We independently evaluate all recommended products and services. If you click on links we provide, we may receive compensation. Learn more.

Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

With the well-acknowledged high cost and limited availability of quality child care, expanding access to more families is important. Years of research have shown the value of providing children with care and educational basics that prepare them for kindergarten.

Public policy that provides low-income families with child care assistance can pay significant dividends in educational achievement and financial stability.

But we have questions about the St. Paul City Council's existing approach to offering aid to its residents. Last week, the council overrode a mayoral veto and approved asking voters in 2024 to raise property taxes to pay for child care subsidies for low-income families. The plan would increase St. Paul property tax collections by about $2 million each year for 10 years, at which point voters would be asked to reauthorize it. The owner of a median-value home would pay $16 more in year one, increasing to an additional annual payment of $160 in year 10.

St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter has questions, too, which is why he wisely rejected plans to put the question on the ballot in November 2024. But with a 5-2 vote, council members overrode his veto.

Carter told Star Tribune Editorial Board members — and the council, in his veto letter — that the plan raises less than the actual cost. "While the underlying goal behind this effort … is laudable, our excitement for this bold proposal must not preclude a temperate examination of its details," he wrote. "It is difficult to conclude that this proposal in current form could effectively deliver on the expectations that have brought it to my desk."

At a news conference, Carter added: "This is a $100-million-plus proposal that we to date have still seen no plan for, that we to date have still seen no budget for, that has insufficient resources associated with it, and that frankly no one is suggesting that they have any idea how to make it work."

Since 2017, advocates including Council Member Rebecca Noecker have been working on the plan. The effort was spearheaded by the St. Paul All Ready for Kindergarten coalition, or SPARK, with the goal of helping 5,000 St. Paul families with 3- and 4-year-olds. Families living at or below 185% of the federal poverty level — about $51,000 for a family of four — would be eligible. Noecker has said the program is designed to start small and grow over time, and she has acknowledged that there are greater funding needs than the levy would cover.

In 2018, when advocates tried to raise early-learning funds through a city sales tax, St. Paul had 1,000 children on waiting lists for government-funded preschool programs. And St. Paul Public Schools reported that by third grade, significant achievement gaps surface. About 20% of low-income students met state studying standards around that time, compared with 66% of their more affluent peers.

It's those needs that fuel Council Member Jane Prince's support of the ballot initiative. She told an editorial writer that her support of city-funded child care goes back many years and is based on early education research done by former Federal Reserve Bank executive Art Rolnick.

"I understand concerns about whether the city should be involved in child care," she said. "But we've got to do a better job of making the case to the public. … Ensuring universal access to early learning for 0- to 5-year-olds is the most powerful economic development investment we can make as a city to prepare children to be successful in school and in our future workforce while providing safe, quality affordable care to allow parents to succeed in our current workforce."

Two veteran council members who are retiring from their seats also voted in favor of the plan. Council President Amy Brendmoen and Council Member Chris Tolbert said they voted yes because they think residents should be able to weigh in on the issue. Still, both said they would not vote for the current language if it appears on the ballot next November.

As one of the two no votes, Council Member Mitra Jalali has said it's irresponsible to ask voters to make a 10-year financial commitment without more clarity on program details.

After this fall's election, the newly elected City Council should take a fresh look at whether the ballot language is ready to go to voters. It's clear now that more discussion is needed to flesh out how the city-sponsored program would be implemented and sustained.

Microsoft helped launch the PC and internet age. It is an established brand and a household name around the world. Individuals, companies, and government agencies depend on the operating systems, applications, and cloud services developed by Microsoft—which is why vulnerabilities in Microsoft software can have potentially massive consequences.

In the wake of recent vulnerabilities and high-profile attacks, there is growing concern regarding vulnerabilities present in Microsoft's software and increasing intensity focused on the question of Microsoft’s culpability. Customers, competitors, and even U.S. senators have stressed that these issues expose companies and government agencies to significant risk and raise questions about the company's practices in both cybersecurity and competition.

I recently spoke to Shawn Henry, Chief Security Officer (CSO) at CrowdStrike, about Microsoft. Henry has broad and unique perspective to bring to the issue, having spent more than 24 years with the FBI before joining CrowdStrike. Henry led the global Cyber Division and Critical Incident Response Group and has insight that straddles the public and private sectors.

Before we get into more of my conversation with Henry, though, let’s set the stage on recent events.

August 2023 Patch Tuesday

Microsoft releases security patches on the second Tuesday of each month—which was this week. For August 2023, Microsoft issued two security advisories and addressed 74 different CVEs. The flaws affected everything from Teams and Exchange Server to the Windows Kernel and Microsoft Office. In all, there were six vulnerabilities rated as Critical, and 67 with a rating of Important—with 23 exploitable via remote code execution (RCE).

That brings the total for the year so far to 690 vulnerabilities fixed by Microsoft. Nearly 10% (63) have been rated as Critical, while almost a quarter (24%) allowed elevation of privileges if properly exploited, and more than a third (36%) allowed for remote code execution.

There is no such thing as perfect code, so when you are a company with literally hundreds of millions of lines of code, there will be flaws. The volume and criticality are another issue, though. Henry and I talked about how it is that consumers or government agencies don’t hold Microsoft accountable for the quality of their products.

Henry noted, “If we had the government buying tanks that stopped on the battlefield or jets that couldn't take off—and it happened month after month, year after year for decades—I think there'd be an issue. There'd be a big problem.”

Vulnerabilities and the Risks They Pose

Microsoft has always been a popular target for threat actors. When you have the dominant operating system in the world, and a formidable chunk of market share for email platforms, productivity software, and cloud services and applications, bad guys are going to focus their attention on finding weak links to exploit.

In the past few months, Microsoft's software has seen a series of high-profile breaches and security flaws. From vulnerabilities in the Windows operating system to holes in various applications and services, Microsoft's products have become a recurring point of attack for malicious hackers and cybercriminals.

These vulnerabilities have had far-reaching implications. Businesses suffer financial losses and reputational damage, while government agencies face risks to national security. The dependency on Microsoft's products in vital sectors further exacerbates these concerns.

Senator Ron Wyden's Call for Investigation

Senator Ron Wyden has been a vocal critic of Microsoft's handling of security. Following revelations that attackers working for China were able to access Microsoft’s email platform and spy on senior diplomats, including the U.S. Ambassador to China, the senator has called for an investigation by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) into Microsoft's practices.

The letter highlights several instances of security breaches and failures and calls into question Microsoft's commitment to protecting its users. Senator Wyden's concerns are backed by many in the industry, as detailed in a Reuters report.

Are the Trojans Building the Horse?

When I talked with CrowdStrike’s CSO, one of the things we talked about was the fact that Microsoft has hundreds of software engineers working in China. Microsoft is a global company, and there is obviously a need to regionalize or localize aspects of the software, so at face value, it seems reasonable. However, the rules are different in China—and that has a potentially huge impact.

China is a huge market, and the country is a key partner for the U.S. and other Western nations, but it is admittedly a “frenemy” or “coopetition” scenario because China is also a primary competitor and potential threat. China is playing the long game—executing a 100-year plan to establish itself as the preeminent superpower by 2047. They are using every means necessary—Chinese citizens, ex-pats, witting and unwitting Americans, and others in an effort to collect intelligence on the U.S. economy, military, defense industrial base, technology, and other sectors.

I don’t fault China—or any nation—for striving to be more powerful or influential, and I assume that the United States and other nations follow many of the same practices when it comes to gathering intelligence. Where it gets more complicated, though, is that companies in China answer to the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), and the government requires that members of the party hold decision-making executive roles. There is a lot that must be shared with the government. Businesses are expected to provide keys to encrypted devices and provide access to offices—and to source code.

“You're telling the public they can't use Huawei, and they can't let kids watch dance videos on TikTok because China is going to collect intelligence—yet the most ubiquitous software, which is used throughout the government and throughout every single corporation in this country and around the world, has engineers in China working on their software,” emphasized Henry.

Microsoft's Dual Role: Cybersecurity Vendor and Software Provider

Adding to the complexity of the situation, Microsoft is not just a provider of software and operating systems but also a competitor in the cybersecurity market. They offer tools and services to protect against cyberattacks, often targeting the vulnerabilities present in their own products.

It is impractical to expect Microsoft to write code with zero vulnerabilities. However, it is fair to examine the volume of Critical vulnerabilities and to question whether there is more Microsoft could do to develop more secure code in the first place, as well as if it is reasonable for Microsoft to sell customers security tools and services to defend against attacks on vulnerabilities they created.

It feels a bit like asking the arson to put out the fire. Critics argue that Microsoft should invest its resources and effort in making more secure products rather than "double-dipping" by selling additional software and services to protect the flaws they exposed users to. A report on Cyberscoop details an example of this negligence, which can leave consumers feeling trapped in a cycle of dependency on Microsoft.

Rebuilding Trust

Personally, I am a fan of Microsoft. I always have been. I prefer the Windows operating system, and I have used a Microsoft Surface device as my day-to-day PC for the past decade. The vast majority of my work days are spent using Microsoft software—Word, Outlook, Excel, PowerPoint, Teams, etc. I highly recommend Microsoft tools and applications.

However, Microsoft's vulnerabilities are a growing concern that goes beyond mere technical flaws. The issues raise critical questions about corporate responsibility, market competition, and national security. Senator Ron Wyden's call for an investigation highlights the urgency of the situation.

It is time for a thorough examination of Microsoft's practices and a concerted effort from the company to rebuild trust. This involves not just patching existing vulnerabilities but creating a culture that prioritizes security, transparency, and the interests of users above profit-driven motives.

It is a complex challenge, but one that Microsoft must meet to maintain its credibility as a leader in the technology industry.

When Lionel Danenberg’s upstart company won preliminary approval for a banking charter from the Idaho Department of Finance in August 2022, he thought his four-year quest to launch an app-based payments bank for small-business commodity producers was about to pay off. 

“If you look at the list of (New College majors), there’s one outlier, and it’s gender studies. … It’s not within the liberal arts, and it’s more of an ideological movement than an academic discipline.” This is how Matthew Spalding, a member of the New College board of trustees, justified his vote earlier this month to begin the process of eliminating the gender studies area of concentration, the equivalent to majors at other colleges.

But how do these and further statements made by Spalding and Christopher Rufo — another recently appointed board member — stand up to a critical examination, of the sort conducted by the original proponents of the “liberal arts”?

From the 13th century, a “liberally” or “freely” educated student was expected to master seven specific fields of study, with a fundamental grounding in the “trivium” — grammar, logic and rhetoric — extended to further development in the “quadrivium” — arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. Training in the trivium would render a student proficient in words and the language arts, before he could move on to investigate nature through numbers, since each of the elements of the quadrivium, including music, were expressed through numerals.

Therefore, when someone describes an area of concentration as an “outlier,” he should be prepared to back up that assertion by using logical reasoning and comparative data. On its webpages, New College currently lists 51 areas of concentration, and it also invites a prospective student to “pursue a joint concentration in two fields, minor in a secondary concentration or design your own area of concentration.”

The website of Hillsdale College — where Spalding is also Kirby Professor in Constitutional Government and dean of the graduate school of government, among other titles — lists 47 majors and minors. Among the majors that are available in this “traditional or classical” liberal arts college are accounting, entrepreneurship, exercise science, financial management, general business, marketing, physical education, sport management and sport psychology. None of these majors, worthy as they certainly are, is listed on the New College page.

A modern liberal arts curriculum should not, of course, be restricted to the original “artes liberales,” but my own discipline (history) did not become a professionalized academic subject until the 1880s and even the term “major” did not appear in university catalogs before 1877. However, if one wishes to determine what does, and does not, constitute today’s “liberal arts,” I believe that the ideal organization to study is Phi Beta Kappa.

Founded by five students at the College of William & Mary in December 1776, the “nation’s most prestigious honor society” is, according to its website, “grounded in liberal — as in the Latin word for ‘free’ — arts and sciences learning and freedom of inquiry.” As a proud initiate in Phi Beta Kappa (Ohio University, 1991), donor to the organization and attendee at the last triennial meeting in 2021, I am delighted that Phi Beta Kappa has not only established a chapter at my university (the University of South Florida) but has also taken strong stances to protect academic freedom, specifically in Florida and especially in this year.

While New College has not yet been invited to establish a chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, it is striking that neither has Spalding’s Hillsdale College — an explicitly liberal arts institution that was founded in 1844. According to Phi Beta Kappa’s online chapter directory, the state of Michigan, where Hillsdale is based, presently contains eight chapters at four private colleges and four public universities.

A quick search of the four private colleges’ websites reveals that each one offers a major, a minor, or both in gender studies. In alphabetical order, these are Albion College (founded in 1835), with a major in women’s, gender and sexuality studies; Alma College (founded in 1886), with a minor in women’s and gender studies; Hope College (a “private Christian liberal arts college” chartered in 1866), with a major in women’s and gender studies; and Kalamazoo College (founded by Baptists, like Hillsdale, in 1833), with its women, gender and sexuality major.

If the vaunted plan for New College’s future is to turn it into the “Hillsdale of the South,” in part by stripping it of its gender studies major, the prospect of achieving recognition by Phi Beta Kappa would seem to be receding further into the distance.

In addition to abusing logical and comparative reasoning, Spalding has also made a mockery of the arts of grammar and rhetoric. In the board meeting, he asserted that the gender studies program at New College is “a mishmosh of things — if you read the website, I have no idea what it’s about, it’s very confused.” (For what it’s worth, the word, from Middle English, is more often pronounced “mishmash.”) I would invite everyone to read this website, https://www.ncf.edu/programs/gender-studies/, which I find a model of clarity, especially in its lists of helpful online resources (including a dedicated Twitter page), “potential career pathways,” “recent courses” and “recent theses.”

The recounting of recent thesis titles also refutes Spalding’s claim that “gender studies does not grow out of the humanities … or of the sciences.” Of the nine thesis titles listed, six are clearly outgrowths of humanities or fine art disciplines, including history, music, art, dance, theater, and Spanish language and literature, and the other three derive from medicine, sociology and psychology.

And, if one wishes to see a true “mishmosh” of “confused” language, look no further than the essay Christopher Rufo published to his Substack, on the evening after the board vote, entitled “The Arc of Reform.” In the penultimate paragraph, Rufo writes, “The mission of New College of Florida is to restore classical liberal education and to revive the pursuit of transcendent truth — a mission ultimately incompatible with the disciplines of gender studies and queer theory, which are explicitly opposed to the classical conceptions of the true, the good and the beautiful. These postmodern, anti-normative lines of thought may be welcome at other universities, but they are not a requirement for a university as such.”

As a trained classicist, I think I recognize some glimmer of the ancient Greek “kalokagathos,” “the good and the beautiful,” but one would have to be a regular reader of Rufo’s words to strain out the kernels of “truth” he is pouring out here. It is ironic that the person who has accused gender studies of being “ideological activism” is a self-avowed activist obviously motivated by ideology. The source of this ideology? Perhaps it is Viktor Orbán, whose Danube Institute hosted Rufo in Budapest as a visiting fellow this March and April. Orbán, who has been in power since 2010, regularly employs antisemitic, anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and is widely considered one of the most serious global threats to democracy. Should someone who has studied Orbán’s techniques so recently in his capital city be entrusted with overseeing the curriculum of any institution, especially one devoted to the public good?

Jonathan S. Perry is an associate professor of history at the Sarasota-Manatee Campus of the University of South Florida, and he also appeared as a contestant on the television program “Jeopardy!” in February 2023.