False. The two institutions that together account for the majority of students at issue here were ITT Tech (now defunct, but was nationally accredited) and Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (also now defunct, but many of their constituent institutions were nationally or regionally accredited.)
Nonaccredited schools aren't qualified for the federal student loans being forgiven here.
> Did the school commit a crime?
That's a weird standard. Why would it need to be a crime rather than a tort?
> so, there's no need to forgive the debt - the government and/or students should go after the school, and our existing legal process makes things right.
Er, the majority of the students affected are from institutions that no longer exist, largely because of their frauds. There is no one to go after.
You're correct, however I believe ACICS, who accredited both (or a least some of the institutions) was later found to be a poor accreditor by the DoE and was stripped of its ability.
Nonetheless, your point is that at the time they were both accredited and those were able to get the federal student loans. I stand corrected.
However, my rebuttal is that the colleges referenced in the article were for-profit and unaccredited to begin with. In other words, the students of said schools willingly went to schools without any level of vetting (or they were vetted and failed).
Given this there are two questions:
1. Did the school commit a crime? If so, there's no need to forgive the debt - the government and/or students should go after the school, and our existing legal process makes things right.
2. Were the students harmed? This is obviously more difficult to prove in general. Let's suppose the students were harmed (since the article doesn't really specify what it means by harm). Should the government continue to subsidize people who are harmed in this way?
My take is if we want to reduce harm, why not just forgive all debt? Clearly if all debt is forgiven, then all harm caused by such debt is reduced to zero.
As a society we have already decided people should be responsible for some things, so the question is why specifically in these circumstances are they being forgiven? And how is the government going to create the circumstances where they don't have to do this again?