Thank you, John Chalberg, for your commentary informing me about the "awokening" of higher education in Minnesota ("A higher-ed push for conformity in the name of diversity," Feb. 28). I am thrilled by your discussion of the seventh goal of the transfer curriculum, "examining and dismantling structural racism."

You explain that this will enable students to "describe dynamics of unequal power relations among racial groups" and understand how this harms "other intersecting identities." In other words, there is systemic racial inequity in America, which overlaps with issues of classism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and more.

It seems the new "push" also calls for curricula that enable students to "identify anti-racist and other liberating practices that increase equitable outcomes and inclusion."

I do realize that your intent is to express disapproval. But I cannot tell you how excited I am that these goals are included in Minnesota's higher education.

I realize you believe educators are injecting politics into the curriculum, but as you indicate, the content is developed by educators, not politicians. For as long as I've been an educator, this has been what we do. I believe these new goals are excellent — especially the identification of anti-racist practices.

As the author of a general education textbook on the economics of social issues, I believe the most difficult aspect of "woke education" is the search for creative solutions, which may well come from the ingenuity of our students, if they are properly challenged.

Permit me to share two sentences that open up my text: "This edition … takes note of the times, which are ridden with divisiveness and polarity. … Two of the most basic structural pillars underlying our economy are inequality and racism … [and] the attitudes of many reflect a contempt for the poor, the immigrant, and the members of racial and ethnic minorities."

To be anti-racist requires more than opposing racial epithets and Confederate flags flying from dormitory windows. It requires that we understand how our institutions, policies and practices contribute to racial inequity; and it demands that we evaluate how seemingly innocent but adamant protection of white privilege is inimical to the well-being of people of color.

If this is what you mean, Chalberg, by "critical race theory by stealth," then I am for it.

Consider the example of housing. We know that as Black people fled the South amid Jim Crow, they left behind any wealth they owned in land and housing, eliminating their opportunity to pass down wealth to subsequent generations. They still encounter redlining by lenders and racial bias by real estate agents that curtail homeownership, resulting in only 42% of Blacks owning homes compared to 73% of non-Hispanic whites. This means Blacks lack access to the home equity loans taken by those more privileged to purchase businesses, upgrade homes, or get through bad financial spells. Restrictive housing policies and zoning laws prevent the integration of minorities into white neighborhoods, and many white people of privilege who never think of themselves as racist nevertheless strenuously defend these practices in their town halls and local discussion groups.

Housing segregation and unequal wealth distribution pose some of the greatest threats to racial equality today, but we could alternatively consider structural racism in education, criminal justice, employment, health care or a multitude of topics.

Disparate privilege is the outcome of systemic racism today. Let's address it wherever we can.

Jacqueline Brux is an emeritus professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls.