The Question of Fairness in Student Debt Cancellation
Perhaps the dullest title ever, but bear with me.
Biden's student debt relief plan is apparently dead. This is pretty disappointing for me, personally, since I still have about $10k in outstanding student loan debt. Of course, I'm fortunate to have a decent middle-class income, and I can in theory afford to pay the debt back—though of course it won't be fun.
For others, this is a very unfortunate outcome. I've talked to or read about people who anticipate needing to get second jobs, delaying on buying a house (which, for some, is already a pipe dream), waiting on buying a new car, etc.
And of course, for another group of people, this news is just absolutely devastating: they simply cannot afford to pay back their loans; the interest will continue to accrue, sometimes eclipsing the loan itself, and sometimes in a way that makes it all but mathematically impossible they will ever pay it off. It is, in short, a financial death sentence.
Given what I'll go on to say below, let me begin by being very clear: I think this ruling is a bad thing. It's going to hurt (or worse) many people. It was decided by a laughably partisan Supreme Court. And so on.
I also want to preface my probably-annoyingly-contrarian point below with another caveat, which I will return to at the end in a more sophisticated way: it is perfectly consistent to think that governments should occasionally do things that are net-positives, even if there are nevertheless problems with them. And in this case, it is my view that, on balance, the student debt relief plan was a good idea, was the right thing to do, should have been kept in place. (I set aside the legal-theoretic questions, since I'm not a scholar of that; it does seem to me that Biden's plan was too clever by half, which surely played a significant role in dooming it. But I don't really care about the law here.)
I want to focus on the charge of unfairness. I heard people make versions of this argument all the time when the plan was proposed. Here is a representative position, from a veritable paragon of fairness and righteousness (/sarcasm), Mitch McConnell:
a slap in the face to every family who sacrificed to save for college, every graduate who paid their debt, and every American who chose a certain career path or volunteered to serve in our Armed Forces in order to avoid taking on debt. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23322129/student-loan-forgiveness-fair-inflation)
I want to unpack the underlying idea of fairness here, since it obviously seems to be important to a lot of people in their moral assessment of the plan. (I realize it's moot now, since the plan is dead; but I think it is worth exploring—and I’ll explain why later.)
First, to whom is it supposedly unfair? Here are some candidates, with a quick line on the apparently best rationale.
(1) It is unfair to people who didn't go to college, even if they wouldn't or couldn't have gone otherwise, since the benefits go to people who are already on average better-off in society by virtue of having attended college.
(2) It is unfair to people who chose not to go to college, particularly due to its high costs. Had they known that they would get $10k in free aid, they might have gone, and would've reaped the many benefits of college experience and/or a degree.
(3) It is unfair to people who went to college but paid for it other ways, such as by working through college. Instead of taking more time to study, socialize, participate in internships, etc., they chose to work so as not to accrue debt for college. Had they known $10k would be given to them at the end, they might've chosen differently, and would have benefited from experiencing the many things they didn't experience due to having to work.
(4) It is unfair to people who went to college but chose a cheaper school, such as a community college or state school over a more expensive private school. Had they known they would receive $10k in aid, they might've chosen a more expensive school, and reaped the accompanying benefits.
(5) It is unfair to people who went to college but already paid their loans off—particularly when this was a result of devoting greater financial resources to eliminating this debt quickly. Had they known there would be $10k given to them, they would have paid less of the loans at the earlier point, and could have used that money in other ways.
There are other groups who might claim unfairness. Private loan borrowers, future generations, past generations, etc. But let's focus on (1)-(5) above, since I think they make up the heart of the argument from unfairness.
There seem to me a few broad arguments for why debt cancellation might be unfair. To clarify, it's obvious that some people win and some people lose in this arrangement. But it does not follow from the fact that a result favors some over others that it is therefore unfair. What we need, then, is a principled argument.
Here's one: a government aid program that favors one group over another is unfair when the beneficiaries are already massively privileged, relative to those who did not receive aid. This point aligns best with (1) above—namely, the comparison between those who went to college and those who didn't. On this view, student debt cancellation is unfair because it primarily and directly benefits people who tend, on average, to make more money and enjoy more social opportunity than those who didn't go to college. Thus it exacerbates inequalities, and does so in a way that is not sensitive to desert (i.e. what people deserve).
But I'm not really persuaded by this. If this were the only aid given to people, then it would probably be unfair. But it's not. There are oodles of programs that support low-income people, aiming to bring them out of poverty and promote social opportunity. The fact that a given program—i.e., this one—doesn't maximally advantage the worst off does not make it unfair. We have to view it in context.
Speaking of context: even if this were unfair in this way, we'd have to look at other features of the broader circumstances to offer a full evaluation. And it is undeniable that the debt crisis was fueled in part by a barrage of economic crises that were not only entirely outside the control of college students, but have actively made their lives harder in ways relevant to the debt they were encouraged to take on. Students are regularly encouraged—not just by society in general, but their government—to take on massive debt at 18 (or younger) with the promise that it will, in general, further their social opportunities. And to put it mildly, this is not the world that most recent graduates have found themselves in. So, we might say that, sure, it's unfair to give privileged people debt relief; but when that debt relief is tied to what might be described as an accidental government-sponsored scam, it might be thought that debt relief is on balance more fair than doing nothing. In short, there's nothing obviously problematic about the government helping people who were, in essence, scammed—in part, by the government itself.
Okay, then, what about this alternative: a government aid program that favors one group over another is unfair when either the beneficiaries made choices that were either quite risky or else not sensible, OR those who are not beneficiaries made choices that were risk-avoidant, or more sensible—particularly when these choices were costly in morally relevant ways to the non-beneficiaries.
I take it this idea motivates (2) through (5) above. The idea, in other words, is this: people made choices on the basis of an expected cost, and forfeited various opportunities as a result of that choice—whether that's better education, more free time, financial resources devoted to other things, or something else like this. And this, it is claimed, is unfair because debt cancelation effectively punishes their choices—or, at least, rewards their opposites—when these choices were made rationally, with appropriate sensitivity to risk.
Okay, here's the controversial part: I actually sort of think this argument might be right! Hear me out.
Actually, first, let me say this: people's responses to this argument are often kind of sloppy and bad.
(https://twitter.com/NathanJRobinson/status/1674862744506335240?s=20)
The fairness argument is not "let's not make things better for people", but somehow commentators seem fixated on reading it that way. Feels disingenuous to me.
Maybe an analogy will help.
Suppose Al and Bob are at a car dealership, and each needs to buy a car for himself (owning a car opens up many new opportunities, etc. etc.). The dealership has two models for sale, Car 1 and Car 2. Car 1 costs $50k, and is fully decked out. Car 2 costs $40k, but has fewer bells and whistles. Al reasons that Car 2, though it is not as good in many ways, is the more sensible purchase. Bob goes the other way, and buys Car 1 at the higher price. Each takes out a car loan, and makes regular payments. But a few years into owning the car, Al has nearly paid his off, while Bob—who bought the more expensive car—is gifted a $10k decrease on his car loan, effectively making the cost of his car to him $40k. Does Al have grounds for complaint? I think so. Bob is a beneficiary of a lucky gift that Al could've also received, had he made the other choice, but didn't, and for reasons that strike us as rational and sensible.
You can rework the analogy to capture the other sorts of complaints I noted above—have Al take on a side hustle to pay his car loan off faster, etc. The basic point remains the same: people made decisions at the outset, with the same basic information applying to each of them; later, the group who made the more risky decision is compensated significantly, while the group who made the less risky decision are either compensated considerably less or not at all.
On the face of it, this strikes me as unfair. But is that right? My brilliant colleague and friend, Blake Hereth, offered me this thoughtful objection, when we were discussing this on Twitter last August:
https://twitter.com/BlakeHereth1/status/1564066610150871041?s=20
You can read our back-and-forth in the tweets for my reply. But let me make two quick points here. First, I'm focused here on the issue of whether or not it was unfair, not the distinct question from whether or not the policy should be implemented. (So, should the senator vote for it, even if it's unfair? Probably!) For one thing, fairness is only one concern among many. Second, if we reworked Blake's objection to ask: "would this be unfair?", I think my answer is...yeah, maybe! If I decide not to have children primarily because childcare is expensive, and after it's too late to reverse course, childcare is free, I might have legitimate grounds for this being unfair—in much the same way that I've suggested we might think about the student debt example.
But isn't this a sort of leveling-down? That is, doesn't this sound like "if I have to suffer, so should you"? Well, no. There are many different options--including giving relief to everyone, instead of just some. And, again, the view is not that we should prioritize keeping people worse off. There are just many more options here.
To some—like the Nathan Robinson tweet above—the idea that debt cancelation is unfair seems tantamount to saying "we shouldn't make things better for people now, because others have suffered in the past". Again, that's not the argument. The argument is that two people, at a given time, made decisions in very similar contexts, and were treated differently at later stages. The idea that it's unfair to long-ago college students is just not relevant here.
For the non-philosophers reading this, a bit of jargon is helpful here: a policy or action being unfair, in my view, makes it pro tanto wrong. Basically, this means that it points in the direction of being wrong; and, absent any other considerations, it would be wrong. Breaking a promise is pro tanto wrongful; but if I break a promise in order to save a bystander's life, then the action that involved my breaking a promise was all things considered justified, or all things considered right—i.e., the right thing to do, despite it still being wrong in some smaller way. In other words, something can be pro tanto wrong, or something can count pro tanto against an action, but the action still be justified all things considered.
This is what I think is going on with the debt unfairness case. If you're persuaded by my argument above, it might be that debt cancelation is (or would have been) unfair, at least to some. And yet, that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done. Why? Well, two broad reasons, both with the same underlying rationale: this unfairness makes it wrong, pro tanto, but other features make it all things considered justified.
First, a countervailing consideration is that debt relief, though unfair to some, is massively beneficial to many, many more; and we should celebrate programs that not only help people who are struggling financially, but also those that will (plausibly) generate important downstream benefits to the economy from which all are likely to benefit. So, yes, it's unfair to some; but fairness is only one consideration among many.
Second, a countervailing consideration is that much of the "financial aid" (i.e., tax cuts, debt relief, etc.) over the past few years has accrued to the wealthiest few, particularly those who made downright unethical decisions (read: big banks). Focusing on student loan debt relief balances things back in favor of middle- and low-income folks who made the government-promoted decision to obtain higher education, rather than those who risked massive parts of our economy for sport, and forced the rest of us to bear the cost of that for years and years. (Incidentally, when Mitch McConnell and others—mostly Republicans, it seems—tell us that debt relief is a "slap in the face" to other folks, it feels to me like he's aiming to pit working class folks against each other, diverting attention away from those who continue to make enormous profits off of those very groups, often with substantial government assistance.) So, one way to think of student loan debt relief is like this: sure, it's unfair in some ways; but in other ways, it corrects for a massive unfairness—albeit imperfectly.
The upshot, then, is that it might be true that debt relief is unfair, but that doesn't settle the question of whether it ought to be done. I think we can think it is unfair, though not grossly so, and yet still believe that it ought to have been done—morally speaking.
Who cares? Well, I think this sort of nuance can really help us out during debates like these. For one thing, as I've tried to show, people seem to be really sloppy in their thinking about fairness—on both sides of the argument. So, even though the decision is apparently done, I think there are some takeaways here that might help us think more sharply about stuff like this in the future.
But I might also be wrong about a lot of this! I trust you, dear reader, will tell me if you think that's the case.
Recommendations:
Watch: There are two great documentaries on Woodstock 99—one on HBO (oops, I mean Max) and a three-part docuseries on Netflix. There's considerable overlap between them, but, interestingly, they each diagnose what went wrong with Woodstock in slightly different ways. Spoiler: The HBO one suggests that toxic masculinity is the central culprit, while the Netflix one suggests it's more a function of corporate greed. I think both are true, and I find each of them serves to explain some other features of our culture that are still with us. Recommend both.
Watch: the new season of I Think You Should Leave rules. The new Black Mirror is fun, though I haven't finished it yet. Dave is amazing and sweet. Jury Duty was really fun and heartwarming. The final season of Ted Lasso was disappointing. (Do we want men's emotions to be a punchline, or do we want them to be taken seriously?)
Watch: Our team participated, once again, in Cinemadrome's semi-annual film challenge. This time, the task was to take something from the public domain and make it in another genre. We did the original Little Shop of Horrors in the genre of an instructional film. The challenge only allows you a few weeks to make the film, and it's deliberately low/no budget, so bear that in mind—we aren't aiming for Hollywood production over here! Alas, we didn't win an award this time (we usually do!), but we had a lot of folks coming up and saying they enjoyed it, so that's enough for me.
Listen: Pinegrove (RIP) live album; new Unknown Mortal Orchestra; Surprise Chef; rediscovering DJ Shadow. Enjoyed recent concerts from Mdou Moctar, Caroline Polachek, Orville Peck, and Iron and Wine.
Read: This great piece about the rise of Andrew Tate, which is frightening; currently enjoying Either/Or by Elif Batuman; just recently finished (and recommend) The Will to Change by bell hooks.
Eat/Drink: I recently had a "Redneck Reuben" at Pulaski Heights BBQ here in Athens, which is barbecue bacon, pimento cheese, ranch, and collards on Texas Toast. Loved it. In terms of new (to me) drinks, I enjoyed a nice Part-Time Lover recently, and for the non-alc folks, we made some lovely Limonada recently as well. Nice refreshing summer drink.
Eat: Also, I've been really into—I don't really think there's a name for this—but, restaurants inside of other things? So, there's a place here called ADD Drug, which is a pharmacy with a lunch counter; there's a breakfast sandwich place here called Biscuit Basket that's inside a gas station; and there are several great taquerias in town that are inside of Mexican supermarkets, gas stations, etc. So, the recommendation is: go try to find some nice food inside of unconventional places.
—JVD