The Inuits Flipped a Duck at the Federal Government in 1961: A Suggestion for Mass Protests Against the Abuses of the Federal Student Loan Program

 In May 1961, the Inupiat people of Barrow, Alaska staged their first mass act of civil disobedience in the long and noble history of the Inuit people. Perhaps their community protest offers some lessons for the millions of Americans who suffer under the burden of crushing student-loan debt.

The Barrow Duck-In of 1961

Here's what happened. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, ratified by Congress in 1918, spring hunting of migratory waterfowl was made illegal in the United States. The ban on spring hunting was justified as a way to protect migratory birds during the spring nesting season.

But no one consulted the Inuit people of Alaska about the spring-hunting ban. The Inuit had hunted ducks and geese for centuries and depended on spring waterfowl hunting to obtain essential food after long arctic winters when their food supplies were depleted.

For almost a half century, the federal government had not enforced the Migratory Bird Treaty Act against the Inuit. But in 1961, three years after Alaska became a state, federal game wardens began arresting spring duck hunters. The Inuit protested to everyone they could find at both the state and federal level, but no one would listen.  Federal bureaucrats were convinced that Eskimos could buy their food in the grocery store just like everyone else and that it would actually be cheaper for them to buy store-bought food than shotgun shells.

On Saturday, May 31, Alaska state legislator John Nusunginya, himself an Inupiat, met with two federal game wardens in Barrow to explain the Inuits' point of view. As it happened, Nusunginya was carrying a shotgun as he and the wardens were strolling down a street in Barrow. When a flight of eider ducks flew by, Nusunginya "pumped a couple of them down" and was promptly arrested.

The Inuit faced down the federal government in 1961

The Inuits quickly organized a town meeting in the local theater and invited Harry Pinkham, one of the federal game wardens, to attend. When he arrived, 138 Inuit men each presented him with a duck and a signed statement confessing to hunting ducks out of season.

Pinkham admitted that he couldn't arrest them all: "I can't handle that much paperwork" (Burwell, p. 6). And of course federal agents had to preserve all the evidence, which meant flying nine sacks of ducks down to Fairbanks.

As I heard the story from an Inuit man who claimed to have participated in the "duck-in," Inuit women turned themselves in as well, forcing the federal government to arrest every adult in Barrow and take on childcare responsibilities for the entire village. But this recollection may be apocryphal.

Michael Burwell's account of the duck-in, presented to the Alaska Historical Society in 2004, is undoubtedly the most accurate rendition of these events; and apparently no one was actually jailed.

But the Inuit had made their point.  As one Inuit man recalled:

We were so well organized that if they had arrested every man in Barrow, the womenfolk were going to be next. And then the children. At the time there was not a jail big enough in the state of Alaska. They would have had to have a C124 coming in and out for days to move Barrow out to jails in the States! (Burwell, 2004, p. 7)

Eventually, the Inuit won a legal exemption to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which they enjoy to this day.


We Need Mass Protests to Demand Bankruptcy Reform for Student-Loan Debtors
Student-loan debtors should take a lesson from the Inuits' creative act of civil disobedience.  Currently, there are 7 million student-loan debtors who have defaulted on their student loans; and 9 million more have obtained economic hardship deferments and are not making loan payments. Millions of these people are suffering under the burden of massive student loans. Some have had their paychecks garnished, and others have had their income-tax refund checks seized. More than 50,000 people had  their Social Security checks garnished last year.

For the most part, these miserable people suffer in silence. The colleges and universities have their lobbyists and lawyers, as do the banks and the student-loan collection companies. They protect their interests in the halls of Congress and in the courts.

And when overburdened student-loan debtor attempt to discharge their loans in bankruptcy, the federal government and the loan collectors send their attorneys to court to stop them from getting relief. The U.S. Department of Education actually opposed bankruptcy relief for a quadriplegic man who was working full time but could not make enough money to sustain himself because he had to pay a full-time person to feed him, dress him, and drive him to and from work.

The federal government and its loan-collecting henchmen can easily beat down a few lonely souls who attempt to obtain relief in bankruptcy court. Three or four lawyers are generally enough to squelch the intrepid individuals who file adversary actions to discharge their debts.  And the federal government and the scholarly commentators spread the word that it is almost impossible to discharge a student loan in bankruptcy, so most insolvent debtors don't even try to shed their loans in bankruptcy.

But change is in the air. Several bankruptcy courts have ruled sympathetically for student-loan debtors over the past couple of years; and a couple of research articles have reported that student-loan debtors actually stand a pretty good chance of obtaining partial or total relief from their student-loan debts if they file for bankruptcy and bring adversary actions against their creditors.

So what would happen if every student-loan debtor who is truly insolvent and who took out student loans in good faith filed for bankruptcy and brought an adversary action for debt relief? And what would happen if these insolvent debtors filed for bankruptcy without a lawyer, relying on the facts of their cases and the sympathy of a bankruptcy judge in the hope of obtaining justice?

I tell you what would happen. If 1 million worthy individuals filed for bankruptcy during a single year, the whole rotten, stinking, bloated and predatory student loan program would collapse because the federal government and the higher education community would have to publicly admit that the present system is unsustainable. 

Something like an Eskimo flipping a duck at a federal game warden.

References

Michael Burwell. (2004). “Hunger Knows No Law”: Seminal Native Protest and The
Barrow Duck-In of 1961. Alaska Historical Society Meeting, Anchorage, AK. Accessible at: http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/cafe/upload/Hunger-Knows-No-Law-AAAMarch2005Last.pdf

Note: My account of the Inuit Duck-in of 1961 is taken entirely from Mr. Burwell's excellent paper, which is posted on the web.

For Want of a Starbucks, a College Was Lost: Sweet Briar College is Closing Its Doors

Sweet Briar College announced yesterday that it is closing its doors at the end of the academic year.

Sweet Briar is one of those obscure but vaguely elite colleges that average Americans have heard about but are totally clueless about where they are located. Bowdoin? Colgate? Williams? Amherst? Where in the hell are these places?

Sweet Briar College: Too Far From a Starbucks

Well, Sweet Briar is a small liberal arts college for women located in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. It is quite small--less than 600 undergraduates, but it is a lovely place. The college has a horse-riding program, a Study Abroad program, and several notable alumni.

But Sweet Briar is expensive. The sticker price to attend Sweet Briar for a year is just under $35,000 in tuition and fees.  And that doesn't include the cost of oats for your horse or the artisan cheese you will eat when you are studying abroad in France.

According to an article written by Scott Jaschik for Inside Higher Ed, Sweet Briar is closing for several reasons. First, students are less and less enamored with rural colleges. Even though Sweet Briar's campus--located on 3200 rural Virginia acres--is stunningly beautiful, most young people want to be where the action is, which is in the cities.

As Sweet Briar's President James F. Jones Jr. put it, "We are 30 minutes from a Starbucks."

Second, single-sex colleges have fallen out of fashion. Single-sex institutions have been totally wiped out in the public sector after the Supreme Court ruled that Mississippi University for Women and the Virginia Military Institute had discriminated on the basis of sex due to their single-sex admission policies. And most private colleges that started out as single-sex institutions now admit both women and men.

And of course, it is getting harder and harder to determine a student's gender, which makes single-sex admissions policies a bit awkward. The New York Times Magazine ran a story about transgender students at Wellesley that identified some of the complexity of gender issues at a private women's liberal arts college.

Third, it is harder and harder for private colleges that are not in the top tier to make a go of it. As Jaschik's article noted, only about one out of five women who were admitted to Sweet Briar chose to enroll there.

Sweet Briar and most private colleges try to sweeten the deal for potential students by discounting their tuition fees.  At Sweet Briar, the so-called discount rate for attractive first-year students was 62.8 percent in 2014.  That's right--the real cost for selected first-year students was only about one third of the sticker price.

So who pays the sticker price? Only suckers like you, Mom and Pop.

I say good riddance to Sweet Briar and all the overpriced private liberal arts colleges that failed to offer a product that students wanted at a price that families could afford. They have brought their demise on themselves by jacking up the sticker price of tuition and then giving discounts to special students who are selected based on criteria that are less than transparent. These schools have been operating more like used-car dealers than academics in the way they have sought to attract students, and now the jig is up.

Moreover, in my opinion, the vaunted value of a liberal arts education at one of these joints is vastly overrated. Many of the professors at these elite institutions are peddling postmodernism under the guise of a liberal arts education. And you don't need to attend an expensive private college to achieve the wry, edgy cynicism of a postmodernist.  Just watch Jon Stewart on television.

The crucial fact is this: the non-elite private liberal arts colleges are surviving almost totally on the federal student aid program; and students are having to borrow too much money to receive a non-spectacular education from these places.

What will replace Sweet Briar and the other overpriced, private liberal arts colleges as the purveyors of quality post-secondary education? I don't know. But I think it is likely that a great many private liberal arts colleges will close their doors before we figure it out.

References

Scott Jaschik. (2015, March 4). Sweet Briar College will shut down. Inside Higher Ed. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/03/04/sweet-briar-college-will-shut-down

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 478 U.S. 718 (1982).

Ruth Padawer. (2014, October 15). When Women Become Men at Wellesley. New York Times Magazine. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/magazine/when-women-become-men-at-wellesley-college.html?_r=0

Ry Rivard. (2014, July 2). Discount Escalation. Inside Higher Ed. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/07/02/prices-rise-colleges-are-offering-students-steeper-discounts-again

United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996).

Homeless People Borrowing Money to Attend College: Is That a Good Idea?

According to a recent news story, 58,000 homeless people are enrolled in college, a 75 percent increase from just three years ago (Ashtari, 2015). How, you might be asking, are homeless college students paying their tuition bills?

Most, if not all of these hapless college students are eligible to receive Pell Grants based on their economic circumstances and most are probably borrowing money from the federal student-loan program.  At the University of Massachusetts-Boston, a student support center provides free meals for homeless people and guidance on financial aid.

Is this a good idea? Kathleen O'Neill, who runs something called Single Stop USA at Bunker Hill Community College, thinks it's a great idea for homeless people to attend college. "These are people who get it," said Ms. O'Neill. "The way out of poverty is education and they are committed to doing whatever it is they need to do to get there"(as quoted in a Huffington Post article).

Obviously, having homeless students in college works out great for the colleges. They get more tuition-paying students, and the federal student-aid program foots the bill.

I would love to chat but I'm late for my social studies class.

But some colleges have been criticized for recruiting homeless people. A few years ago, Drake College of Business was spotlighted for recruiting homeless people and then paying them a stipend. For a time at least,  homeless students apparently received $350 biweekly stipends so long as they showed up for 80 percent of the classes and received "Cs" for their work.

Drake's president defended the practice of recruiting homeless students. "We do not believe that recruiting at [homeless] shelters is either illegal, unethical, or immoral so long as the recruitment of students from shelters is above board, which it has been," Drake's President Ziad Fadel said of its practice (as quoted in Golden & Hechinger, 2010). Nevertheless, Drake stopped recruiting homeless students.

If homeless people borrowed money to attend college, obtained the training they needed to get good jobs, and then paid off their student loans, this would be a Cinderella story. But my guess is that an awful lot of these 58,000 people will never pay off their student loans. And when they go into default they will be barred from participating further in the federal student aid program.

In my view, a university that feeds homeless people while it helps them fill out financial aid applications sounds a lot like the way religious homeless shelters used to operate. Sure, we'll feed you, but you have to listen to this sermon first. Here's a nice hot meal, but don't spell soup on your FAFSA form.

When I reflect on the fact that 58,000 homeless people are paying tuition with federal student aid money, President Obama's proposal to offer two years of free education at the nation's community colleges sounds like a good idea.

Wouldn't it be better if economically disadvantaged people could get two years of free secondary education or training rather than forcing them to take out student loans to pay their tuition bills--loans very few of them will ever pay back?

References

Shadee Ashtari. A Look Into the 'Double Lives' Of America's Homeless. Huffington Post, December 26, 2014 (updated January 7, 2015. Accessible at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/26/college-student-homeless-boston_n_6145980.html

Daniel Golden & Jon Hechinger. For-Profit N.J. College Halts Recruiting of Homeless. Bloomberg, May 5, 2010. Accessible at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-05-05/drake-for-profit-college-in-new-jersey-will-stop-recruitment-of-homeless

No Statute of Limitations on Student Loan Debt: How Can That Be Justified?



Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. 

                                 Dante Alighieri 

Awhile back, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill passed by the California legislature  that would have expanded the statute of limitations for bringing sexual abuse lawsuits against private schools, including schools operated by the Catholic Church. The law did not apply to sexual abuse claims against public school teachers.


Cartoon Credit: Carol Simpson

In vetoing the statute, Governor Brown invoked ancient principles of fairness that put time limitations on lawsuits. "Statutes of limitation reach back to Roman law and were specifically enshrined in the English common law by the Limitations Act of 1623," Governor Brown wrote in his veto message. "Ever since, and in every state, including California, various limits have been imposed on the time when lawsuits may still be initiated. Even though valid and profoundly important claims are at stake, all jurisdictions have seen fit to bar actions after a lapse of years."

Statutes of Limitations Invoke Ancient Principles of Fairness

Governor Brown correctly stated the law regarding statutes of limitations. It is not fair, as the courts sometimes put it, for aggrieved parties to “sleep on their rights” and then file a lawsuit long after a claim has grown stale, when memories and witnesses may have faded away and critical documents may have been lost. Thus, all states give claimants a specific time limit for filing a lawsuit. If the claimant fails to file within the time limit, the claimant irrevocably loses the right to seek a remedy in court.

Unfortunately for student loan debtors, these ancient principles of fairness do not apply to student loans. In 1991, Congress passed 20 U.S.C. § 1091a, a statute that abolished all limitation periods that might otherwise apply against specified lenders and governmental entities that seek to collect on student loans. As one scholar succinctly summarized the law, “[O]nce a student contracts for a student loan, the student cannot use a statute of limitations as a defense against collection on that loan by the entities listed in the statute—ever” (Roper, 2005, p. 37, emphasis supplied).

The Fabrizio case: Student-Loan Guarantor Attempts to Collect a 25-Year-Old Judgment

In 2010, this harsh federal law was applied in a case against Anthony Fabrizio, who borrowed about $9,000 in the early 1970s to help pay for his postsecondary education (New York State Higher Education Services Corporation v. Fabrizio, 2010). Apparently, Fabrizio did not pay back the money, and the lender obtained a default judgment against him in 1983 for $9,664.63. In 2008, twenty-five years after the debt had been reduced to judgment, the New York State Higher Education Services Corporation, which (through a predecessor agency) had guaranteed Fabrizio’s loan, told Fabrizio to begin paying off the debt or the agency would start garnishing his wages.

Fabrizio tried to persuade a New York court to enter an order declaring that his debt was deemed paid under a New York law stating that a money judgment is presumed to have been paid after 20 years from when the creditor was first entitled to enforce it.

Unhappily for Mr. Fabrizio, a New York appellate court ruled against him, finding that 20 U.S.C. 1091a, abolishing all statutes of limitation that might otherwise protect a defaulted student-loan debtor, overrode the New York statute of limitation.  Fabrizio can still be made to pay back the loan. Presumably, he is also liable for collection fees and more than 30 years of accumulated interest.

Defaulting Student Loan Debtors Have No Place to Hide

Today, there are millions of people who have defaulted on their student loans, and some of those loans are now quite old. Nevertheless, student-loan defaulters are never off the hook for their debt--no matter how old that debt might be.

As the Fabrizio case illustrates, statutes of limitation do not apply to student-loan debts that are guaranteed by the federal government, and a lender can pursue collection at any time, even if the lender took no action for a quarter of a century.

Moreover, unlike most other overburdened debtors, student-loan debtors cannot discharge student loans in bankruptcy unless they can show that failure to discharge their student loans will cause them “undue hardship”  (11. U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B)). As several scholars have observed, it is very difficult for student-loan debtors to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy--even in heart-rending circumstances (Pardo & Lacey, 2009, Fossey, 1997). 

In fact, student-loan debtors who fail to repay their loans can have their Social Security checks garnished, a practice that the Supreme Court approved in the 2005 decision of Lockhart v. United States.  People who took out student loans in their early twenties and never paid them back can see their Social Security income diminished by their failure to discharge their student-loan obligations (Cloud, 2006).

Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here

For millions of college students, the federal student loan program has become a nightmare. Over the years, Congress has passed harsh legislation that has stripped student-loan debtors of traditional legal protections like statutes of limitation and unfettered access to the bankruptcy courts.  As a result, for individuals who default on their student loans, even those who took out their loans in good faith, the famous passage from Dante seems chillingly appropriate: “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.”  

**********

Note: Parts of this essay were taken from an essay originally published in 2010 in Teachers College Record.  The citation for the original article is Richard Fossey & Robert C. Cloud, Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here: Defaulting Student Loan Debtors Have No Place to Hide. Teachers College Record, October 12, 2010 at http://www.tcrecord.org, ID Number: 16195.

References

Chae v. SLM Corporation, 593 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2010).

Cloud, R.C. (2006). Offsetting Social Security benefits to repay student loans: Pay us now or pay us later, Education Law Reporter, 208, 11-21.

Fossey, R. (1997).  "The certainty of hopelessness:" Are courts too harsh toward bankrupt student loan debtors?  Journal of Law and Education, 26, 29-48. 

Garner, B. A. (Ed.). (9^th ed. 2009). Black’s Law Dictionary. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company.

Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005).

Joseph Mack (2006). Nullum Tempus: Governmental immunity to statutes of limitation, laches, and statutes of repose. Defense Counsel Journal, 73, 180-196.

New York Higher Education Services Corporation v. Fabrizio, 900 N.Y.S.2d (A.D. 3 Dept. 2010).

Raphael I. Pardo & Michelle R. Lacey (2009).  The real student-loan scandal: Undue hardship discharge litigation.  American Bankruptcy Law Journal, 83, 179-235.

Glen E. Roper (2005). Eternal student loan liability: Who can sue under 20 U.S.C. 1091a? Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, 20, 35-78.

President Obama proposes a free community college education but the Brookings Institution disapproves

Even a blind hog occasionally finds an acorn, and President Obama finally came up with a good idea for addressing the student-loan crisis--or at least the kernel of a good idea. In his State of the Union address, the President proposed offering a free community-college education to every American.

But the Brookings Institution apparently doesn't like that idea.  Stuart M. Butler authored a piece for Brookings on President Obama's plan and offered these criticisms.

Stuart M. Butler
Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution

First, Mr. Butler argued, "the plan is badly targeted." Providing free community-college education "would mean middle-income and even upper-income, students would get hefty subsidies, even though many do not need the help."

Of course this is true, but public K-12 education is also free to rich and poor alike; and I don't hear anyone complaining. And to suggest that rich kids would pass up elite institutions like Harvard to get a free education at a local community college is absurd.

Second, Mr. Butler argues that community college "is usually a dead end." Here, Mr. Butler stands on firmer ground. It is true that only a small percentage of community-college students obtain two-year degrees; and very few transfer into four-year colleges  and eventually get bachelor's degrees.

Mr. Butler suggests that the federal government should "help states and school districts provide a fuller range of opportunities at the high school and college levels, such as professional credentials, apprenticeships and high-school career academies." Yes, of course; but President Obama's plan doesn't preclude other avenues for providing post-secondary education. In fact, I understood the President's free community-college proposal to incorporate more than just traditional academic programs.

Finally, Mr. Butler offers his flimsiest objection to President Obama's plan--that it might cause high-performing high-school students to "settle" for a free community-college education rather than apply to more elite institutions. Right--like a high school kid with a realistic chance of getting into the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, where Mr. Butler studied, would turn St. Andrews down to get free schooling at Alamo Community College in San Antonio.

So what does Mr. Butler suggest?  He wants bigger Pell Grants that could be used at any institution, presumably meaning the expensive elite colleges where the Brookings Institution's policy wonks went to school, as well as the for-profit colleges that are ripping off low-income young Americans.

And Mr. Butler also wants President Obama to give "more enthusiastic backing to new, low-cost competitors to traditional colleges and universities." Duh, Mr. Butler. Community colleges are low-cost competitors to traditional colleges and universities.

Mr. Butler finished his Brookings puff piece with a flourish. "President Obama would be much wiser," Mr. Butler concluded, "to use his political capital to spur competition and real cost reduction in higher education rather than subsidizing community college education."  Whatever that means.

In my view, President Obama articulated the germ of a good idea--two free years of postsecondary education at the nation's community colleges to anyone who is qualified to enroll.  Of course, the community colleges need to do a much better job of matriculating their students; and the transfer of students from two-year institutions to four-year institutions needs to be made surer and more smooth.

The president calculated that his plan to offer a free community-college education would only cost the federal government about $6 billion a year--about one fifth of what the federal student-aid program is currently pumping into the for-profit college industry. If the federal government would stop propping up the for-profits and support community colleges, the public would actually save money--a lot of money.

On the other hand, if President Obama wants to offer free community-college education as a new feature to our present rickety student-aid program, then his proposal is merely a diversion from the hard task of reform . Unfortunately, I think the president wants to add a $6 billion free community-college plan to an out-of-control federal student aid program that already costs more than $100 billion a year..

References

Stuart M. Butler. Obama's SOTU Free College Plan is Bad for Poor Americans. Brookings Institution, January 20, 2015. Accessible at: http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/01/20-obama-free-community-college-bad-idea-sotu-butler

Susan Dynarski and Daniel Kreisman. Loans for Equal Opportunity: Making Borrowing Work for Today's Students. Hamilton Project, Brookings Institution, October 2013. Accessible at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/10/21%20student%20loans%20dynarski/thp_dynarskidiscpaper_final.pdf


  

More evidence that the New York Times is totally clueless about the Student-Loan Crisis

Today's New York Times contained a full-page advertisement  (on page A22) with this message: "What our reporters are reading can be just as insightful as what they're writing." The advertisement contains a large color photo of Times writer David Carr wearing those round, horn-rimmed spectacles that people wear in Woody Allen movies--spectacles that convey sensitivity and deep intelligence.

Of course, the Times ad is true: What Times reporters read can be insightful. The problem is that the Times reporters are not reading enough and they are reading the wrong things.

And here's a case in point.  On the front page of today's Times is an article about the economic downturn Alaska is experiencing as a result of the recent drop in oil prices.  The article's author, Kirk Johnson, reports that "historians and economists say" that Alaska's economic crisis is unprecedented "in modern times."

That is simply not accurate. I lived in Alaska in the mid-1980s when oil prices turned down. Alaska's economy went into a tail spin, with a huge number of property foreclosures and several bank failures. I recall standing on a street corner in downtown Anchorage and viewing three financial institutions with plastic sheeting spread across their names because they had collapsed and been closed by federal financial regulators.

So what is happening in Alaska right is not unprecedented in modern times; and if "historians and commentators" told Times reporter Johnson that, they are certainly incompetent.

But that Times inaccuracy is a small matter.  More important is a pollyannaish article in last Sunday's Times about the student debt crisis. Times reporter Kevin Carey wrote favorably and uncritically about federal legislation that allows students to extend their student-loan payments out over 25 years. Apparently, Carey took a positive perspective on this development  because long-term repayment programs will reduce student-loan borrowers' monthly payments to a more manageable level.

 Carey ended his article by remarking that the federal government will probably replace the states as  the "primary financier" of American higher education. "Given how much unnecessary financial hardship has been imposed on students," Carey wrote, "this is a welcome trend." And Carey ends on this wholly unwarranted optimistic note: "The sense of pervasive student loan anxiety that characterizes much of the contemporary higher education conversation could become a relic of an older time."

What baloney! Essentially Carey has portrayed the federal push to get college student-loan borrowers  to sign up for long-term repayment plans as an entirely wholesome development.  And that simply is not correct.

First of all, the prospect of former students taking 20 to 25 years to pay off their student loans should be unsettling to everyone in the American higher education community, no matter how reasonable borrowers' monthly payments are. Surely when Congress adopted the first student-loan legislation back in the 1960s, its members never dreamed that 25-year repayment plans might someday become the norm.

In essence, as I have said before, long-term income-based repayment plans are turning Americans into sharecroppers, paying a portion of their earnings to the government for the majority of their working lives for the privilege of attending college. Who could be happy about such a prospect?

Second, as currently structured, long-term repayment plans operate as a perverse incentive for colleges to keep raising their tuition. Why should colleges try to keep their costs down when students can simply borrow more money to pay for tuition hikes and then pay it back in modest monthly payments over 25 years?

Third, long-term repayment plans remove incentives on students to minimize their borrowing. What difference does it make to students whether they borrow $30,000 to attend college (the current average) or $50,000 when the amount of their monthly loan payments will be based on their income and not the amount they borrowed?

Why has the Obama administration's push for long-term repayment plans been received so favorably around the country? I will tell you why. The only voices that are heard concerning the student-loan crisis are the voices of the insiders: colleges and universities, intellectually bankrupt think tanks like the Brookings Institution,and higher education's shamelessly self-interested constituency organizations like the College Board and the American Council on Education.

The people who are being injured by the federal student loan program have no voice; they are suffering in silence while working at low-income service jobs and fending of the federal government's hired loan collection agencies--which are making tons of money chasing down student-loan defaulters.

The Brookings Institution, in one of its typically vapid policy papers, argued for having people's student-loan payments taken out of their pay checks so that they would simply become another income deduction, like health insurance and Social Security.

And friends, that day will some day come. And when that happens, it will be apparent to everyone that the federal student loan program, which was intended to help worthy young Americans get a college education regardless of their income status, has become a massive fraud perpetuated on the American people by the higher education industry and the federal government.

If we continue in the direction we are going--and we are actually accelerating our headlong drive toward catastrophe--American higher education will be destroyed. But our policy makers, our legislators, and our college and university presidents don't care. By the time this time bomb explodes--and explode it will--all the people who engineered this disaster will be retired, writing their memoirs and drinking bourbon beside the golf courses of their gated entry retirement communities. The fact that these empty-headed bozos destroyed our nation's once premier system of colleges and universities will bother them not at all.

References

Kevin Carey. Helping to Lift the Burden of Student Debt. New York Times, Sunday Business Section p. 1.

Kirk Johnson. As Oil Falls, Alaska's New Chief Faces a Novel Goa: Frugality. New York Times, January 26, p. 1.

Who turned on the gas at Auschwitz? Reflections on student-loan debtors in bankruptcy

Gas Chamber Door at Auschwitz--Looking Out

My father spent most of World War II as a a prisoner of war in Japanese concentration camps.

He was captured in the Philippines when the entire American army surrendered to Japanese forces in April 1942, and he survived the Bataan Death March. He remained a prisoner until August 1945, after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Two thirds of the men who were captured with my father did not survive the War. Some were summarily executed during the Bataan Death March or later, some died of starvation or disease, and a number committed suicide. The experiences of the American prisoners of war in the Pacific are never compared to the Holocaust, but perhaps they should be.

In any event, my father's concentration camp experiences (which he often talked about when I was a child) have caused me to ponder again and again this question: How can people lose their humanity to the extent that they can kill defenseless people without remorse and even without thinking about it seriously? Who turned on the gas at Auschwitz day after day as all those Jews were gassed to death? And did those people go home to their families when their work days ended to eat a nice meal and perhaps listen to the radio?

Recently, I returned to this question  after reading several of the published bankruptcy decisions involving student-loan debtors.  In the Myhre case, for example, how could attorneys for the U.S. Department of Education oppose the discharge of student loans owed by a paraplegic man who was working full time and whose expenses exceeded his income?

And in the Stevenson case, how could lawyers for Educational Credit Management Corporation argue that a woman in her fifties who had a history of homelessness and was living on less than $1000 per month, be placed on a 25-year income-based repayment plan to pay off her student loans?

And in the Roth case, how could attorneys for the same company--headed at the time by a man who made more than $1 million dollars a year), stand before a bankruptcy judge and maintain that a woman in her sixties, who had chronic health problems and was living entirely off Social Security income of less than $800 a month, should not have her student loans discharged in bankruptcy?

I listened recently to the audio of a bankruptcy proceeding in California involving a man with more than a quarter million dollars of student-loan debt.  The man brought an adversary proceeding seeking to discharge his loans in bankruptcy.  His suit was opposed by two parties: the U.S. Department of Education and a private loan company.

Judging by their voices, the U.S Department of Education and the private company were both represented by young women.  Both argued that the man--in his 50s and making less than $2,000 a month, should not have his student-loan debts discharged.

I imagine both women graduated from good law schools, are kind to animals, and have progressive views on the political issues of the day--global warming, for example.

So how could these smart and presumably sensitive young women be working for a governmental entity and a private company engaged in the reprehensible business of stopping distressed student-loan debtors from bankruptcy relief?

I don't mean to compare these two young lawyers to the people who operated the Nazi death camps, but the insensitivity to the unjust suffering of others is somewhat similar. Millions of Americans are burdened by student-loan debt that is totally unmanageable and will never be paid off; and yet our government employs lawyers to prevent them from obtaining bankruptcy relief.

And, let us remind ourselves that the U.S. Department of Education, the agency that sought to deny bankruptcy relief to a paraplegic student-loan debtor in the Myhre case, answers to a president who won the Noble Peace Prize.

How long can the injustice and suffering spawned by the federal student loan program go on? A long time I fear. Slavery existed in this country for well over 200 years.

But ultimately, this trillion-dollar house of cards we call the federal student loan program will come tumbling down; and when it collapses it will take American higher education with it and perhaps the American economy.

That is something for American college presidents to think about as they fly around in their private jets and drink premium liquor with wealthy alumni.  University foundation board members should think about it as well before they execute multi-million dollar contracts with celebrity football coaches.

And mom and pop should think about it too before they encourage little Suzie and little Johnny to take out loans to go to an over-priced, pretentious East-Coast college.  Because when little Suzie and little Johnny take out those loans, they will live with them until they are payed off  in full or until little Suzie and Little Johnie are dead.

And if they try to discharge their loans in bankruptcy, a bright young lawyer who graduated from an elite law school--someone very much like the person who turned on the gas at Auschwitz--will be in federal bankruptcy court to keep that from happening.