The only mentions of higher education came in an anecdote about a teenage girl who would rather husband-hunt than go to college and Ms. Hesse’s obligatory dig about the cost of tuition: “If college weren’t so ghastly expensive here, maybe that one lady’s daughter wouldn’t be so keen on the patriarchy as a route to leisure that bypasses the long, uphill road to financial independence.” But there is no better road to intellectual freedom and ease of life than education.

U.S. women’s colleges know and address this every day. We serve young women who are eager to lead despite messages that they lack the value or the resources to be successful. More than 93 percent of our students receive financial aid to go to college, and many women’s colleges serve the most financially vulnerable young people in the nation. Yet we endeavor to equip young women to pursue their educational ambitions in support of a more just world.

To be clear: I don’t object to the suggestion that what many young women — or really, all people — want today is more leisure or a sense of ease. I and my students would like a nap, too. What keeps us awake? A deep sense of purpose. We recognize that the same world that prevents “ease” needs us to change it; that the miseries women face in the world will not go away while we rest. We know we have a purpose in this world and that this purpose is to fashion a better experience for us all. Women don’t have to compromise their own sense of self to achieve that.

Mary Dana Hinton, Roanoke

The writer is president of Hollins University.

Was it intentional irony that the April 11 Style section paired “Nick Adams wants you to man up,” a profile of the misogynistic provocateur, with Monica Hesse’s column on the appeal and pitfalls of the tradwife lifestyle? Perfect! Now there’s a real GOP platform.

Pamela Kincheloe, Manassas

Just when I thought there was no way The Post could foist Donald Trump on me more often, the April 11 Style section led with a profile of Nick Adams, an off-putting Trump surrogate.

As the writer eventually pointed out, there are genuine problems facing men and boys but women coming for their testicles isn’t one of them. How ironic and insulting that while women are the ones under policy assaults such as the resurrection of Arizona’s ancient ban on abortion, The Post chose to devote space to another con man tapping into anger.

As a longtime baseball observer and fan, I read Chelsea Janes’s April 11 Sports analysis, “No easy fix after rash of injuries to pitchers,” with interest.

With the increasing emphasis on pitch velocity, spin rates and other measures of force, Major League Baseball teams are effectively “killing their young.” Potentially great pitching careers are being sacrificed at the altar of money as pitchers try to master throws such as the sweeper.

As a result, professional baseball risks becoming a niche sport like thoroughbred racing, in which horses are driven to the point of exhaustion and ghastly injury for the entertainment of gamblers, with whom Major League Baseball and other professional sports leagues have aligned themselves. Sadly, America’s pastime has become a sign of the times.

Arthur Edward Schwartz, Arlington

Golf is not ‘sustainable’

I had to laugh ruefully when I read the word “sustainable” in reference to the sport of golf in the April 10 front-page article “On eve of Masters, chasm still divides golf.” The fragile balance between the competing golf tours might be sustainable. But when it comes to the environment, golf is anything but.

Acres of land are cleared of forests or fields to be turned into grassy lawns that are ecological dead zones. Swaths of fairways and greens sequester little carbon and fail to support the food chain or pollinators. Courses require massive quantities of water, competing with people and agriculture for scarce resources even in the most drought-prone parts of the world. Polluting and toxic weed killers and chemical fertilizers flow into groundwater and streams, endangering wildlife and people. The carbon footprint for manicuring golf courses with armies of gas-powered equipment is huge.

Golfers say they enjoy “being in nature,” but that’s like comparing a water park wave pool to the ocean. About the only thing sustainable about a golf course might be an electric cart — or maybe an organic beer.

I read with dismay the April 12 Metro article “Circulator bus service might end in March 2025.”

Our family has resided in D.C. for decades and became aware of the services of the Circulator bus system just two years ago. The atmosphere on the bus is festive and friendly, in large part because of the drivers and the excited tourists who ride it. It provides an invaluable service to tourists and residents alike who want to get around the National Mall at a reasonable price or to Georgetown conveniently from Union Station.

Don’t shut down routes, raise prices or eliminate the Circulator altogether. Just advertise it more. So many residents are unaware of its routes or their convenience. Get fliers out to all the hotels that tourists frequent. Get information to the public in general. People love a bargain, and at $1 per ride, the Circulator is the best bargain in D.C.

Kathleen Wood, Washington

Tax rich D.C. residents like me

Taxes support thriving communities where people want to live. They fund quality schools and reliable public transportation, in addition to providing food and shelter for people who have hit hard times. Right now, D.C. faces major budget pressures that jeopardize these vital programs and services. But lawmakers can meet this moment by raising taxes on wealthy people, including me.

I came to the city more than a decade ago as a student at George Washington University (Raise High!) and fell in love with D.C. I enjoy a car-free life with convenient access to friends, stores and cultural activities. D.C. Minyan provides a robust Jewish community. Playing softball on the National Mall never gets old. I can’t imagine living anywhere else. But as a frequent cheerleader for D.C., I have never even considered discussing my relatively low tax burden as a draw to encourage friends and family to move here.

My financial situation is not out of the ordinary for White residents of D.C. An Urban Institute study found that as of 2016, White households in D.C. had a net worth 81 times greater than that of Black households and 22 times that of Latinx households.

Our tax system does little to correct the historic injustices that have contributed to this wealth inequality. Instead, tax preferences and loopholes protect and further concentrate wealth.

For example, D.C.’s property tax system uses a single rate for residences, meaning I pay the same property tax rate as someone who owns a small studio far away from public transit and other amenities.

And Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) has now proposed an increase to the sales tax, which takes a larger percentage of income from low- and middle-income earners than high-income earners. Combined with Ms. Bowser’s proposal to halt the planned increase to D.C.’s earned-income tax credit, which helps people with low incomes keep more of what they earn, this would raise the effective tax rate on D.C. residents with the lowest incomes relative to the current baseline.

Raise taxes on me and other wealthy residents instead. I say this with confidence that the marginally higher taxes I would pay would not materially affect my quality of life.

But the investments the District could make in public services with a little more of my tax money would be life-changing for others. By taxing D.C.’s concentrated wealth, the D.C. Council can ensure that child-care workers are paid fairly, rental assistance programs are fully funded and transformative initiatives such as the earned-income tax credit aren’t gutted. I can afford to pay more in taxes so everyone can have their basic needs met.

We all agree D.C. faces major budget pressures and needs more revenue, so let’s find a way to raise it. Why not increase the tax rate on capital gains — profits from selling assets such as stocks that overwhelmingly flow to the top 1 percent? And why not increase taxes on homes valued at more than $1.5 million, instead of taxing them at the same rate as lower-value homes?

Before being disrupted by business lobbyists, D.C.’s Tax Revision Commission laid out other proposals to raise revenue that, unlike the mayor’s proposals, wouldn’t put the burden on D.C. residents who are already struggling. We all contribute to the strength of D.C.’s economy, but only a few households see the most benefits. The D.C. Council should make the wealthy pay more, so D.C. can be a place where everyone can share in the growth and enjoy a good life.

Moshe Pasternak, Washington