During the recent Democratic debate in Charleston, South Carolina, front-runner Hillary Clinton, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley each became increasingly combative with one another when discussing their positions on important issues for voters. With the Iowa caucuses quickly approaching, these debates are becoming more crucial as voters begin to sift through many of the issues discussed including gun control, healthcare, Wall Street, immigration, and foreign policy. Although minimally discussed during the debate, tuition-free education may become a campaign defining issue. Many candidates have tuition and debt relief initiatives on their platforms, but what exactly is tuition-free higher education and who supports it? Keep reading to learn more.

Tuition-Free Education

Tax-funded education is not exactly a new phenomenon, but most recently tuition-free education programs at the state level have been launched in Tennessee and Oregon for community colleges. Many other states have similar programs on the table at the two-year level, but Sanders is the only candidate in this presidential cycle to propose a federal program for tuition-free higher education at the public university level.

Specifically, the self-proclaimed “Democratic Socialist” Bernie Sanders mentioned during the debate in Charleston that his education plan includes free education at both two-year and four-year public institutions. Midway through the debate, one of the moderators Andrea Mitchell asked Sanders how, among many other issues on his platform, would he pay for this education initiative. Sanders responded by stating that he wants to rebuild our infrastructure and close the loophole that allows major corporations to stash millions in the Cayman Islands and not pay a nickel in taxes.  Sanders continued through his want list saying,

I want every kid in this country who has the ability, to be able to go to a public college or university tuition-free and by the way, substantially lower student debt interest rates in this country as well.

Among other seemingly expensive programs, his tuition-free education plan would be paid for by Wall Street taxes, according to Sanders. “We bailed out Wall Street, now it is Wall Street’s time to help the middle class,” Sanders explained.

How do the Conservative Candidates Feel?

With the exception of a few Democratic candidates, higher education issues have not been at the forefront of topics to tackle on the campaign trail. Many of the GOP candidates have instead chosen to focus their education positions in the K-12 sector.

As a whole, many Republicans have begun to move away from the Common Core values that former Florida Governor Jeb Bush famously supported, which seek to establish consistent educational standards across the states. But the GOP candidates differ a lot with their plans, with Dr. Ben Carson going on record in support of reducing tuition costs and student debt, while Ted Cruz publicly denounced Common Core in favor of local control of education. However, Donald Trump, the current party front-runner, has yet to roll out an actual education plan.

The International Take on Free College

The Sanders campaign aims to make college education tuition-free nationwide in hopes to prepare more Americans for the workforce and alleviate student debt. But according to the Sanders campaign, the idea is not as radical as some would have you believe.

Germany has already eliminated fees for their able college students by making their citizens pay much higher percentages in taxes than people in the United States. Unfortunately in an effort to keep costs down, many of these German universities place students in larger classrooms and forgo non-essential campus amenities. Denmark and Sweden also have tuition-free higher education for its citizens, and Chile, Finland, and Norway, will soon follow.

Who’s on Board with Sanders’ Plan?

Clinton

Although Clinton is currently leading by 25 points, her lead is slipping, according to the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. As the first nomination contest in Iowa approaches, her stance on education may be the tipping point for securing likely voters. Like Sanders, Clinton believes that student debt is problematic and has also become a proponent for tuition-free education–at least for community college students. On Clinton’s campaign website she said, “we need to make a quality education affordable and available to everyone willing to work for it, without saddling them with decades of debt.”

Clinton agrees with Sanders with regard to reducing debt so students shouldn’t have to take out loans to pay for a quality education, as stipulated through her New College Compact education plan, but differs, however, in making tuition free at the university level.

In addition to Clinton’s education plan aiming to improve the amount of students able to attend college debt-free, the New College Compact program insists that students should be able to access higher education at the two-year level tuition-free, indicating that states need to reinvest in schools to improve student outcomes and graduation rates. Part of the Clinton campaign strategy is to build upon the presidency of Barack Obama and access to higher education is an indicator of such alignment. The New College Compact plan that includes a free community college provision mirrors the America’s College Promise program launched by the Obama Administration at this time last year.

O’Malley

The third Democratic presidential candidate, Martin O’Malley, found it difficult to get a word in on any of the issues he deemed important in Charleston, SC, which was the last debate before Iowa. Polling at an estimated 2 percent, securing the nomination for O’Malley is going to be an uphill battle. If viewers heard more from O’Malley, we may have been privy to his position on tuition-free education.

In contrast to Sanders and Clinton, O’Malley does not support a tuition-free higher education plan of any sort. Instead he proposes that college be debt-free for students, which coincides with the other democratic candidates’ platforms.

In agreement with the student-debt positions of Sanders and Clinton, O’Malley’s debt-free education proposal requests immediate relief to student borrowers, freezing public tuition rates, reduce tuition costs, increasing college preparedness, and holding for-profit colleges accountable. The O’Malley plan also aims to address other fees not associated with tuition that contribute to student debt by increasing Pell Grants, expanding work study programs, and providing childcare on campus, which have not largely been discussed by the other Democratic candidates.

What does this all mean?

Education has been a dividing issue for candidates for decades and the current presidential cycle will be no different. With many of the conservative candidates using sound bite opportunities to discuss their disdain for Common Core, while the liberals center their education conversations on the student debt crisis, the discussion will have an impact on the decisions for voters on both sides of the political aisle.

For those willing to discuss tuition-free education, the most eye-opening plan comes from candidate Sanders. His campaign hopes to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. Although Clinton supports tuition-free programs, her plan would only apply to two-year colleges, and would emphasize relieving students of crippling debt. O’Malley wants to help American families that are being crushed by $1.3 trillion in outstanding student loan debt, but his plan does not include a tuition-free education. He does, however, consider other fees associated with the total cost of college, that go beyond just tuition.

These education plans will be heavily scrutinized, along with initiatives yet to emerge from other candidates since the economic success of the country is contingent on the preparedness of its workforce. The federal government has also benefited from student loan interest rates and with the cost of college in the United States exponentially rising, more students are receiving financial aid assistance through loans more than ever before.

Conclusion

A college education has been categorized as an indicator of lifetime income earning potential. Whether paying for college outright, or through loans, the future of the country rests on the ability to contribute to the economic. The idea that tuition-free higher education will eliminate student debt is not going away and remains to be seen how Americans will respond this November.

Resources

Primary

RealClear Politics: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Additional

Bloomberg Business: Borrowers Fall Further Behind on $1.3 Trillion in student Loans

Los Angeles Times: Jeb Bush’s Embrace of Common Core is a Campaign Lightning Rod

Los Angeles Times: Why You Can Get a Free Education in Germany But Not in California

Marketplace: How German Higher Education Controls Costs

NBC News: Poll: Clinton holds 25-Point National Lead Over Sanders

Jamal Evan Mazyck

Jamal Mazyck is currently pursuing an Ed.D. in educational leadership and is a graduate research assistant at San Diego State University. When he is not writing, researching or tweeting about the ins and outs of higher education, he can be found on the tennis court and running half-marathons. Contact Jamal at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tuition-Free Education: Presidential Candidates Weigh In appeared first on Law Street.

The Class of 2018 is having an exciting summer. They get to figure out which dorms they will live in, which intro classes they will take, and, most importantly, which loans they will take out to pay for the next four years. Meanwhile, the Class of 2014 is experiencing some discomfort as they figure out how exactly to pay for those loans they took out four summers ago. Student loans burden a reported 40 million Americans. Read on to learn all about how these people and their finances are impacted by politics.

What is a student loan?

A student loan is pretty self-explanatory. It is a type of loan specifically meant to pay for university tuition and all other costs associated with going to college. This can include books, computers, and housing. Student loans differ greatly from other types of loans. For example, federal student loans do not have to be paid back until graduation. People obtain student loans by filling out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), a form that gives students access to all sorts of financial aid, including Pell Grants and Federal Work Study.

Who provides these student loans?

While some students obtain these loans from private banks, many of them obtain loans from the federal government. Federal loans are all backed and funded by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), which means that the interest rate is often lower than those provided by a private bank.

What are some problems with the student loan system?

The big problem is that so many students need them. Twelve million students each year, 60 percent of all college students, pay some portion of their tuition with student loans. This is partly because college is more expensive than it used to be. Over the last 24 years, the average cost of in-state public college education rose by $5,470. And that’s just in-state public school. Tuition at some private institutions is staggering.

This contrast illustrates it best: the overall consumer price index has risen 115 percent since 1985. How high has the college education inflation rate risen? Nearly 500 percent. It’s no wonder that more Americans than ever have student loan debt. Here’s President Barack Obama decrying skyrocketing tuition:

Interest rates used to be a problem. In previous years, the interest rate on student loans would be set permanently by Congress. However, these rates were set up so that, unless Congress reauthorized them, they would double. There was a fight to keep these rates low in 2012 and 2013. That’s why this weird clip from Late Night With Jimmy Fallon with Obama exists:

Congress quickly realized that going through this battle every year was not good for anyone. That’s why they passed the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013. This law tied student loans to the 10-year Treasury note and locked in individual rates for life. This means that, while your own rate will never rise, the rates of future students will raise independent of action from Congress.

The bigger problem is that student loans have saddled 37 million graduates with serious debt. It takes years, sometimes decades, to pay off these loans. Worse, these debts have been steadily rising over the past few decades.

Why does it take so long to pay back student loans?

Simply put, graduates just aren’t very good at paying these loans back. Somewhere between a quarter and a third of borrowers are late on their payments. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 35 percent of American student loan borrowers were delinquent on payments in the third quarter of 2012. This local news broadcast called the situation an “economic crisis.”

Graduating students are also struggling to pay back these loans because they are entering an awful job market. For example, 6.7 percent of students who graduated in 2008 were still unemployed in 2012. How are these young people expected to start paying down this debt when they have little or no income?

Many graduates also do not know how to correctly pay these loans back. This advice column from The New York Times shows just how complicated paying back student loans can be.

If so many graduates cannot quickly pay off their debts, they may be left out of certain opportunities, like buying a house. Student loan debt is a drag on the economy.

PBS NewsHour has more on that issue here:

What assistance is available to those with student loan debt?

Not much. Some politicians are attempting to reform the system to help graduates (we’ll get to that later), but there are only a few ways the government can currently help.

Loan consolidation is one such option. This is when the government lets you combine all of your loans into one. Graduates who are having trouble paying off multiple loans consider this option so that they can only have one manageable monthly payment. There are also some instances in which debt holders can defer their payments on principle and interest. Find out if your student loan payments can be deferred here.

Private companies exist that offer to help lower monthly payments, but these companies have recently come under fire from federal and state regulators for using predatory practices and charging graduates hefty upfront fees for services that the DOE offers for free. Illinois has sued some of these companies and more states are likely to follow.

In the past, those looking for forgiveness of their debt were out luck. Even today, graduates who want an immediate forgiveness of their debts will have trouble doing so. This table shows just how hard it is to get student loan debt forgiven. Even bankruptcy does not always result in a forgiveness of student debt. However, action taken by President Obama made forgiveness a little easier. Read on to the next section to find out how.

How is President Obama trying to fix student loans?

Obama has used his executive power to bypass Congress and expand the Pay As You Earn program. Pay As You Earn is a federal program that allows borrowers to cap their monthly payments at 10 percent of their income and forgives remaining debt after 20 years. This program was previously only available to new students. Obama expanded the program to a majority of loan holders, who can begin to take advantage of it in 2015.

Obama also supports the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. This bill, introduced this May by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), would allow those with outstanding debt to refinance their loans based on newer and lower interest rates.

What does Congress think about these reforms?

As noted in the last section, Democrats are on board with Warren’s plan. Every single Democratic Senator voted for the bill when it was brought to the Senate floor. This is most likely because it is a targeted demographic of the Democratic Party’s base — young adults — and that it is paid for by a tax that that has been a part of their platform for years.

Republicans in Congress are not a fan of Warren’s bill, mainly because it would be funded by the Buffett Rule. The Buffett Rule, proposed by Obama before the 2012 election, is a plan to tax millionaires so that they are not paying a lower share of their wealth in taxes compared to middle-class Americans. Even Senate Republicans, often seen as more moderate than House Republicans, rejected the bill, calling it a “political stunt.” Only three Republicans voted for the bill.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a possible 2016 candidate, has introduced a bill that looks nearly identical to the Pay As You Earn program, but applies the same logic to every single student loan. It caps payments as a percentage of income and allows for debt forgiveness. However, while Pay As You Earn forgives all debt after 20 years, Rubio’s bill would only forgive that debt if it were less than $57,500. The debt would be forgiven in 30 years if it were any higher than that figure. Still, there is a lot of common ground between conservatives and Democrats. Common sense would dictate that this bill has a real chance of being passed.

Yet, as those who follow Congress know all too well, common sense rarely impacts Congressional results. The main obstacle for Rubio’s reform bill is that not all conservatives are the same. There are significant divisions in the Republican party on this issue. Many conservatives do not even believe that the federal government should be in the business of paying for young people to go to college. When asked about his vote against Warren’s bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that it is not Congress’ job to forgive “obligations that have been voluntarily incurred.” He also said “not everybody needs to go to Yale,” presumably arguing that students who cannot afford college should look for cheaper options instead of depending on the government. There are certainly cheaper options than Yale, such as for-profit college. McConnell believes that students should consider these less-expensive options before depending on the government.

How do Americans feel about student loan reform?

There has not been much polling done on the issue of student loan reform; however, one 2013 Public Policy Polling poll shows that all Americans are unsurprisingly unified on one issue: 83 percent of all Americans want Congress to either keep rates on student loans the way they are or lower them. This poll was taken back when rates could have potentially doubled, so it does not reflect feelings toward current reform packages, but it does show that the American people are in favor of Congress acting to keep interest rates low.

Americans are much more divided when it comes to opinions on the worthiness of their own loans. A poll by the National Foundation for Credit Counseling shows that, by a two-to-one margin, most Americans believe that their own student loan was worth the cost. However, most would not recommend taking out student loans to finance an education and some claimed they would not have taken a loan out if they were aware of how much it would cost them in the long run.

Congress would be wise to spend time on this issue, regardless of which reform plan they support. According to a Harvard University Institute of Politics poll, 57 percent of Millennials believe that student debt is a major problem. That concern is consistent across party lines. This statistic will likely keep the student loan issue on the Congressional agenda for quite some time.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Senate: S 1241 The Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act

Additional

U.S. Department of Education: FAFSA

College Board: Average Net Price Over Time for Full-Time Students at Public Four-Year Institutions

Forbes: College Costs Out of Control

Huffington Post: Elizabeth Warren Slams Mitch McConnell: He Wants ‘Students to Dream a Little Smaller’

U.S. News & World Report: Congress Approves Student Loan Deal

Huffington Post: How Millennials and Students Won a Massive Victory on Loan Rates

Huffington Post: Why the Student Loan Deal is Bad News for Students

Vox: 2008 Was a Terrible Year to Graduate College

The New York Times: A Beginner’s Guide to Repaying Student Loans

U.S. News & World Report: Obama Sidesteps Congress to Expand Student Loan Repayment Program

CBS: Senate Republicans Block Consideration of Student Loan Bill

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Student Loans Burden a Generation appeared first on Law Street.

The story of Belle Knox, the “Duke Porn Star,” broke a few weeks ago, and for a little while I tried to avoid writing about it, because there were a lot of voices already getting in on the debate. But then I saw that this bright young woman was receiving death threats, and that her classmates were trying to get her kicked out of Duke — and that was enough to push me over the edge.

Before I get into the specifics about why I wholeheartedly support Knox, I want to catch up any of you who have been living under a rock for the last few weeks. Belle Knox is a pornstar. She’s also an 19-year-old freshman at Duke University, majoring in sociology and gender studies. She got into porn because it was something that interested her, and as a way to pay for Duke’s extremely expensive tuition. She was outed by a classmate who recognized her, and quickly became the best worst-kept secret on campus. Then, The Chronicle, Duke’s student newspaper, did a profile on her using the pseudonym “Lauren.” As national news outlets got wind of the story, she wrote a few of her own pieces on xojane.com, including one where she published her porn alter-ego name, “Belle Knox.”

Since then, her face and real name, which I will not publish out of respect for her privacy, have been released. She’s gone on a few shows to defend her decision, despite the death threats and ire she and her family have both received. Knox has shared some of the more brutal ones, including:

• You should slit your wrists and die, you stupid bitch
• We are going to throw garbage at her every fucking day!!! let’s do it GREEK FRAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• The school should either expel her, or we will take matters into our own hands and make this fuck up suffer. cheers!
• FUCK YOU!!!! IF I SEE U WALKING ON CAMPUS I WILL KICK YOU IN THE FACE!

I, on the other hand, respect Knox deeply. And here are four reasons why the people who are making death threats to her need to go to hell themselves.

4. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

This is actually a point that Knox made herself in one of her XoJane pieces, “I’m Finally Revealing my Name and Face as the Duke Pornstar.” But I think it’s such an excellent point that I feel the need to expand on it. Knox pointed out that porn is a $13.3 billion industry each year in the United States. That’s more than the revenue of ABC, NBC, and CBS combined. While estimates vary due to a lack of desire to self-report, a $13.3 billion industry doesn’t become that way because only a few people are partaking. I’d bet you 50 bucks that at least a few of those people sending death threats to Belle Knox have watched porn at some point in their lives.

There is a huge double standard here, because how in the world do the people who are sending Knox these death threats think that porn is made? They want to watch it, but they don’t want to have a porn star next door. They want to enjoy the industry without actually acknowledging how it’s made. They want to pretend that the women they drool over don’t exist, because that’s easier than acknowledging that they’re someone’s daughter or sister or friend. It’s easier than acknowledging that they’re, god forbid, intelligent, autonomous, real human beings.

3. This was Knox’s private decision.

You might argue with me on this one. You might say that because she made the choice to partake in such a public industry, that it was no longer a private decision. But she made an alter ego for a reason. She made an alter ego because she, like anyone else, is still entitled to a private life. And when her real birth name was outed, she lost that ability.

But most importantly, her family also lost their privacy. Her family, at the very least, deserves the ability to live out their lives privately.

Why a woman turns to porn is her own decision. Now Belle Knox has been forthcoming about her reasons because she’s been asked. She explained that she does it because she likes it, because she feels empowered by her work, and because she wanted to pay for her education. She has already shared her reasoning with the public, and that was her choice. But some commenters are telling her that that reasoning isn’t good enough, like the ladies of The View:

It’s one thing to out her and demand that she explain why she wants to a be a porn star, even though that is her private decision. But to tell her that her reasoning isn’t good enough, and demand that she further justify her private decision is ridiculous.

2. There’s a bigger conversation here and that’s the exorbitant price of college tuition. 

Belle Knox is right — $60,000 is ridiculous. Most families cannot afford to send their daughter to school for $60,000. Now critics say that if she couldn’t afford it, then she shouldn’t have gone to Duke. She should have gone to a cheaper state school. But even state schools are getting up there. Average student loan debt is $29,000. About 12 million students each year take out money to finance their college education.

And Duke is an excellent school. She deserves to be there if she got in. We as a society cannot accept the fact that the only people who deserve to go to good schools are the ones who can pay for it.

Belle Knox could have chosen a different way to pay for her education, sure. She could have taken out loans or done other work. And I don’t think she made the right choice, but it was hers to make. And mostly I think the fact that a woman would even turn to porn because her tuition is so high is much more interesting than the porn itself. That should never be a choice that a young woman who wants to get an education has to make.

1. People are saying that Belle Knox is anti-Feminist. 

What’s pissing me off the most is the way that so-called feminists are treating Belle Knox. Now there are a lot of arguments out there about exactly what being a feminist means, and who is a feminist. Now is neither the time nor the place for any of that, but I think we can all agree on the fact that feminism is not and has never been one size fits all.

So to all the people out there who are saying Belle Knox isn’t a feminist…who gave you that right? Who gave you the right to define what feminism means to her. She feels empowered by what she is doing. She is a strong, well-spoken, incredibly intelligent young woman. She can tell you what makes her feel empowered. She can make that judgment call for herself. No one gave you the right to decide what empowers her. 

So carry on, Belle Knox. And be careful. Because there are a lot of people who want to take you out. But I can assure you, they’re all dead wrong.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Image courtesy of [Alan via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 4 Reasons I Support Belle Knox, the “Duke Porn Star” appeared first on Law Street.