care, empathy & student loan forgiveness

|| december, 2020

The all-too-familiar weight of student loan debt has plagued American society for decades, leaving millions to endure the financial burden of higher education. Effects of student debt are felt long after college itself — from being unable to maintain financial independence to impeding one’s eligibility for federal programs and aid. Regardless of these ramifications, such debates remain divisive amongst conservatives and liberals alike. Those able to finish college without debt should not be responsible for aiding others in relieving theirs, right? After all, it is not their problem to deal with. However, it is this very sentiment that remains at the forefront of today’s political landscape. Lacking empathy and understanding that student loan debt –whether a problem that directly or indirectly affects an individual– in some way or another, it ultimately has potential to burden us all. Hence, the answer to the question “Who’s problem is it?” is simple: all of ours. While addressing any contentious issue, it is imperative that empathy and care must be actively practiced to ensure both individual and societal wellbeing. Roxane Gay’s Op-Ed, “Is This Where We Are, America?” highlights the principle of empathy as a means to guide the conversation on forgiving student loan debt. Gay ultimately emphasizes that we must care for the needs of those most vulnerable for American society to progress as a whole.

When analyzing disputes on student loan forgiveness, Gay contends contentions are often rooted understanding of what individuals deem “fair” based on personal experiences rather than nuanced empirics. American Philosopher John Rawls presents a universal way to apply fairness as a core principle in analyzing justice in societal issues through his ‘Veil of Ignorance’ thought experiment. This process asks individuals to make decisions by eliminating any biases or identities — social and economic standing, strength, capacity, and more — that influence one’s decisions in any given situation. Rawls encourages individuals to envision how a society can function justly by placing individuals in positions to judge a situation without inherent advantages or disadvantages.

To determine what is considered fair, individuals must examine decisions through a lens that approaches student loan debt and other issues without inherent experiences and preconceived biases but rather a genuine affinity towards those suffering. Applying this theory of justice as fairness in the context of Roxane Gay’s argument on student loan forgiveness allows individuals to analyze the necessity for empathy in determining what is morally just in society. In doing so, those not suffering from the burden of student loan debt can truly reflect on the hardships and experiences faced as if they are the ones facing it, and inversely, those in favor of forgiving debt loans can examine thought processes in opposing sides. Approaching societal problems with varying perspectives allows polarized arguments to balance and compromise through action, ultimately allowing for holistic and well-rounded views on any given issue. Rawl’s ‘Veil of Ignorance’ experiment encapsulates the core belief that empathy enables our society to envision our objectives with a broader perspective. For this reason, empathy must remain at the forefront of how to take action when approaching the impacts of student loan forgiveness. It enables us to better the lives of individuals, which ultimately improves our society as a whole.

Another argument in opposition to student loan forgiveness is rooted in the economic infeasibility of its implementation. This economical approach, however, is compelling when analyzing arguments levied against it. Much of this argument’s structure follows free-market moralist Robert Nozick’s framework for what he considers just for individuals. In Nozickian thinking, the only aspect of a truly just society is the free market. The 1% who rise to the top of such markets should motivate those struggling to climb and even leap up the socioeconomic ladder. Philosopher Amia Srinivasan compares Robert Nozick and John Rawls’ theories in her New York Times opinion piece entitled “Questions for Free-Market Moralists,” explaining that Nozickian thinking rejects considering the implications of economic inequality in society. This consideration of human responses to suffering, Srinivasan says, is imperative to arguments regarding human experiences. Failing to acknowledge this sentiment, prevents such arguments to be universally applicable to all individuals in a society. Reflecting upon this sentiment while making decisions, as John Rawls does, is another way of practicing empathy. Through internalizing and empathizing with the unique advantages and disadvantages given to every individual in a society, a standard of “fairness” is made possible to exist in a way that prioritizes the lives of human beings in our society over economic freedom.

Inquiring Rawlsian theory in the real-world setting of loan forgiveness that Gay proposes serves as a starting point in understanding how empathy and care can ease the decision-making process of contentious societal issues. It does not, however, answer why we must utilize empathy and care. Throughout her op-ed, Gay touches on the familiar yet frustrating belief many politicians and opponents have that if an issue has not personally affected them, it is not necessary to be addressed. In this case, such beliefs are used as a means not to support loan forgiveness for others. If the big picture of this crisis is considered, however, the reality becomes that forgiving student loans will affect everyone. This action will directly aid those in immediate financial need; however, those not in immediate need of this aid will benefit from economic stimulation, encouragement for younger generations to pursue higher education without financial consequences, and holistically, contributions to our society from the people around us as an indirect result of debt-free living. Through promoting policies which liberate those chained down to debt, a culture is built to encourage friends, neighbors, and community members to contribute back to systems helping them. Thus, the implications of forgiving student loans, directly and indirectly, span wider than merely aiding a single individual and rather better our society as a whole. In this framework, every individual has a reason to care.

To understand its overarching effects, we must recognize how preconceived responses against student loan forgiveness project a broader issue around the thought processes regarding empathy and care and its place in today’s politics. Our default is to help ourselves first rather than seeking out ways to support and care for others. Ultimately, for us to fully benefit in a society, everyone must succeed. Professor Joan Tronto analyzes this sentiment of care in her book Who Cares?: How to Reshape a Democratic Politics, where she shares the intersectionality between care and democracy and how its implementations will lead to societal betterment. Tronto provides readers with various care practices to actively implement in our lives to be better citizens. The most compelling argument regarding the ethics of care comes from the section entitled “Caring With,” where she presents a new perspective of democracy, defining it as the “allocation of caring responsibilities and assuring that everyone can participate in those allocations of care as completely as possible” (Tronto, 15). If we bear in mind Tronto’s definition of democracy with an emphasis on care within the context of student loans, the answer to this problem becomes clear: student loans must be forgiven. By valuing systems that focus on the equal care responsibilities of giving and receiving, the problem , and especially the solution, becomes universal to all. Whether or not student loan debt affects everyone in our society, considering Tronto’s approach to democratic thinking gives everyone a reason to care, and ultimately will ensure accessibility to such programs.

Building a culture of care rooted in empathy within our legislation and democracy encourages inclusivity, and as Tronto puts it, enables us to “feel solidarity with other citizens, seeing them as partners in our own caregiving and receiving” (Tronto, 14). Caring for others affected by student loan debt in this context ensures reciprocation of care for oneself in one way or another. Tronto enables us to look at Gay’s arguments from a broader perspective. To support policies that may not personally affect us, is to care and empathize with those who are affected. Societies, where everyone cares for one another, are societies that are empowered together. Forgiving student debt encourages struggling individuals to thrive. Those weighed down by student debt cannot contribute productively back to society if they struggle to survive, hindering any ability to pursue something beneficial for society — from employment to intellect. Gay conveys the effects forgiving student loans will have beyond alleviating financial burden, including freeing individuals to be productive in various ways while incentivizing people to pursue success and while uplifting our economy, our people, and our country.

Roxane Gay’s op-ed on student loan debt sheds light on the importance of forgiving student loans along with larger implications within our political system that enable social division and speculation rather than aiming to solve problems. She harnesses the power of affinity and kindness in seeking the answer of justice in our democracy through the lens of empathy while analyzing contentious topics. Compromise appears difficult for those divided in debates surrounding student loan debt forgiveness. Applying John Rawls’ ‘Veil of Ignorance’, Amia Srinivasan’s philosophies on free-market morality, and Joan Tronto’s care ethics permits us to see the big picture effects both the problems and solutions have on all individuals. Caring for others is necessary to ensure care for ourselves, and the problem of student loan forgiveness no longer remains contentious when we use this empathetic framework at the forefront of our ideas of justice to improve others’ lives while improving our own. To make decisions based on care and empathy is to recognize that we are all connected. Empathy is ultimately the best response to ethical action in any society. In identifying this, we enable ourselves to unite and continue making progress to better American society.

Essay written for my Politics & Ethics Course Final (December, 2018)