Judge orders Betsy DeVos to begin student loan forgiveness

Authored by kwch.com and submitted by thinkB4WeSpeak
image for Judge orders Betsy DeVos to begin student loan forgiveness

Students defrauded by for-profit colleges scored an important victory on Tuesday, when a court cleared the way for an Obama-era policy that will make it easier for them to get their student loans forgiven.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos had said the regulation, known as borrower defense, made discharging loans too easy and was unfair to taxpayers. The rule was due to take effect in July 2017, but DeVos froze it while she worked on devising a new regulation.

But U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled last month that DeVos’ delay was unlawful. On Tuesday, he denied a request by an organization representing for-profit colleges in California, to further postpone the rule, thus paving the way for borrower defense to enter into force.

“The rule is finally in effect. No more excuses. No more delays,” said Julie Murray, an attorney with Public Citizen, who is representing the defrauded students in their suit against DeVos.

Education Department spokeswoman Liz Hill said DeVos “respects the role of the court and accepts the court’s decision” and will soon provide information about how the regulation will be implemented.

But DeVos continues to regard the regulation as “bad policy” and will continue writing a new rule “that protects both borrowers and taxpayers,” Hill said in a statement Tuesday.

The ruling marks a significant setback for DeVos, who has made deregulating the for-profit college industry a top priority. The decision means that the Obama rule, which DeVos has fought hard to scrap, could be in effect until July 2020, when any new rule written by DeVos would enter into force.

Under the Obama rule, students whose school closed mid-program or shortly after completion, will become eligible for automatic loan discharge. The Century Foundation, a progressive think tank, estimates that Tuesday’s decision will affect tens of thousands of students at over 1,400 schools who will now be eligible for $400 million in automatic debt relief across the nation.

Other provisions in the rule allow students to apply for loan discharge as a group. It also prevents schools from forcing students to sign away their rights to sue the program and makes sure that the schools, not just tax payers, bear financial responsibility in case the schools end up shutting down.

Over 100,000 students who say they have been swindled by their schools are currently waiting for the Education Department to consider their applications for loan forgiveness. James Kvaal, president of the Institute for College Access and Success, said that the agency must immediately halt debt collections and wipe out the loans of those borrowers whose schools have been shut down.

“This is a major victory for students across this country in the ongoing battle against the Department of Education and the for-profit college industry,” said Toby Merrill, director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending at Harvard University that also took part in the lawsuit.

But Steve Gunderson, president of Career Education Colleges and Universities, the industry lobbying group, described Judge Moss’ ruling as “disappointing as it will only create further confusion for students and schools” and urged the Education Department to provide as much as guidance as possible while it finishes writing the new rule.

Gunderson added, “Many will look at this ruling where a Judge appointed by President Obama upholds a rule created by the Obama Department of Education and see further evidence of the politicization of our court system.”

The group, whose motion to delay the rule was denied Tuesday, the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools, did not return a request for comment.

Betsy514 on October 19th, 2018 at 10:35 UTC »

For those wondering about why consumer advocates consider this such a victory - here's a comment I made on another sub

I was a negotiator in the rule that the court allowed to take effect today. I was in the room for the negotiations on the 2nd one. There are a ton of differences but the biggest one IMO is that her rule would require borrowers to not only prove the school substantially misrepresented their program or outcomes to get a discharge - but that the school INTENDED to. The burden on a typical consumer to prove that is enormous and practically impossible. Plus it shouldn't matter. If you have a rogue employee who lies in an advertisement or verbally it shouldn't be the borrower/student that pays the price. If you missed an error in an ad, and it's one a reasonable person would believe, and people enroll in your school to their detriment, it shouldn't be the students who suffer the consequences of that error. Can you tell this part burns my buttons?

Some other big differences - the 2016 rule bans mandatory arbitration for all schools. Her rule does not. The 2016 rule put some financial warning signs in place so the feds could take action before another Corinthian happened. Her rule - well - I honestly couldn't tell you what it does. There ARE some financial responsibility provisions but they had a separate private committee that developed those and I honestly don't understand them. Nor do any of my colleagues. Mind you I've been doing compliance and advocacy in the student loan world for twenty years and my colleagues have a collective couple of hundred years. That doesn't mean they are bad - but it's not very good that industry experts don't understand them.

Again - there's a ton of other differences - but those are the big three

PS: Oh wait - one more big one - the draft version of her rules would require a borrower to be in default to claim this discharge. To be fair they also clearly stated they were open to arguments against that and from the submitted comments I read pretty much everyone said that was a terrible idea.

wilsoncoyote on October 19th, 2018 at 05:04 UTC »

She hates to see money go downhill. She lives at the top, of course.

zxcvb94105 on October 19th, 2018 at 04:42 UTC »

I rarely use the word evil to describe a person. DeVos is pure evil. Unfortunately she and the courts will fight this further.