DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: Top progressive activist says student debt cancelation isn’t up for debate.
Turner has no obligation to debate me. Maybe she thinks I’m not worth her time. She does have far more followers than I do, to be fair.
But as it turns out, she’s actually unwilling to debate anyone on this subject.
That’s simply unhinged.
Student debt cancelation means spending trillions of the American people’s tax money to pay off the bills of a relatively affluent slice of society. One study even found it would benefit the top 20% six times more than the bottom 20%. It’s a regressive taxpayer bailout.
So, it’s little wonder that this proposal is unpopular with voters. Full student debt cancelation—Turner’s position—is supported by just 37% of the public, NPR polling finds.
That’s right: More than 6 in 10 Americans disagree with Turner’s proposal. But she nonetheless thinks it’s beyond debate, because it’s a question of “human rights” and “people shouldn’t profit from knowledge.”
It’s particularly funny to see Turner claim that there’s no place for profit in education. She is a professor, according to her Twitter bio. I wonder: Does she take a salary or any form of compensation? Or does she just teach as a form of charity?
Anyway, Nina Turner certainly doesn’t have to debate me on this issue. But that one of the most prominent progressive advocates for student debt cancelation is unwilling to debate anyone on the subject suggests that she knows how empty and hypocritical her talking points truly are.
The “it’s not a debate” stance is a standard pose by leftists when they know they’re likely to lose the debate. As Victor Davis Hanson wrote in 2018: “Twenty years ago, there was honest debate over global warming. Ten years ago, there was still honest debate over the effects of human-induced climate change. Five years ago, there was still honest debate over the cost-benefit analysis of dealing with the problem. Not now. Anyone who doubts that there is an existential man-caused threat to the planet — requiring the radical and costly reconstruction of the global economy and society — is considered a ‘denier,’ deserving of professional ostracism or worse.”