Second, what about all of the other victims of crime. Are people who were defrauded by a private school more worthy of relief than carjacking victims? Arson victims? What about victims of other frauds?
What about non-monetary crimes? Are people who were defrauded by private schools more worthy of relief than rape victims, or the families of murder victims?
It's just not a role of government to provide monetary relief (as opposed to justice) to victims of crime. And even if it were, I see no reason why victims of private school fraud should receive relief before all others.
Mortgage and car loan issuers always force you to purchase adequate insurance. If you are a victim of arson or carjacking, you won't still owe the lender the full amount of the loan—insurance will make both you and the lender whole. There is no insurance for education though. So someone has to lose money here. The question is, is it better for the student to be out of the money or the lender.
Seems like you moved the goalpost here. Do you think debt forgiveness is a bad policy when it comes to people who were not defrauded?
So you basically think that people who were defrauded should have an debt-albatross hanging over their necks (potentially for their whole lives), so you won't feel like a sucker for paying of your own student debt?
Were you defrauded by the school whose loans you worked so hard to pay off?