Home | About | Donate

'We Refuse to be Pawns': Student Debt Strikers Slam Education Department


#1

'We Refuse to be Pawns': Student Debt Strikers Slam Education Department

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

A group of student debt strikers will boycott a meeting scheduled for Monday with U.S. Education Department (DOE) officials, declaring: "We refuse to be the pawns of a Department that seeks to use the students' campaign to give cover to their ongoing failures."


#2

So, let me get this straight. The children want blanket forgiveness of the students' debt, regardless of the degree to which they were actually harmed by the college in question. The government agrees to forgive part of the debt of some students, depending on the degree to which harm to each student can be documented. So we pitch a fit and say "I'm not talking to you" until the government agrees to ALL of their demands? This is what passes for negotiation skills today?

I think the Federal government does stupid things with my tax money every day, but not even the government is stupid enough to believe that all students were equally harmed by the college.


#3

Well, when this entire PRIVATE college system shuts down leaving 16,000 students on the street with no recourse, what do you suggest they do? Pay for goods they did not receive? You wouldn't pay for a product that did not live up to agreed upon requirements. If a student flunked a course, etc., of course they should not get a freebie.


#4

Swindled students should stay swindled, eh?


#5

That's apparently what the government wants to establish: the degree to which each student was harmed by the school's closure. Sure, if they borrowed money to pay for a class that never got delivered then they should have some recourse to either recover the money from the school's bankruptcy settlement or have that portion of the debt forgiven. If they spent borrowed funds on courses which cannot be transferred to another school because of fraudulent representation by the defunct school, they should have the same recourse. If, on the other hand, they either knowingly took classes from an unaccredited institution, took accredited classes and failed to get a high enough grade for credit to transfer, or have simply decided that they were taking classes in a field or trade that no longer interests them, then they should not have the same recourse. Every student's case will be different, and the government would be irresponsible if it did not investigate and handle each case individually.


#6

No. See my reply to Moosethomasazi. However, the degree to which each student was "swindled" will be different. All the government suggested was that it evaluate each student's case individually. These students want blanket forgiveness of their debt without regard to the degree to which they were swindled. Some of what they got from that school may transfer. The debt incurred for those classes should not be forgiven. Other classes they've taken may not transfer due to a fraudulent representation by the school, or the classes were never delivered. That debt should certainly be considered for complete or partial forgiveness. But you have to look at each case individually to make sure that both the students and the taxpayers are being treated fairly.


#7

You're asking for a lot more effort than was expended making sure the students weren't getting swindled by something that should have been very suspicious to an education department.