Let’s Cancel Student Loans – Not Forgive Them, But Cancel the Program

BY GEORGE LEEF | MAY 20, 2022 | EDUCATION

Higher education in the US is bloated and dysfunctional because federal meddling turned it into a mass entitlement. Turn off the federal spigot and it will rapidly improve.

In recent weeks, the tumult in Washington has largely centered on the issue of student loans. Almost every Democrat and left-leaning pundit has come out in favor of some degree of relief for those who have amassed debts to pay for college. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) for example, penned a Washington Post opinion piece with the exhortative title, “President Biden, it’s time to cancel student debt.”

What he wants the President to do is to forgive students of their payment obligations under their federal student loan contracts. It’s highly questionable whether the President has the legal authority to unilaterally forgive student debts, but let’s put aside that problem.

I’m going to argue that Congress should do something it unquestionably has the power to do, namely to repeal a statute. The statute is the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, one of the many laws passed by a giddy Congress at the behest of President Lyndon Johnson. Johnson had a host of ideas for improving America through federal money and regulation—his “Great Society”—and government meddling in education was at the top of his list. Title IV of the Act created the federal student loan program.

The first question that ought to have been raised is whether the HEA was constitutional. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to legislate with respect to education. Article I, Section 8 sets forth the powers of Congress and education is not included. Education was among the great number of subjects that the Founders thought belonged to “the States or the people respectively” as the Tenth Amendment reads.

Nor does the Constitution anywhere authorize Congress (or the President) to lend money to college students—or to any other group.

If someone had asked James Madison or Benjamin Franklin or any of the other men who drafted the Constitution if it gave the new government the authority to lend money to people who wanted to go to college, the answer would have been an emphatic “No.”

Unfortunately, constitutional questions about federal programs were not being asked in the 1960s. A long series of Supreme Court decisions dating from the mid-1930s on had made it clear that the Court wouldn’t bother with challenges to federal spending and regulation. The “progressive” Justices had given broad interpretations to the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause so that the intended restrictions of Article I, Section 8 were erased.

That’s too bad, because the federal student aid program has turned out to be one of the greatest blunders in our history, right up there with the income tax, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and the pro-union National Labor Relations Act. It is responsible for the enormous increase in the cost of higher education, a vast throng of poorly prepared and disengaged students entering college, the consequent decline of academic standards, credential inflation (i.e., the requirement by many employers that applicants have college degrees if they want to be considered), and the statist drift of the country, as more and more of the citizenry has been subjected to the proselytizing of zealous faculty and administrators.

If we could take a time machine back to 1965 and show the legislators and voting public what the HEA would do, I think that it would not have been enacted.

Returning to the student debt “crisis,” it too is an unintended consequence of the HEA. It isn’t really a crisis, since most student debtors are able to handle their payments, but there are some true horror stories—students with six-figure debts who can’t even pay the mounting interest. Nevertheless, the burden of paying for very expensive college credentials that many students didn’t really want and don’t use in their work is a big economic drag.

What is the solution?

It certainly is not to decree a general forgiveness of college loan debts. That would do nothing to alleviate the problem of too many people attending too expensive colleges to obtain degrees of too little utility. It would, however, confer a great windfall on many heavily indebted graduates who have high-paying jobs in law, medicine, and other professions. They can and should pay off their loans.

A better solution that some people have advocated is to once again allow graduates who find themselves drowning in debt to have their student loan debts discharged in bankruptcy. That was permissible until 2005, when Congress decided to revise the bankruptcy law so as to make student loan debts extraordinarily difficult to escape.

Writing in the May 10 Wall Street Journal, Richard Schinder correctly observes,

“Comprehensive student debt forgiveness is bad public policy. A legal regime—the federal bankruptcy system—already exists for those who truly need debt relief, with rules and consequences that are well-established.”

If student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy, the worst horror stories would be addressed. I would favor that, especially if it were coupled with a requirement that if a student discharges his student loan debts in bankruptcy, the college or university that educated him (or at least took his money in exchange for various courses) would have to cover the loss to the taxpayers. That would make schools think long and hard before they admitted academically weak students who can only make it through by taking raft of Mickey Mouse classes.

Those changes would go far toward alleviating the student loan mess, but they wouldn’t solve it. Federal student aid money would continue to prop up needlessly high tuitions and lure many marginal students into college because the financing is easy.

The solution is to eliminate federal student aid funding entirely. (And yes, I would include college assistance for military veterans.) The HEA repeal bill might be written so that five years after the date of enactment, all federal loans and grants would cease, thereby giving students and institutions time to adjust. Alternatives such as Income Share Agreements (where funders provide most or all of the money the student needs for college in exchange for a contractual commitment obligating the student to repay a percentage of his earnings for some years after graduation) would emerge. Colleges would find many ways to shed costs that add little or no educational value, like “diversity” offices.

Higher education in the US is bloated and dysfunctional because of federal meddling.

BY GEORGE LEEF | MAY 20, 2022 | EDUCATION

Higher education in the US is bloated and dysfunctional because federal meddling turned it into a mass entitlement. Turn off the federal spigot and it will rapidly improve.

EVERYTHING BELOW THIS IS REPETITIVE.

I’m going to argue that Congress should do something it unquestionably has the power to do, namely to repeal a statute. The statute is the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, one of the many laws passed by a giddy Congress at the behest of President Lyndon Johnson. Johnson had a host of ideas for improving America through federal money and regulation—his “Great Society”—and government meddling in education was at the top of his list. Title IV of the Act created the federal student loan program.

The first question that ought to have been raised is whether the HEA was constitutional. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to legislate with respect to education. Article I, Section 8 sets forth the powers of Congress and education is not included. Education was among the great number of subjects that the Founders thought belonged to “the States or the people respectively” as the Tenth Amendment reads.

Nor does the Constitution anywhere authorize Congress (or the President) to lend money to college students—or to any other group.

If someone had asked James Madison or Benjamin Franklin or any of the other men who drafted the Constitution if it gave the new government the authority to lend money to people who wanted to go to college, the answer would have been an emphatic “No.”

Unfortunately, constitutional questions about federal programs were not being asked in the 1960s. A long series of Supreme Court decisions dating from the mid-1930s on had made it clear that the Court wouldn’t bother with challenges to federal spending and regulation. The “progressive” Justices had given broad interpretations to the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause so that the intended restrictions of Article I, Section 8 were erased.

That’s too bad, because the federal student aid program has turned out to be one of the greatest blunders in our history, right up there with the income tax, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and the pro-union National Labor Relations Act. It is responsible for the enormous increase in the cost of higher education, a vast throng of poorly prepared and disengaged students entering college, the consequent decline of academic standards, credential inflation (i.e., the requirement by many employers that applicants have college degrees if they want to be considered), and the statist drift of the country, as more and more of the citizenry has been subjected to the proselytizing of zealous faculty and administrators.

If we could take a time machine back to 1965 and show the legislators and voting public what the HEA would do, I think that it would not have been enacted.

Returning to the student debt “crisis,” it too is an unintended consequence of the HEA. It isn’t really a crisis, since most student debtors are able to handle their payments, but there are some true horror stories—students with six-figure debts who can’t even pay the mounting interest. Nevertheless, the burden of paying for very expensive college credentials that many students didn’t really want and don’t use in their work is a big economic drag.

What is the solution?

It certainly is not to decree a general forgiveness of college loan debts. That would do nothing to alleviate the problem of too many people attending too expensive colleges to obtain degrees of too little utility. It would, however, confer a great windfall on many heavily indebted graduates who have high-paying jobs in law, medicine, and other professions. They can and should pay off their loans.

A better solution that some people have advocated is to once again allow graduates who find themselves drowning in debt to have their student loan debts discharged in bankruptcy. That was permissible until 2005, when Congress decided to revise the bankruptcy law so as to make student loan debts extraordinarily difficult to escape.

Writing in the May 10 Wall Street Journal, Richard Schinder correctly observes,

“Comprehensive student debt forgiveness is bad public policy. A legal regime—the federal bankruptcy system—already exists for those who truly need debt relief, with rules and consequences that are well-established.”

If student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy, the worst horror stories would be addressed. I would favor that, especially if it were coupled with a requirement that if a student discharges his student loan debts in bankruptcy, the college or university that educated him (or at least took his money in exchange for various courses) would have to cover the loss to the taxpayers. That would make schools think long and hard before they admitted academically weak students who can only make it through by taking raft of Mickey Mouse classes.

Those changes would go far toward alleviating the student loan mess, but they wouldn’t solve it. Federal student aid money would continue to prop up needlessly high tuitions and lure many marginal students into college because the financing is easy.

The solution is to eliminate federal student aid funding entirely. (And yes, I would include college assistance for military veterans.) The HEA repeal bill might be written so that five years after the date of enactment, all federal loans and grants would cease, thereby giving students and institutions time to adjust. Alternatives such as Income Share Agreements (where funders provide most or all of the money the student needs for college in exchange for a contractual commitment obligating the student to repay a percentage of his earnings for some years after graduation) would emerge. Colleges would find many ways to shed costs that add little or no educational value, like “diversity” offices.

Higher education in the US is bloated and dysfunctional because federal meddling turned it into a mass

Higher education in the US is bloated and dysfunctional because federal meddling turned it into a mass entitlement. Turn off the federal spigot and it will rapidly improve.

In recent weeks, the tumult in Washington has largely centered on the issue of student loans. Almost every Democrat and left-leaning pundit has come out in favor of some degree of relief for those who have amassed debts to pay for college. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) for example, penned a Washington Post opinion piece with the exhortative title, “President Biden, it’s time to cancel student debt.”

What he wants the President to do is to forgive students of their payment obligations under their federal student loan contracts. It’s highly questionable whether the President has the legal authority to unilaterally forgive student debts, but let’s put aside that problem.

I’m going to argue that Congress should do something it unquestionably has the power to do, namely to repeal a statute. The statute is the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, one of the many laws passed by a giddy Congress at the behest of President Lyndon Johnson. Johnson had a host of ideas for improving America through federal money and regulation—his “Great Society”—and government meddling in education was at the top of his list. Title IV of the Act created the federal student loan program.

The first question that ought to have been raised is whether the HEA was constitutional. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to legislate with respect to education. Article I, Section 8 sets forth the powers of Congress and education is not included. Education was among the great number of subjects that the Founders thought belonged to “the States or the people respectively” as the Tenth Amendment reads.

Nor does the Constitution anywhere authorize Congress (or the President) to lend money to college students—or to any other group.

If someone had asked James Madison or Benjamin Franklin or any of the other men who drafted the Constitution if it gave the new government the authority to lend money to people who wanted to go to college, the answer would have been an emphatic “No.”

Unfortunately, constitutional questions about federal programs were not being asked in the 1960s. A long series of Supreme Court decisions dating from the mid-1930s on had made it clear that the Court wouldn’t bother with challenges to federal spending and regulation. The “progressive” Justices had given broad interpretations to the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause so that the intended restrictions of Article I, Section 8 were erased.

That’s too bad, because the federal student aid program has turned out to be one of the greatest blunders in our history, right up there with the income tax, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and the pro-union National Labor Relations Act. It is responsible for the enormous increase in the cost of higher education, a vast throng of poorly prepared and disengaged students entering college, the consequent decline of academic standards, credential inflation (i.e., the requirement by many employers that applicants have college degrees if they want to be considered), and the statist drift of the country, as more and more of the citizenry has been subjected to the proselytizing of zealous faculty and administrators.

If we could take a time machine back to 1965 and show the legislators and voting public what the HEA would do, I think that it would not have been enacted.

Returning to the student debt “crisis,” it too is an unintended consequence of the HEA. It isn’t really a crisis, since most student debtors are able to handle their payments, but there are some true horror stories—students with six-figure debts who can’t even pay the mounting interest. Nevertheless, the burden of paying for very expensive college credentials that many students didn’t really want and don’t use in their work is a big economic drag.

What is the solution?

It certainly is not to decree a general forgiveness of college loan debts. That would do nothing to alleviate the problem of too many people attending too expensive colleges to obtain degrees of too little utility. It would, however, confer a great windfall on many heavily indebted graduates who have high-paying jobs in law, medicine, and other professions. They can and should pay off their loans.

A better solution that some people have advocated is to once again allow graduates who find themselves drowning in debt to have their student loan debts discharged in bankruptcy. That was permissible until 2005, when Congress decided to revise the bankruptcy law so as to make student loan debts extraordinarily difficult to escape.

Writing in the May 10 Wall Street Journal, Richard Schinder correctly observes,

“Comprehensive student debt forgiveness is bad public policy. A legal regime—the federal bankruptcy system—already exists for those who truly need debt relief, with rules and consequences that are well-established.”

If student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy, the worst horror stories would be addressed. I would favor that, especially if it were coupled with a requirement that if a student discharges his student loan debts in bankruptcy, the college or university that educated him (or at least took his money in exchange for various courses) would have to cover the loss to the taxpayers. That would make schools think long and hard before they admitted academically weak students who can only make it through by taking raft of Mickey Mouse classes.

Those changes would go far toward alleviating the student loan mess, but they wouldn’t solve it. Federal student aid money would continue to prop up needlessly high tuitions and lure many marginal students into college because the financing is easy.

The solution is to eliminate federal student aid funding entirely. (And yes, I would include college assistance for military veterans.) The HEA repeal bill might be written so that five years after the date of enactment, all federal loans and grants would cease, thereby giving students and institutions time to adjust. Alternatives such as Income Share Agreements (where funders provide most or all of the money the student needs for college in exchange for a contractual commitment obligating the student to repay a percentage of his earnings for some years after graduation) would emerge. Colleges would find many ways to shed costs that add little or no educational value, like “diversity” offices.

Higher education in the US is bloated and dysfunctional because federal meddling turned it into a mass

Higher education in the US is bloated and dysfunctional because federal meddling turned it into a mass entitlement. Turn off the federal spigot and it will rapidly improve.

Nor does the Constitution anywhere authorize Congress (or the President) to lend money to college students—or to any other group.

If someone had asked James Madison or Benjamin Franklin or any of the other men who drafted the Constitution if it gave the new government the authority to lend money to people who wanted to go to college, the answer would have been an emphatic “No.”

Unfortunately, constitutional questions about federal programs were not being asked in the 1960s. A long series of Supreme Court decisions dating from the mid-1930s on had made it clear that the Court wouldn’t bother with challenges to federal spending and regulation. The “progressive” Justices had given broad interpretations to the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause so that the intended restrictions of Article I, Section 8 were erased.

That’s too bad, because the federal student aid program has turned out to be one of the greatest blunders in our history, right up there with the income tax, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and the pro-union National Labor Relations Act. It is responsible for the enormous increase in the cost of higher education, a vast throng of poorly prepared and disengaged students entering college, the consequent decline of academic standards, credential inflation (i.e., the requirement by many employers that applicants have college degrees if they want to be considered), and the statist drift of the country, as more and more of the citizenry has been subjected to the proselytizing of zealous faculty and administrators.

If we could take a time machine back to 1965 and show the legislators and voting public what the HEA would do, I think that it would not have been enacted.

Returning to the student debt “crisis,” it too is an unintended consequence of the HEA. It isn’t really a crisis, since most student debtors are able to handle their payments, but there are some true horror stories—students with six-figure debts who can’t even pay the mounting interest. Nevertheless, the burden of paying for very expensive college credentials that many students didn’t really want and don’t use in their work is a big economic drag.

What is the solution?

It certainly is not to decree a general forgiveness of college loan debts. That would do nothing to alleviate the problem of too many people attending too expensive colleges to obtain degrees of too little utility. It would, however, confer a great windfall on many heavily indebted graduates who have high-paying jobs in law, medicine, and other professions. They can and should pay off their loans.

A better solution that some people have advocated is to once again allow graduates who find themselves drowning in debt to have their student loan debts discharged in bankruptcy. That was permissible until 2005, when Congress decided to revise the bankruptcy law so as to make student loan debts extraordinarily difficult to escape.

Writing in the May 10 Wall Street Journal, Richard Schinder correctly observes,

“Comprehensive student debt forgiveness is bad public policy. A legal regime—the federal bankruptcy system—already exists for those who truly need debt relief, with rules and consequences that are well-established.”

If student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy, the worst horror stories would be addressed. I would favor that, especially if it were coupled with a requirement that if a student discharges his student loan debts in bankruptcy, the college or university that educated him (or at least took his money in exchange for various courses) would have to cover the loss to the taxpayers. That would make schools think long and hard before they admitted academically weak students who can only make it through by taking raft of Mickey Mouse classes.

Those changes would go far toward alleviating the student loan mess, but they wouldn’t solve it. Federal student aid money would continue to prop up needlessly high tuitions and lure many marginal students into college because the financing is easy.

The solution is to eliminate federal student aid funding entirely. (And yes, I would include college assistance for military veterans.) The HEA repeal bill might be written so that five years after the date of enactment, all federal loans and grants would cease, thereby giving students and institutions time to adjust. Alternatives such as Income Share Agreements (where funders provide most or all of the money the student needs for college in exchange for a contractual commitment obligating the student to repay a percentage of his earnings for some years after graduation) would emerge. Colleges would find many ways to shed costs that add little or no educational value, like “diversity” offices.

Higher education in the US is bloated and dysfunctional because federal meddling turned it into a mass entitlement. Turn off the federal spigot and it will rapidly improve.

In recent weeks, the tumult in Washington has largely centered on the issue of student loans. Almost every Democrat and left-leaning pundit has come out in favor of some degree of relief for those who have amassed debts to pay for college. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) for example, penned a Washington Post opinion piece with the exhortative title, “President Biden, it’s time to cancel student debt.”

What he wants the President to do is to forgive students of their payment obligations under their federal student loan contracts. It’s highly questionable whether the President has the legal authority to unilaterally forgive student debts, but let’s put aside that problem.

I’m going to argue that Congress should do something it unquestionably has the power to do, namely to repeal a statute. The statute is the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, one of the many laws passed by a giddy Congress at the behest of President Lyndon Johnson. Johnson had a host of ideas for improving America through federal money and regulation—his “Great Society”—and government meddling in education was at the top of his list. Title IV of the Act created the federal student loan program.

The first question that ought to have been raised is whether the HEA was constitutional. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to legislate with respect to education. Article I, Section 8 sets forth the powers of Congress and education is not included. Education was among the great number of subjects that the Founders thought belonged to “the States or the people respectively” as the Tenth Amendment reads.

Nor does the Constitution anywhere authorize Congress (or the President) to lend money to college students—or to any other group.

If someone had asked James Madison or Benjamin Franklin or any of the other men who drafted the Constitution if it gave the new government the authority to lend money to people who wanted to go to college, the answer would have been an emphatic “No.”

Unfortunately, constitutional questions about federal programs were not being asked in the 1960s. A long series of Supreme Court decisions dating from the mid-1930s on had made it clear that the Court wouldn’t bother with challenges to federal spending and regulation. The “progressive” Justices had given broad interpretations to the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause so that the intended restrictions of Article I, Section 8 were erased.

That’s too bad, because the federal student aid program has turned out to be one of the greatest blunders in our history, right up there with the income tax, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and the pro-union National Labor Relations Act. It is responsible for the enormous increase in the cost of higher education, a vast throng of poorly prepared and disengaged students entering college, the consequent decline of academic standards, credential inflation (i.e., the requirement by many employers that applicants have college degrees if they want to be considered), and the statist drift of the country, as more and more of the citizenry has been subjected to the proselytizing of zealous faculty and administrators.

If we could take a time machine back to 1965 and show the legislators and voting public what the HEA would do, I think that it would not have been enacted.

Returning to the student debt “crisis,” it too is an unintended consequence of the HEA. It isn’t really a crisis, since most student debtors are able to handle their payments, but there are some true horror stories—students with six-figure debts who can’t even pay the mounting interest. Nevertheless, the burden of paying for very expensive college credentials that many students didn’t really want and don’t use in their work is a big economic drag.

What is the solution?

It certainly is not to decree a general forgiveness of college loan debts. That would do nothing to alleviate the problem of too many people attending too expensive colleges to obtain degrees of too little utility. It would, however, confer a great windfall on many heavily indebted graduates who have high-paying jobs in law, medicine, and other professions. They can and should pay off their loans.

A better solution that some people have advocated is to once again allow graduates who find themselves drowning in debt to have their student loan debts discharged in bankruptcy. That was permissible until 2005, when Congress decided to revise the bankruptcy law so as to make student loan debts extraordinarily difficult to escape.

Writing in the May 10 Wall Street Journal, Richard Schinder correctly observes,

“Comprehensive student debt forgiveness is bad public policy. A legal regime—the federal bankruptcy system—already exists for those who truly need debt relief, with rules and consequences that are well-established.”

If student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy, the worst horror stories would be addressed. I would favor that, especially if it were coupled with a requirement that if a student discharges his student loan debts in bankruptcy, the college or university that educated him (or at least took his money in exchange for various courses) would have to cover the loss to the taxpayers. That would make schools think long and hard before they admitted academically weak students who can only make it through by taking raft of Mickey Mouse classes.

Those changes would go far toward alleviating the student loan mess, but they wouldn’t solve it. Federal student aid money would continue to prop up needlessly high tuitions and lure many marginal students into college because the financing is easy.

The solution is to eliminate federal student aid funding entirely. (And yes, I would include college assistance for military veterans.) The HEA repeal bill might be written so that five years after the date of enactment, all federal loans and grants would cease, thereby giving students and institutions time to adjust. Alternatives such as Income Share Agreements (where funders provide most or all of the money the student needs for college in exchange for a contractual commitment obligating the student to repay a percentage of his earnings for some years after graduation) would emerge. Colleges would find many ways to shed costs that add little or no educational value, like “diversity” offices.

Higher education in the US is bloated and dysfunctional because federal meddling turned it into a mass

BY GEORGE LEEF | MAY 20, 2022 | EDUCATION

Higher education in the US is bloated and dysfunctional because federal meddling turned it into a mass entitlement. Turn off the federal spigot and it will rapidly improve.

In recent weeks, the tumult in Washington has largely centered on the issue of student loans. Almost every Democrat and left-leaning pundit has come out in favor of some degree of relief for those who have amassed debts to pay for college. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) for example, penned a Washington Post opinion piece with the exhortative title, “President Biden, it’s time to cancel student debt.”

What he wants the President to do is to forgive students of their payment obligations under their federal student loan contracts. It’s highly questionable whether the President has the legal authority to unilaterally forgive student debts, but let’s put aside that problem.

I’m going to argue that Congress should do something it unquestionably has the power to do, namely to repeal a statute. The statute is the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, one of the many laws passed by a giddy Congress at the behest of President Lyndon Johnson. Johnson had a host of ideas for improving America through federal money and regulation—his “Great Society”—and government meddling in education was at the top of his list. Title IV of the Act created the federal student loan program.

The first question that ought to have been raised is whether the HEA was constitutional. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to legislate with respect to education. Article I, Section 8 sets forth the powers of Congress and education is not included. Education was among the great number of subjects that the Founders thought belonged to “the States or the people respectively” as the Tenth Amendment reads.

Nor does the Constitution anywhere authorize Congress (or the President) to lend money to college students—or to any other group.

If someone had asked James Madison or Benjamin Franklin or any of the other men who drafted the Constitution if it gave the new government the authority to lend money to people who wanted to go to college, the answer would have been an emphatic “No.”

Unfortunately, constitutional questions about federal programs were not being asked in the 1960s. A long series of Supreme Court decisions dating from the mid-1930s on had made it clear that the Court wouldn’t bother with challenges to federal spending and regulation. The “progressive” Justices had given broad interpretations to the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause so that the intended restrictions of Article I, Section 8 were erased.

That’s too bad, because the federal student aid program has turned out to be one of the greatest blunders in our history, right up there with the income tax, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and the pro-union National Labor Relations Act. It is responsible for the enormous increase in the cost of higher education, a vast throng of poorly prepared and disengaged students entering college, the consequent decline of academic standards, credential inflation (i.e., the requirement by many employers that applicants have college degrees if they want to be considered), and the statist drift of the country, as more and more of the citizenry has been subjected to the proselytizing of zealous faculty and administrators.

If we could take a time machine back to 1965 and show the legislators and voting public what the HEA would do, I think that it would not have been enacted.

Returning to the student debt “crisis,” it too is an unintended consequence of the HEA. It isn’t really a crisis, since most student debtors are able to handle their payments, but there are some true horror stories—students with six-figure debts who can’t even pay the mounting interest. Nevertheless, the burden of paying for very expensive college credentials that many students didn’t really want and don’t use in their work is a big economic drag.

What is the solution?

It certainly is not to decree a general forgiveness of college loan debts. That would do nothing to alleviate the problem of too many people attending too expensive colleges to obtain degrees of too little utility. It would, however, confer a great windfall on many heavily indebted graduates who have high-paying jobs in law, medicine, and other professions. They can and should pay off their loans.

A better solution that some people have advocated is to once again allow graduates who find themselves drowning in debt to have their student loan debts discharged in bankruptcy. That was permissible until 2005, when Congress decided to revise the bankruptcy law so as to make student loan debts extraordinarily difficult to escape.

Writing in the May 10 Wall Street Journal, Richard Schinder correctly observes,

“Comprehensive student debt forgiveness is bad public policy. A legal regime—the federal bankruptcy system—already exists for those who truly need debt relief, with rules and consequences that are well-established.”

If student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy, the worst horror stories would be addressed. I would favor that, especially if it were coupled with a requirement that if a student discharges his student loan debts in bankruptcy, the college or university that educated him (or at least took his money in exchange for various courses) would have to cover the loss to the taxpayers. That would make schools think long and hard before they admitted academically weak students who can only make it through by taking raft of Mickey Mouse classes.

Those changes would go far toward alleviating the student loan mess, but they wouldn’t solve it. Federal student aid money would continue to prop up needlessly high tuitions and lure many marginal students into college because the financing is easy.

The solution is to eliminate federal student aid funding entirely. (And yes, I would include college assistance for military veterans.) The HEA repeal bill might be written so that five years after the date of enactment, all federal loans and grants would cease, thereby giving students and institutions time to adjust. Alternatives such as Income Share Agreements (where funders provide most or all of the money the student needs for college in exchange for a contractual commitment obligating the student to repay a percentage of his earnings for some years after graduation) would emerge. Colleges would find many ways to shed costs that add little or no educational value, like “diversity” offices.

Higher education in the US is bloated and dysfunctional because of federal meddling.

George Leef

Best College Commencement Advice for New Graduates

In the coming weeks, students around the nation will hear their names read aloud, walk across a platform and move their tassels to signify graduation from high school or college. After years of working toward receiving their diploma or degree, they are now off to start a new adventure in their lives.

For many of these graduates, there’s the exhilaration of stepping into a new phase – whether it’s heading off to college or starting their careers. And, for others, there may be the apprehension of not knowing what is next.

As a college president, here are five pieces of advice I have for graduating seniors.

1. Savor the moment.he past few years leading up to graduation weren’t easy. They were probably met with tears, frustration, late nights and struggles. When you walk across the stage, cherish the moment. Recognize everything you went through to get where you are today. You deserve to be acknowledged, so enjoy it.

In a commencement address at Howard University in 2018, Chadwick Boseman, the late award-winning actor, said, “So, savor the taste of your triumphs today. Don’t just swallow the moment whole without digesting what has actually happened here. Look down over what you conquered and appreciate what God has brought you through.

2. Step into the day with gratitude Graduation ceremonies go by quickly. Make sure someone takes photos of you when you walk across the stage and with people who have helped you get there. And, take the time to thank every individual who propelled you to where you are today.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnew

In the coming weeks, students around the nation will hear their names read aloud, walk across a platform and move their tassels to signify graduation from high school or college. After years of working toward receiving their diploma or degree, they are now off to start a new adventure in their lives.

For many of these graduates, there’s the exhilaration of stepping into a new phase – whether it’s heading off to college or starting their careers. And, for others, there may be the apprehension of not knowing what is next.

As a college president, here are five pieces of advice I have for graduating seniors.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com …

To: Kaslin

I told my son when he graduated that he may have been at the top of his class but when he starts his new job he will be the least qualified in the company. Of course, I had no idea what I was talking about until reality hit that even the high school drop out there new more about what was going on there. It was a necessary humbling experience. His ego took a huge hit. He became a little wiser that day.

2 posted on 5/20/2022, 3:25:15 PM by Dutch Boy (The only thing worse than having something taken from you is to have it returned broken. )

To: Kaslin

What? #1 and #2 in the excerpt and no “GO WOKE” or “DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH” advice? Something is obviously seriously wrong here.

3 posted on 5/20/2022, 3:29:34 PM by ProtectOurFreedom (Wanting to make America great isn’t an insult unless you’re trying to make it worse! ULTRAMAGA!!)

To: Kaslin

Acquire land. Build a home with great thought. Make those your sole investments. Spend your life fortifying it and becoming self reliant.

4 posted on 5/20/2022, 3:36:11 PM by Born in 1950 (Anti left, nothing else.)

To: Kaslin

“To all you graduates, as you go out in the world, my advice to you is… Don’t go! It’s rough out there. Move back with your parents. Let them worry…”

5 posted on 5/20/2022, 3:41:50 PM by Magnum44 (…against all enemies, foreign and domestic… )

To: Kaslin

Congratulations on placing the cost of your education on the backs of the taxpayers. Guess what you just became?

6 posted on 5/20/2022, 3:43:47 PM by Billthedrill

To: Kaslin

Learn a trade like welding.

s.com …

To: Kaslin

I told my son when he graduated that he may have been at the top of his class but when he starts his new job he will be the least qualified in the company. Of course, I had no idea what I was talking about until reality hit that even the high school drop out there new more about what was going on there. It was a necessary humbling experience. His ego took a huge hit. He became a little wiser that day.

2 posted on 5/20/2022, 3:25:15 PM by Dutch Boy (The only thing worse than having something taken from you is to have it returned broken. )

To: Kaslin

What? #1 and #2 in the excerpt and no “GO WOKE” or “DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH” advice? Something is obviously seriously wrong here.

3 posted on 5/20/2022, 3:29:34 PM by ProtectOurFreedom (Wanting to make America great isn’t an insult unless you’re trying to make it worse! ULTRAMAGA!!)

To: Kaslin

Acquire land. Build a home with great thought. Make those your sole investments. Spend your life fortifying it and becoming self reliant.

4 posted on 5/20/2022, 3:36:11 PM by Born in 1950 (Anti left, nothing else.)

To: Kaslin

“To all you graduates, as you go out in the world, my advice to you is… Don’t go! It’s rough out there. Move back with your parents. Let them worry…”

5 posted on 5/20/2022, 3:41:50 PM by Magnum44 (…against all enemies, foreign and domestic… )

To: Kaslin

Congratulations on placing the cost of your education on the backs of the taxpayers. Guess what you just became?

6 posted on 5/20/2022, 3:43:47 PM by Billthedrill

To: Kaslin

Learn a trade like welding.

KENT INGLE

Higher Education: A Stunningly Corrupt Institution

Canadian psychologist and bestselling author Jordan Peterson announced that he is no longer a tenured professor at the University of Toronto.

In an article for The National Post, Peterson — who recently sat down with Daily Wire editor emeritus Ben Shapiro in the inaugural episode of “The Search” — pointed to the school’s obsession with “Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity,” which he abbreviated simply as “DIE.”

“I had envisioned teaching and researching at the U of T, full time, until they had to haul my skeleton out of my office. I loved my job. And my students, undergraduates and graduates alike, were positively predisposed toward me,” Peterson said. “But that career path was not meant to be.”

Peterson voiced frustration that his “qualified and supremely trained heterosexual white male graduate students… face a negligible chance of being offered university research positions, despite stellar scientific dossiers” thanks to diversity mandates.

“These have been imposed universally in academia, despite the fact that university hiring committees had already done everything reasonable for all the years of my career, and then some, to ensure that no qualified ‘minority’ candidates were ever overlooked,” he wrote. “My students are also partly unacceptable precisely because they are my students. I am academic persona non grata, because of my unacceptable philosophical positions. And this isn’t just some inconvenience. These facts rendered my job morally untenable. How can I accept prospective researchers and train them in good conscience knowing their employment prospects to be minimal?”

Peterson pointed to other trends destroying academia “and, downstream, the general culture” — including the end of objective testing and “grievance studies” disciplines. He also observed that colleagues must bow to diversity mandates by crafting “DIE statements” to obtain research grants.

“They all lie (excepting the minority of true believers) and they teach their students to do the same. And they do it constantly, with various rationalizations and justifications, further corrupting what is already a stunningly corrupt enterprise,” he mourned. “Some of my colleagues even allow themselves to undergo so-called anti-bias training, conducted by supremely unqualified Human Resources personnel, lecturing inanely and blithely and in an accusatory manner about theoretically all-pervasive racist/sexist/heterosexist attitudes. Such training is now often a precondition to occupy a faculty position on a hiring committee.”

The problem extends far beyond the University of Toronto.

Peterson said that the accrediting boards for Canadian graduate clinical psychology training programs “are now planning to refuse to accredit university clinical programs unless they have a ‘social justice’ orientation.” Also referring to Canada’s “conversion therapy” ban, Peterson said that the practice of clinical psychology is effectively “doomed.”

Peterson admonished executives, professors, and others capitulating to wokeness and permitting its advance in Western culture.

“And all of you going along with the DIE activists, whatever your reasons: this is on you,” he warned. “Cowering cravenly in pretense and silence. Teaching your students to dissimulate and lie. To get along. As the walls crumble. For shame. CEOs: signaling a virtue you don’t possess and shouldn’t want to please a minority who literally live their lives by displeasure. You’re evil capitalists, after all, and should be proud of it. At the moment, I can’t tell if you’re more reprehensibly timid even than the professors. Why the hell don’t you banish the human resource DIE upstarts back to the more-appropriately-named Personnel departments, stop them from interfering with the psyches of you and your employees, and be done with it?”

“Musicians, artists, writers: stop bending your sacred and meritorious art to the demands of the propagandists before you fatally betray the spirit of your own intuition,” he continued. “Stop censoring your thought. Stop saying you will hire for your orchestral and theatrical productions for any reason other than talent and excellence. That’s all you have. That’s all any of us have.”

“He who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind. And the wind is rising.”

Ben Zeisloft