By Patrick F. Cannon

I can understand the dismay that many people felt when the Supreme Court told President Biden that he couldn’t forgive student loan debt without Congressional action. Announced prior to last year’s elections, the forgiveness  would have cost the country’s taxpayers $430 billion. Since Congress passed the laws that established the grant and loan program in the first place, the Court held that only they could modify its terms through new legislation.

            When President Biden first made the announcement, a great many people – and not just Republicans – predicted that the courts would take a dim view of his executive order. Not least among them were the millions of former students who had diligently paid off their loans. Despite them and expert legal opinion, the president did it anyway. Some cynics even suggested he did it purely for political reasons!

             Frankly, I never understood why the Federal government got itself into the student loan business in the first place. Much of the money went to enrich schools of dubious reputation with abysmal graduation rates. Many of them eventually went out of business, leaving students with nothing but debt. It should come as no surprise that Donald Trump got into the action. It would have been cheaper in the long run to simply give needy but deserving students outright grants.

            Perhaps even more controversially, the court told Harvard University and the University of North Carolina that they could no longer use racial preference in recruiting entering classes. The court’s decision was based primarily on the 14^th Amendment, in particular the clause that reads: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The clause was meant to give constitutional reality to the end of slavery. In this case, it was cited to prevent universities from denying equal protection to a different group – Asian Americans. Whether you agree with the decision or not, it’s going to profoundly affect access to the so-called elite schools, but will have little or no effect on the majority of schools that are happy to accept a majority of applicants.

            (Since I first wrote this, in a bit of “tit for tat,” a group of African-American and Latino students have sued Harvard over its practice of giving preference to so-called “legacy” applicants, the children of alumni or large donors. About 40 percent of Harvard students, many of them legacy admissions, pay the full tuition and fees of $57,261 per year. If the student’s family makes $85,000 per year or less, they pay mothing. It’s hard to escape the irony that legacy admissions are helping to subsidize the education of minority and low income students.)   

            Of somewhat lesser impact was the decision that said it was OK for a person to refuse to provide a service that conflicted with their religious beliefs. In this case, a web developer refused to create a site for a same-sex wedding, since her religion teaches that such unions are immoral. Instead of respecting this sincerely-held belief, and simply finding a developer who had no such qualms, the couple sued, giving the Supreme Court an opportunity to look at the proper balance between freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In this very narrow and specific case, it chose religion.

            All of this took place as the integrity of the court has increasingly come into question. Both Justices Thomas and Alito have received expensive trips from “friends” who appear to have had business before the court. Both deny these gifts had any influence on their decisions. They may be telling the truth, but it has brought to light that the Court has no real code of ethics. For this, and for purely political reasons, only 18 percent of us have a great deal of confidence in the court, according to a report by the Association Press (AP). 36 percent have “hardly any,” and 46 percent have “only some.” The Court has never been held in lower repute, nor has the Congress for that matter.

            My opinions about all of this are of no importance. What is important, it seems to me, is the knee-jerk demonization of the “other side.” For example, none of the Supreme Court’s decisions in these cases is without legal justification. But based on comments that you find on the air, in print and the internet, you would be forgiven for thinking the justices in the majority were an evil cabal of heartless brutes.

            These attitudes extend to every corner of our political discourse, making it impossible to solve the solvable problems that face the country. Almost every day, my computer in-box is full of shrill invective from both sides of the political divide. Some of you are responsible for sending this stuff to me. I wish you would think a little  before you press the “forward” key.

Copyright 2023, Patrick F. Cannon