Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
No, Snowflake, We’re Not Responsible for Your Student Loan Debt
No, Snowflake, We’re Not Responsible for Your Student Loan Debt
Feb 25, 2026 3:00 AM

“No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible,” said Stanisław Jerzy Lec. Whether that is true in nature, it’s certainly seems to be true for many of the precious little snowflakes who find themselves, after making poor educational decisions, buried under anavalanche of student loan debt. Consider, for instance, this op-ed by Tad Hopp, a student in “his last semester in the MDiv program at San Francisco Theological Seminary.”

Before we delve into what will be one of the worst opinion pieces of the year, let me offer a word of caution. Reading Mr. Hopp’s op-ed may affect you, as it did me, by filling you with despair. Can America survive when millions of people have such a self-centered sense of entitlement? I’m not sure. And if you’re prone to declinist thinking, you’ll want to skip the rest of this post. Here’s pilation of kitten videos to watch instead.

Let’s start by reviewing the circumstances Mr. Hopp finds himself in:

1. Goes to an expensive private college and majors in a subject that is in low demand on the job market (English).

2. Graduates with $50,000 in debt and is unable to find a job.

3. Goes to another expensive private college and majors in a subject that is in low demand on the job market (Master of Divinity).

4. Nears graduation with an additional $50,000 in debt and no prospect for finding a job.

As Mr. Hopp says,

Perhaps you can see my dilemma here. Here I am, about to graduate from a very prestigious master’s degree program, saddled with student loan debt and the constant worry that I won’t be able to find a job once I graduate.

Based on that list of events you might expect him to provide a wise, experienced-based warning that others should not follow his example. You might expect him to advise, “Don’t go to a college you can’t afford, don’t wrack up debt you can’t pay, and don’t major in a subject that won’t help you get a job. And for goodness sake don’t do all those things twice!”

But instead, Mr. Hopp takes a different approach:

So, what are we doing about it? Is the PC(USA) doing anything to address this crisis?

Wait, what? What are we going to do about it? Why do we need to do anything, other miserate with him over his poor choices?

Mr. Hopp repeatedly says he was “called”: “I went to the school where I felt I was being called . . . I felt called to go to seminary – and I felt called to my particular seminary.” But who exactly was doing the calling? Certainly not his denomination:

I imagine at least a few of you are familiar with the difficulties of the call process in the PC(USA) right now. Churches are closing their doors left and right. There are fewer and fewer pastoral jobs out there and more people seeking those jobs. Churches that were once thriving are now having a hard time paying a salary that can cover all of a pastor’s living expenses, especially when you take into account those student loan payments.

The PC(USA) was apparently not the one calling him to go to two expensive colleges to prepare for a pastoral job that likely didn’t exist. Maybe Mr. Hopp is confusing “calling” with “doing what I want to do.”

As it turns out, his denomination is not the only one to blame for his plight:

What has our government done to address this issue? I would argue: absolutely nothing. Things are no better now than they were when I graduated college eight years ago. I, like so many in my generation, voted for Obama hoping for large-scale change under his leadership, and yet he’s been stalled at every turn by a Congress who, judging by their approval ratings at the very least, doesn’t seem too preoccupied with caring for the people they claim to represent.

Yes, what is wrong with Congress? Why don’t they care about the people who make dumb educational choices and agree to take on mounds of debt they cannot (or do not want to) repay? Why isn’t the government rushing to spend the taxpayers money to help this poor, unfortunate group of entitled folk?

Oh, and you know the one person we shouldn’t blame at all? That’s right: Mr. Hopp.

Yes, I chose to go to college and graduate school, with much support and encouragement from friends and family. Yes, the economy tanked right before I graduated from college. And yes, I am graduating seminary at a time in our nation’s history when religion is statistically ing less and less important to people’s lives.

So, is it my fault? Should I have ‘known better’ – or done something more financially responsible than get an education? I personally think that’s the wrong question. Chalking the plight of the 40 million Americans shackled by student debt up to ‘poor choice’ by individuals sounds a lot like blaming the victims. Such an approach does nothing to address the root cause of the problem: the fact that we as a society unilaterally encourage people to go to pursue higher education but fail to support them with adequate financial assistance.

Sounds a lot like blaming the victims? Perhaps. You know, if I punch myself in the face, I am both the perpetrator and the victim. If I were plain that my jaw hurt and someone replied that maybe I shouldn’t have socked myself in mouth I could claim they were “blaming the victim.” I could claim that, but I wouldn’t because it’d make me sound like an idiot. Adults take responsibility when they knowingly and willingly harm themselves. They don’t expect someone else to take full responsibility for their self-harm.

And what about all the friends and family who supported and encouraged Mr. Hopp to go to schools he couldn’t afford? Has he approached them yet and asked them to pay up for “failing to support him with adequate financial assistance”? I doubthe did.

Besides, it’s not really their fault. The problem is the system. What other choice do we really have but to take out loans for expensive colleges?

It seems to me that we’ve bought into the lie that student loan debt is brought on by the individual person and not by the fact that our system doesn’t encourage or even allow for any other model. Who in middle-class America has $100,000 saved up that they can just give away to the institution of their choice so they won’t incur any student loan debt?

Actually, there is another model: don’t go to colleges you can’t afford. Mr. Hopp suffers from an affliction that strikes many middle-class Americans: higher education entitlement. If they want to go to an expensive school but can’t afford to go to an expensive school then someone else is obligated to pay for their education. That’s only fair, right?

Oh, but it gets worse. Hobbs then jumps into some of the most absurd economic analysis you’ll ever read:

You know what I think might stimulate the economy? Automatically canceling every single outstanding student loan! Go ahead, call me crazy; people have been responding to my proposal that way for years.

But think about it for a minute, will you? Cancelling student loan debt would mean upwards of 40 million people who would suddenly have money to spend on things that they couldn’t before – things like houses, cars, plane tickets, you name it! Think about how fast the economy would improve if 40 million Americans suddenly had more disposable e. But of course, that would never happen, would it? That would mean valuing the people taking out loans for their education over the corporations doing the lending! And, as Citizens United never ceases to remind us, corporations are people too.

Mr. Hopp can probably be forgiven for this type of reasoning (he probably never had to take a class in economics). What he fails to recognize is the effect of canceling the debt would have no effect. Whether a person spends money on “things like houses, cars, plane tickets” or on paying down their debt doesn’t matter. Oh, it might matter to them personally. But it wouldn’t affect economic growth since the exact same amount of money would enter the economy whether it was spent on plane tickets or loan repayments.

In reality, though, student loan forgiveness would make the economy worse off. Mr. Hopp doesn’t seem to care about the “corporations doing the lending” because he fails to recognize that corporations are just people. The money was lent by people who expected to get repaid so that they could spend the money on “things like houses, cars, plane tickets”—or expensive private colleges for their kids. If they don’t get paid they are much worse off.

Why not just have the government pay the loans? Because, again, “government” in this case is just another word for “American taxpayer.” Every dollar that the American taxpayer gives to pay off someone’s student loan debt is one less dollar they can use for “things like houses, cars, plane tickets.”

What Mr. Hopp’s is really asking for is a redistribution of e from people who didn’t make bad educational decisions to people who feel entitled not to pay their debts. Mr. Hopp is making the case that he and millions of other Americans should be freeloaders. They want the taxpayer equivalent of moving into their parent’s basement and living rent-free.

The one thing I agree with Mr. Hopp about is when he says, “We need to have a serious conversation about student loan debt.” Indeed, we do. The main thing that needs to be said is that if you take out a loan to buy luxury goods (like expensive colleges) you have a moral obligation to repay it. It’s time we start expecting that all Americans—especially those who want to lead our churches— to start acting like adults instead of whiny, entitled children.

There are many issues of economic and social justice that should be of concern for Christians. Paying back the student loans of middle-class snowflakes who feel “called” to make bad decisions is not one of them.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Unintended Consequences and Wind Turbines
With the surge in oil prices, there’s renewed interest in alternative energy options. Numerous countries have gradually taken steps to promoting renewable or clean energy technologies, and it seems the United States is drifting more towards favoring alternative energy options as the Obama Administration is looking at banning off shore drilling along the continental shelf until 2012 and beyond. However, before we move farther down this road, a critical analysis of the pros and cons is a must. A more...
Kennedy on CST and Unions
Robert Kennedy, author of Acton’s CSTS volume, The Good that Business Does, weighs in on the Wisconsin/Ohio flap over public sector unions and collective bargaining in this interview with ZENIT. A sample: The Church has certainly been a champion of the right of workers to form labor unions but has never argued that unions have the liberty to undermine mon good. Like many other kinds of organizations in many other sectors of society, unions can lose sight of their responsibility...
Food or Fuel?
A big report is due out tomorrow which may have a positive or negative impact on economies across the globe. These numbers are ing from the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, the Tokyo Stock Exchange, the London Stock Exchange, or any other stock exchange; they are ing from a report being released by the U.S. Agriculture Department (USDA). It will talk about the role the U.S. will play in preventing or reducing the effects of a global food shortage. There...
Does your 401K make you an idolator?
Here’s today’s offering from Jim Wallis’ Rediscovering Values for Lent on the Sojourners website: Today, instead of statues, we have hedge funds, mortgage-backed securities, 401(k)s, and mutual funds. We place blind faith in the hope that the stock indexes will just keep rising and real estate prices keep climbing. Market mechanisms were supposed to distribute risk so well that those who were reckless would never see the consequences of their actions. Trust, security, and hope in the future were all...
Jeff Jacoby: Jesus won’t tell them what to cut
Writing in the Boston Globe, columnist Jeff Jacoby says that a “more fundamental problem with the “What Would Jesus Cut?’’ campaign is its planted axiom that Jesus would want Congress to do anything at all.” As a believing Jew and a conservative, I don’t share the religious outlook or political priorities of Wallis and his co-signers. But you don’t have to be Christian or liberal to believe that in God’s eyes, a society is judged above all by its concern...
Shane Claiborne’s Budget Babbling
Writing for the Huffington Post, Shane Claiborne is also asking “What Would Jesus Cut?” I’m still opposed to the whole notion of reducing Christ to budget director, as my earlier post points out. But Jesus as Secretary of Defense of the United States or rather, Jesus as secretary of peace as proposed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich is equally unhelpful. Mark Tooley, president of IRD, has already weighed in on Shane Claiborne’s not so brilliant drafting of Jesus for president. As...
Does Shane Claiborne Care about Military Humanitarian Aid?
One of the main points of the “What Would Jesus Cut?” campaign is the pitting of defense spending against charitable social programs. The assumption is that Jesus would obviously endorse and campaign for the welfare state over the military. mon perception of the U.S. armed forces by many of the religious left is that they are the perfect embodiment of America as “corrupt empire.” At Acton, all of mentators on the budget have consistently said all spending measures must be...
Budgets, the Church, and the Welfare State
In this mentary, which will appear tomorrow, I summarize and explore a bit more fully some of the discussion surrounding evangelical and religious engagement of the budget battles in Washington. One of my core concerns is that the approaches seem to assume too much ongoing and primary responsibility on the part of the federal government for providing direct material assistance to the poor. As “A Call for Intergenerational Justice” puts it, “To reduce our federal debt at the expense of...
Review: Defending Constantine
We’ll have the Winter 2011 issue of Religion & Liberty online later this week and you won’t want to miss it. Subscribe here. We’re previewing the issue on the PowerBlog with a book review that, because of space limitations, had to be shortened. This post publishes it in full. Constantine and the Great Transformation Defending Constantine by Peter J. Leithart (IVP Academic, 2010) Reviewed by Johannes L. Jacobse The argument that the lifting of the persecutions of early Christians and...
Back to Budget Basics
In this week’s Acton Commentary, “Back to Budget Basics,” I argue that the public debt crisis facing the federal government is such that “All government spending, including entitlements, defense, and other programs, must be subjected to rigorous and principled analysis.” This piece summarizes much of my analysis of various Christian budget campaigns over the last week (here, here, and here). There are things that are more or less central to the primary task of government, and our spending priorities should...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved