Department of Education's New Report on Student-Loan Casualties: A Dr. Strangelove Moment

You remember that great scene from the movie Dr. Strangelove.  U.S. President Muffley (played by Peter Sellers) worries about the consequences of nuclear war with Russia. "You're talking about mass murder," President Muffley muses.

But General Turgidson (played by George C. Scott) is not concerned. "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops."

Betsy DeVos is our modern day General Turgidson. The student loan program is shattering the lives of about 20 million Americans.  But in DeVos' mind, that's a small price to pay for a program that enriches her buddies in the for-profit college industry.

And so without further ado, I will summarize the Department of Education's most recent report on the student-loan debacle.

Income-Driven Repayment Plans. As DOE reports, more and more distressed student borrowers are being herded into income-driven repayment plans (IDRPs). As of June, 7.1 million people are enrolled in IDRPs, a 20 percent increase from just a year ago.

Student borrowers in IDRPs are America's new serfs. They pay a percentage of their income for 20 or 25 years to repay the student loans they took on to attend some raggedy-ass college that didn't prepare them for a job.

Of course, IDRP monthly payments are generally low. In fact, IDRP participants who live below the poverty line make monthly payments of zero. But virtually everyone in these plans--7.1 million suckers--will die without ever paying back their loans. In fact, for most of them, their loan balances are going up with each passing month due to unpaid accruing interest.

Borrower Defense to Repayment. According to DOE, 166,000 student borrowers filed so-called "borrower defense" claims. These claimants are seeking loan forgiveness on the grounds they were defrauded by the colleges they attended. Thousands of these claims were filed by people who attended just two for-profit institutions that went bankrupt: Corinthian Colleges and ITT Tech.

As of June 30, two thirds of these claims are still pending, and only 80 percent of the processed claims were approved.  Meanwhile, borrowers who have pending claims are still obligated to make their monthly loan payments.

Delinquency Rates. Delinquency rates are down slightly, DOE assures us, but almost a quarter million borrowers defaulted on their student loans during the third quarter of this year.  That's 2755 people going into default every day.  A high percentage of these defaulters attended for-profit colleges. But apparently those casualties are acceptable to Betsy DeVos.

Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.

Hundreds of thousands of student debtors have taken jobs in the public sector in belief that their student loans would be forgiven after 10 years under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF). It now seems they were deluded.

PSLF was enacted by Congress in October 2007, so the first people entitled to PSLF relief became eligible in October 2017. So far, 28,000 people have applied for PSLF relief, but only 300 claims have been approved and only 96 people have actually had their loans forgiven!

If Betsy DeVos and her gang of former for-profit-college hacks continue to refuse to implement PSLF in good faith, hundreds of thousands of college borrowers who relied on PSLF will suffer incalculable hardship.  For example, thousands of people have graduated from third- and fourth-tier law schools with six-figure debt, and they can't find law jobs in the private sector that pay enough to service their student-loan obligations. As Paul Campos pointed out in his book Don't Go to Law School (Unless), PSLF is these people's only viable option for paying off their law-school loans.

Conclusion: The Student Loan Program is in Fine Shape: "10 to 20 Million Casualties, Tops!"

DOE's own data shows us that the federal student loan program is a disaster: high default rates, income-driven repayment plans that don't allow people to pay off their loans,  borrower-defense rules that DOE administers incompetently, and a PSLF program that DOE refuses to implement in good faith. Meanwhile, the for-profit gang is getting rich.

Literally, there are at least 20 million casualties. Betsy DeVos must think 20 million casualties is acceptable, but I do not. Why don't our  politicians--Republicans and Democrats-- begin to behave like grownups and impeach Betsy DeVos, who is running DOE like a character in Dr. Strangelove.

10 to 20 million casualties--tops!

ECMC screws up: Couldn't prove Mr. Rowe owed on his daughter's student loan

Educational Credit Management Corporation [ECMC]  is the Department of Education's premier student-loan debt collector.

ECMC has appeared in literally hundreds of student-loan bankruptcy cases, and it knows all the legal tricks for defeating a student-loan borrower's efforts to discharge student loans in bankruptcy. And most of the time ECMC wins its cases.

But not always.

 Last June, Judge Catherine Furay, a Wisconsin bankruptcy judge, ruled in favor of Thomas Rowe, who sought to discharge a student loan he said he didn't owe. ECMC claimed Rowe signed a student loan on behalf of his daughter. Rowe said he didn't sign the loan and that any signature appearing on the loan document must be a forgery.

Rowe declared bankruptcy and filed an adversary proceeding to discharge the student loan ECMC claimed he owed. A trial date was set, but neither Rowe nor ECMC filed the disputed loan document with the court.

Judge Furay ordered the parties to file briefs on the burden of proof and concluded the burden was on ECMC to prove Rowe owed on the student loan. Since ECMC did not produce the loan document, Judge Furay discharged the debt.

What the hell happened?

How could ECMC,, the most sophisticated student-loan debt collector in the entire United States, not produce the primary document showing Rowe had taken out a student loan?

I can think of only two plausible explanations. First, ECMC may have had the loan document in its possession but didn't produce it because the document would show Rowe was right-- he hadn't signed the loan agreement.

Second, the loan document may have gotten lost as ownership of the underlying debt passed from one financial agency to another.

Here is the lesson I take away from the Rowe case. If you are a student-loan debtor being pursued by the U.S. Department of Education or one of  DOE's debt collectors, demand to see the documents showing you owe on the student loan.

 Most times, the creditor will have the loan document, but not always.  And, as Judge Furay ruled, the burden is on the creditor to show a loan is owed.

And so I extend my hearty congratulations to Thomas Rowe, who defeated ECMC, the most ruthless student-loan debt collector in the business. Thanks to Judge Furay's decision, Mr. Rowe can tell ECMC to go suck an egg.

References

Rowe v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, No. 17-0033-cf ( Bankr. W.D. Wis. June 28, 2018) (unpublished).

LGBTQ Student Organizations and the Equal Access Act: Betsy DeVos Has No Power to Restrict the Protections of the EAA

By Richard Fossey & Todd A. DeMitchell 

Originally posted at Berkley Forum, the blog site for Georgetown University's Center For Religion, Peace and World Affairs.

In 1984, Congress passed the Equal Access Act, which prohibits secondary schools that receive federal funds from discriminating against non-curriculum-related student groups based on their political, philosophical, or religious viewpoint. Thus, if a high school permits any non-curriculum-related student group to use its school facilities, it must allow other student groups equal access, without regard to the group’s viewpoint.

In adopting the EAA, Congress intended to advance the right of Christian student groups to use school facilities during non-instructional hours; and it clearly accomplished that goal. In Board of Education v. Mergens, a 1990 opinion, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the EAA, rejecting a school district’s argument that the Act violated the Establishment Clause.

Litigation Involving Gay Student Groups Seeking to Exercise Their Rights Under the EAA

Not long after the law was passed, LGBTQ student groups, which sometimes called themselves Gay Straight Alliances (GSA), sought the same rights as religious groups under the EAA, and a few school districts refused to recognize them. The GSAs sued in federal court, and they almost always won.

For example, a California school district argued that a GSA would introduce discussions of sexuality that were age inappropriate and would disrupt the school environment. A federal court rejected that argument, noting that a student club that focuses on sexuality might actually prevent school disruptions that can take place when students are harassed based on sexual orientation.

Likewise, a Kentucky school district maintained that it was legally entitled to shut down a GSA because the school board’s recognition of the group had triggered a boycott by anti-gay students. But a federal court disagreed. To allow disruptive anti-gay students to nullify the GSA’s legal right to meet, the court ruled, would amount to a “heckler’s veto” of constitutionally protected speech.

Ten years ago, we analyzed all published court decisions involving GSAs seeking to exercise their rights under the EAA, and we identified only one decision in which a federal court allowed a school district to ban a GSA while recognizing other student clubs. In Caudillo v. Lubbock Independent School District, a Texas school district refused to recognize a gay student group and the group filed suit. A federal district court upheld the school district’s decision on the grounds that the gay student group had created a web site with links to other web sites that the judge ruled were obscene.

Since our article was published, there have been a few more lawsuits filed by GSAs seeking recognition from school districts under the EAA, and they have generally prevailed. For example, in a 2016 case, a Florida school district refused to recognize a GSA organized by middle-school students on the grounds the EAA applied only to secondary schools and the district’s middle school was not a secondary school. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument, ruling emphatically that a middle school is a secondary school subject to the EAA.

Can Betsy DeVos Diminish LGBTQ Students’ Rights under EAA?

Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s Secretary of Education, has diminished the U.S. Department of Education’s role in protecting the civil rights of LGBTQ students. As the Brookings Institution reported, DeVos has consistently declined to say whether DOE will protect LGBTQ students from discrimination. Earlier this year, the Department’s Office of Civil Rights announced it would stop accepting complaints about transgender students not having access to school bathrooms that match their gender identity. Is it possible DeVos might restrict LGBTQ students’ legal right to form GSAs in public high schools?

We do not believe DeVos can water down the EAA’s protections for GSAs, even if she tries to do so. The EAA is a federal statute that Congress is unlikely to repeal or amend, and federal courts are virtually unanimous in holding that the EAA guarantees the right of GSAs to organize in all public high schools where other non-curriculum related groups have formed.

Perhaps more importantly, the EAA has been in place for 34 years, and few school districts have refused to abide by its provisions. All across the United States, conservative Christian student groups and GSAs have met on high school campuses with little or no friction, and most school authorities are more than willing to allow GSAs to organize and meet.

In short, Betsy DeVos may reduce DOE’s role in protecting the civil rights of LGBTQ students, but she cannot extinguish their legal right to form GSAs in public high schools. Happily, the federal courts will stop her if she tries.

Wildfires ravage California and student debtors groan under mountains of debt. Meanwhile scholars debate transphobia

More than 5,000 wildfires burned in California this summer, incinerating more than 1 million acres of forests and several thousand homes.  For Californians, 2018 is truly the year of the holocaust fire.

Approximately 45 million Americans groan under the burden of $1.5 trillion in outstanding student loans. As one dentist has demonstrated, it is now possible for a person to accumulate $1 million in student-loan debt. For millions of people, student loans have incinerated their financial future--a holocaust of another kind.

Meanwhile American scholars debate this important issue: Is the acronym 'TERF' a transphobic slur?

If you don't know what TERF means, you're probably a misogynistic bastard, and  you're definitely uncool.  So I will tell you. TERF is the acronym for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist." As Colleen Flaherty explained in Inside Higher Ed, the term describes "a subgroup of feminists who believe that the interests of cisgender women (those who are born with vaginas) don't necessarily intersect with those of transgender women (primarily those born with penises)."

Here's the nut of the debate. Some feminists believe that the experience of having lived as a male for some time is important to feminist discourse, "but some trans scholars and allies say that notion is of itself transphobic, since it means that trans women are somehow different from women, or that they're not women at all."

As Inside Higher Ed informs me, Rachel McKinnon, an assistant professor of philosophy at the College of Charleston, argues that TERF is "a modern form of propaganda where so-called trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) are engaged in a political project to deny that trans women are women--and thereby to exclude trans women from women-only spaces, services, and protections."

This is all inside baseball to me. Nevertheless, as I read the Inside Higher Ed article about this debate, I became curious about the College of Charleston, where Professor McKinnon teaches. I learned that C of C is a public institution of about 11,000 students located in Charleston, South Carolina. The college accepts almost 4 out of 5 applicants for admission and it costs a South Carolina student about $29,000 a year to study there (tuition, room and board).

An out-of-state student, however, will pay considerably more to study at C of C: about $49,000 a year. So a Californian who enrolls at the College of  Charleston to study TERF bigotry with Professor McKinnon would have to borrow a considerable amount of money--at least $200,000--to get a 4-year degree.

Would that be a good investment? You can answer the question for yourself. As for me, I question whether scholarly debates about trans-exclusionary radical feminism is a good use of public money in these unquiet times when 5,000 wildfires blaze in California, 72,000 people died from opioid overdoses last year, and millions of  Americans struggle to pay their student loans.

Professor Rachel McKinnon speaks out against TERFs

Student Loan Ombudsman at CFPB Can’t Take the BS Anymore. Quits in Scathing Letter Telling Director Mulvaney He Sucks. Essay by Steve Rhode

By Steve Rhode

Seth Frotman, an Assistant Director and Student Loan Ombudsman at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, told CFPB Director Mick Mulvaney to shove it and quit in an honest resignation. His experience inside the slowly gutted consumer protection agency was enough to say he’s mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

Frotman’s resignation letter said, “It is with great regret that I tender my resignation as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Student Loan Ombudsman. It has been the honor of a lifetime to spend the past seven years working to protect American consumers; first under Holly Petraeus as the Bureau defended America’s military families from predatory lenders, for-profit colleges, and other unscrupulous businesses, and most recently leading the Bureau’s work on behalf of the 44 million Americans struggling with student loan debt. However, after 10 months under your leadership, it has become clear that consumers no longer have a strong, independent Consumer Bureau on their side.


Each year, tens of millions of student loan borrowers struggle to stay afloat. For many, the CFPB has served as a lifeline — cutting through red tape, demanding systematic reforms when borrowers are harmed, and serving as the primary financial regulator tasked with holding student loan companies accountable when they break the law.

The hard work and commitment of the immensely talented Bureau staff has had a tremendous impact on students and their families. Together, we returned more than $750 million to harmed student loan borrowers in communities across the country and halted predatory practices that targeted millions of people in pursuit of the American Dream.

The challenges of student debt affect borrowers young and old, urban and rural, in professions ranging from infantrymen to clergymen. Tackling these challenges should know no ideology or political persuasion. I had hoped to continue this critical work in partnership with you and your staff by using our authority under law to stand up for student loan borrowers trapped in a broken system. Unfortunately, under your leadership, the Bureau has abandoned the very consumers it is tasked by Congress with protecting. Instead, you have used the Bureau to serve the wishes of the most powerful financial companies in America.


As the Bureau official charged by Congress with overseeing the student loan market, I have seen how
the current actions being taken by Bureau leadership are hurting families. In recent months, the Bureau has made sweeping changes, including:

Undercutting enforcement of the law. It is clear that the current leadership of the Bureau has abandoned its duty to fairly and robustly enforce the law. The Bureau’s new political leadership has repeatedly undercut and undermined career CFPB staff working to secure relief for consumers. These actions will affect millions of student loan borrowers, including those harmed by the company that dominates this market. In addition, when the Education Department unilaterally shut the door to routine CFPB oversight of the largest student loan companies, the Bureau’s current leadership folded to political pressure. By undermining the Bureau’s own authority to oversee the student loan market, the Bureau has failed borrowers who depend on independent oversight to halt bad practices and bring accountability to the student loan industry.

Undermining the Bureau’s independence. The current leadership of the Bureau has made its priorities clear — it will protect the misguided goals of the Trump Administration to the detriment of student loan borrowers. For nearly seven years, I was proud to be part of an agency that served no party and no administration; the Consumer Bureau focused solely on doing what was right for American consumers. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Recently, senior leadership at the Bureau blocked efforts to call attention to the ways in which the actions of this administration will hurt families ripped off by predatory for-profit schools. Similarly, senior leadership also blocked attempts to alert the Department of Education to the far-reaching harm borrowers will face due to the Department’s unprecedented and illegal attempts to preempt state consumer laws and shield student loan companies from accountability for widespread abuses. At every turn, your political appointees have silenced warnings by those of us tasked with standing up for service members and students.

Shielding bad actors from scrutiny. The current leadership of the Bureau has turned its back on young people and their financial futures. Where we once found efficient and innovative ways to collaborate across government to protect consumers, the Bureau is now content doing the bare minimum for them while simultaneously going above and beyond to protect the interests of the biggest financial companies in America. For example, late last year, when new evidence came to light showing that the nation’s largest banks were ripping off students on campuses across the country by saddling them with legally dubious account fees, Bureau leadership suppressed the publication of a report prepared by Bureau staff. When pressed by Congress about this, you chose to leave students vulnerable to predatory practices and deny any responsibility to bring this information to light.

American families need an independent Consumer Bureau to look out for them when lenders push products they know cannot be repaid, when banks and debt collectors conspire to abuse the courts and force families out of their homes, and when student loan companies are allowed to drive millions of Americans to financial ruin with impunity.

In my time at the Bureau I have traveled across the country, meeting with consumers in over three dozen states, and with military families from over 100 military units. I have met with dozens of state law enforcement officials and, more importantly, I have heard directly from tens of thousands of individual student loan borrowers.

A common thread ties these experiences together — the American Dream under siege, told through the heart wrenching stories of individuals caught in a system rigged to favor the most powerful financial interests. For seven years, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fought to ensure these families received a fair shake as they as they strived for the American Dream.

Sadly, the damage you have done to the Bureau betrays these families and sacrifices the financial futures of millions of Americans in communities across the country.

For these reasons, I resign effective September 1, 2018. Although I will no longer be Student Loan Ombudsman, I remain committed to fighting on behalf of borrowers who are trapped in a broken student loan system.

Sincerely,
Seth Frotman
Assistant Director 5 Student Loan Ombudsman
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – Source

Steve Rhode, the Get Out of Debt Guy

`*****

This essay by Steve Rhode originally appeared on August 27, 2018 at Getoutofdebtguy.org I highly recommend Mr. Rhode's blog site--a robust ongoing commentary on consumer debt issues.

Bob Hertz, Editor of New Laws for America, Has Some Good Suggestions for Solving the Student Loan Crisis

Bob Hertz, who manages a website titled New Laws for America (newlawsforamerica.blogspot/) sent me his list of legal reforms to solve the student loan crisis.

I don't agree with all of Mr. Hertz's proposal, but all are worthy of consideration. I am listing some of his suggestions:

1) Student borrowers should not be required to make payments on their student loans until they make at least $40,000.

2) No interest should accrue on student loans. In fact, interest on student loans should be abolished altogether.

3) All student debt owed by borrowers or cosigners over age 60 should be forgiven.

4) Students debtors should have access to the bankruptcy courts.

5) The following types of academic programs should be excluded from the student-loan program:

• Third-tier law schools
• MBA programs
• Graduate programs in liberal arts
• for-profit vocational schools
• loans for living expenses

Near the conclusion of Mr. Hertz's list of recommendation, he makes this trenchant observation, which I quote:

Let's quit harassing and destroying our own citizens. The Federal Reserve was rich enough to buy up billions of 'toxic assets' after the bank meltdown of 2008. We can do the same with toxic student loans, which are destructive to more individuals than subprime mortgages. You an walk away from an unaffordable house. That destroys your credit but your financial life can be rebuilt.  These student loans are forever. 

I will take this opportunity to list my own list of student-loan reforms, which are similar to Mr. Hertz's reforms, but not identical.

1. Distressed student borrowers should be able to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy like any other nonsecured consumer debt.

2) The for-profit college industry should be shut down completely.

3) The Department of Education should be forbidden from garnishing Social Security checks from elderly student-loan defaulters.

4) The Parent PLUS program, which loans money to parents of college students, should be abolished; and private lenders should be prohibited by law from requiring student debtors to obtain co-signers for their loans. In addition, all student-loan cosigners should be immediately released from any legal obligation to pay back student loans that were taken out to benefit a third party (usually the child or grandchild of the cosigner).

I have called for reforms again and again, but I take this opportunity to state them again along with the reforms proposed by Bob Hertz.

Ben Miller, where the hell ya been? Center for American Progress finally wakes up to the magnitude of student-loan crisis

Ben Miller, senior director of the Center for American Progress, reminds me of a fuddy duddy who falls asleep at a wild party in a friend's apartment.  Just as the party starts to get interesting, he nods off on a pile of party goers' coats.

 Meanwhile, the party spins out of control: fights break out, spontaneous trysts are consummated in closets and spare bedrooms, furniture is broken, lamps are shattered. When the fuddy duddy awakes, the apartment is in shambles and the police are cuffing drunken revelers and hauling them off to jail.

"Did I miss something?", the fuddy duddy asks as he rubs the sleep from his eyes.

Miller wrote an op ed essay for the New York Times on August 8 titled "The Student Debt Problem is Worse Than We Imagined?" Ya think? Where the hell have you been, Mr. Miller?  You're like the guy who went out to buy popcorn just before the steamy scene in Last Tango in Paris.

So here is what Mr. Miller said in his op essay: student loan default rates are much higher than the Department of Education reports. I hate to break it to you, Ben; but people have known that for years. Everybody knows the for-profit colleges have been hiding their default rates by pushing their former students into deferment programs to disguise the fact the suckers weren't paying on their loans.

In fact, the problem is probably worse that Miller described it in the Times. Looney and Yannelis reported in 2015 that the five-year default rate for the 2009 cohort of student borrowers was 28 percent (Table 8).  And the five year default rate for the 2009 cohort of for-profit students was 47 percent--almost double what Miller reported for the 2012 cohort--only 25 percent.

Admittedly, Miller is looking at the 2012 cohort of debtors, while Looney and Yannelis analyzed the 2009 cohort. But surely no on believes the student-loan problem got better in recent years. Everyone knows the crisis is getting worse.

Miller's analysis briefly mentions the federal push to put student borrowers in deferment plans,  but that problem is more serious than Miller intimates. In fact 6 million student borrowers are in income-based repayment plans (IBRPs) and are making payments so small their loan balances are getting larger and larger with each passing month due to accruing interest.  For all practical purposes, the IBRP participants are also in default.

But Mr. Miller can be forgiven for waking up late to smell the coffee. Perhaps Miller, like the New York Times that published his essay, was so distracted by Stormy Daniels and the Russians that he was late to notice that American higher education is going down the toilet.  And surely, we can all agree that the person pressing down on the toilet-bowl handle  is Betsy DeVos.

What happened while Center for American Progress was snoozing?

References

Adam Looney & Constantine Yannelis, A crisis in student loans? How changes in the characteristics of borrowers and in the institutions they attended contributed to rising default rates. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution (2015). Accessible at: http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/papers/2015/looney-yannelis-student-loan-defaults

Ben Miller. The Student Debt Problem is Worse Than We Imagined. New York Times, August 8, 2018.