hire and promote more Black people to leadership positions and to buy from more Black suppliers.

There are two different visions for how to hire and promote people fairly: One is to give everyone an equal opportunity without regard to race, sex or religion; the other is to proactively hire minorities in order to increase their representation. Proactively hiring and promoting minorities requires discrimination against white people, which violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That’s why Republicans are against DEI programs.

If the intent of a DEI program is to treat everyone equally, the DEI program is simply a statement of intent to comply with existing law. If the intent of a DEI program is to preferentially hire Black employees, it is illegal.

James Brandt, New Brighton

•••

Dear Target,

You were “my” store, but not anymore. I would definitely come back to you if you would do the courageous, public act of stating government cannot dictate your hiring policies like this. If you compromise your principles to this president, you will never see my business again.

My friends agree. You need to stand up for what is right.

Elise MacKenzie, Fridley

Rob Doar, in his July 3 commentary “Mandatory screenings, metal detectors or gun bans at the Capitol? Be very careful with that,” is arguing that the Legislature should move very cautiously when considering banning firearms from the State Capitol. He speaks of First and Second Amendment rights and protecting “the essential freedoms that sustain our democracy.” Aside from the curious comment that prohibiting firearms would expose visitors to greater risk, I would suggest that the prohibiting of firearms at the Capitol is not a constitutional issue. The Constitution clearly states of the right to bear arms but I do not believe that it ever suggests, neither implicitly nor explicitly, that you can bear those arms wherever you want. Neither our freedoms nor our democracy will be threatened if the Legislature says “not here.”

Dale Anderson, Eagan

•••

I recently returned from a vacation east that included tours of a number of State Capitol buildings. All very beautiful and historic.

Boston. Hartford, Conn. Dover, Del. Annapolis, Md. Trenton, N.J. Every State Capitol building had a combination of metal detectors, wands or search of belongings. No wait times, no invasive searches, no issues. We were even in Annapolis on “No Kings” Day. We were welcomed into every State Capitol and felt very safe and comfortable.

I would like to see the same here at our great Capitol.

Linda Sandell, Mounds View

Regarding “Trump’s bill could harm charities" (July 1): As I sit down with my checkbook (revealing my age) to make donations to the charities and nonprofits I regularly support, I realize that every single one of those organizations is regarded by my president and his associates as embodying either waste or fraud.

Feed the hungry? Shelter the homeless? Let ’em get a job.

Relieve the war-wounded? How does that help Americans? No war in my neighborhood.

Help immigrants thrive? Why don’t they go back where they came from? (The Taliban doesn’t really kill anybody, do they?)

Support our world-class orchestras? Elite snobbery.

Give back to the universities that provided generations of their graduates — and me — with a rich intellectual and professional life? They won’t teach what we tell them to. Plus more elite snobbery.

Support reliable investigative news? All fake.

Our government has abruptly quit contributing to these responsibilities of a civilized democratic society.

So little old ladies and their checkbooks are now supposed to keep that society going? Not sure we’re up to it on a fixed income.

Mary C. Preus, Minneapolis

As a civics teacher, it has been challenging for several years to teach about important concepts in democracy like the rule of law. That a contract for security with the city of St. Cloud goes unpaid or that the Trump administration withholds $6 billion in legally appropriated funds for schools illustrate this problem. It is harder and harder to explain to why the laws apply to some people but not others. Students understand our social contract requires all of us to agree to follow the law for the protection of all of our rights. They recognize that when the rules don’t apply the same way for everyone, people will begin to decide for themselves which contracts to honor, which bills to pay, which laws work for them and which don’t.

Teaching is a hopeful act. Each year, I see the future more clearly than many of my fellow Minnesotans. I can see the passion and care for community and our democracy that students have. This gives me faith that our best days are still ahead of us. But it is our responsibility, our own contractual obligation, from jury duty to voting to acts of service in government and in our relations with our family and neighbors, to ensure that our democracy survives so our children can see those days.

Richard Rosivach, New Brighton