The justice of student loan "forgiveness"

I was interviewed by CNBC about why student loan forgiveness debates spark such anger and backlash. The linked article captures some of my answer and includes perspectives from other experts. Below is my full response:

Hi Professor Singh,

Hope this email finds you well. I’m a reporter at CNBC, working on a story about why the idea of student loan forgiveness in the U.S. makes some people just so heated. I’ve been covering student debt related issues for years, and whenever there’s forgiveness, the angry emails and comments pour in. I thought you might have some really interesting thoughts, and I’d love to hear from you! Questions below:

—Why do you think student loan forgiveness is such a partisan issue in the U.S.?

—Why, do you think, are some Americans so angered by the idea of college graduates getting their debts forgiven? What is it about student loan forgiveness?

—What role might envy play? Or the fact that most Americans don’t have a college degree?

—Why do some have such strong beliefs that repaying debt is moral/responsible?

Answers:

One reason why loan forgiveness is such a partisan issue is that members of each party have different relationships to the educational system. Statistically, a higher percentage of Democratic voters graduated from a four-year college and/or attended graduate school. So student loan forgiveness may affect more Democrats than Republicans directly. The fact that most Americans don’t have a college degree may also mean that many resist loan forgiveness because student debt is not their problem and so forgiveness does not appear to directly benefit them.

A second reason is that, stereotypically, members of each party view education slightly differently. While both sides view education practically as a means to an end of securing a better job and higher salary, Democrats may also express views about education contributing to the public good and supporting an engaged citizenry.

These different views about education as well as different understandings of justice are behind some of the anger and debate.

Some who oppose student loan forgiveness view education as a private commodity that benefits the person who purchases it. Using a transactional model of justice that believes you should pay for the good you require, it appears unfair and unjust that somebody should get something for free (or at a discount) after agreeing to pay (full price) for it. Since the benefit of education goes only to the person who is educated, the idea that society might support their education through loan forgiveness also appears unreasonable and unjust.

Others who support student loan forgiveness view education as both a private and public good, benefiting the individual as well as the society to which the person contributes. It’s important to note that such contribution is not just about economic productivity, but includes things that might benefit the shared way of life of any society, like new ideas, cultural products like art, film, and books, or better laws and ways to govern, for instance. Since the benefit of the education goes to the individual as well as to society, the idea that society might share support for their education through loan forgiveness can appear logical and just.

In the first view, justice is about the fitting consequences for individual choices. In the second view, justice can include that, but also includes accounting for how individuals do not operate in a vacuum. Their choice to pursue education is influenced by many social factors in addition to their education having broader social benefits. Justice here should account not only for the individual and their transactions but for the role of the social system in shaping their transactions and benefiting from them.

For these reasons, I don’t think envy is a helpful way to describe what is happening. While loan forgiveness might certainly feel unfair for some, it is less about feeling jealous than it is a sense of violating some notion of what is right and just. I also think that in the context of political debates, or really, any debates, accusing the other side of envy is unhelpful and unproductive.

As I recall in my forthcoming book, the strong belief that repaying debt is moral comes from really thousands of years of societies describing justice and morality in the terms of debt repayment. For reasons that make sense and were practical, but that also have problematic consequences, many cultures and even religions have used the language of debt to try to explain morality. For many people now, repaying debt “simply is” what moral people do. As I argue, not only has this given debt too much power but it prevents us from understanding the broader world of morality and justice in other important ways.