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 26, 2026 12:15 PM

“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
Stephanie Slade on markets, planning, and Catholic social teaching
Stephanie Slade writes in next month’s edition of Reason Magazine about, ‘Regulation and ‘the Right Ordering of Economic Life”according to Catholic social teaching: The Church’s surprising lesson for partisans of big government is that the best tools for correctly ordering economic life are found in the choices of individual market actors. Because those choices are based not only on their preferences but also on their convictions, people’s moral sensibilities—the extent to which they believe they have ethical obligations to each...
The rise of ‘woke’ culture: Lessons on the power of institutions
We continue to see the ill effects of “cancel culture” and safetyism, whether through student-led riots and intimidation efforts at colleges and universities, the garden-variety intolerances of “woke capitalism,” or the self-destructive interventionism of “bulldozer parenting.” As far as how it’s e to be, we have explanations aplenty, from declines in religious life to the fraying of the social fabric to rises in political fragmentation and polarization. In an essay at Heterodox Academy, Musa Al-Gharbi points to yet another: a...
Samuel Gregg: Marco Rubio’s ‘soft corporatism won’t help workers’
Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL, touched off a debate about the values of capitalism with his remarks on mon-good capitalism” on November 5 at the Catholic University of America. Today, Acton Institute Director of Research Samuel Gregg offers his assessment at Law & Liberty, where he traces Rubio’s thought to one of the most influential political philosophies in postwar Western European history. Sen. Rubio’s speech, titled “Catholic social doctrine and the dignity of work,” holds that the state must do more...
Nibbling at Dylan Pahman’s Chick-fil-A argument
As though guided by an invisible hand Dylan Pahman and I – independently and without coordination – each posted an essay about Chick-fil-A’s philanthropic giving within minutes of one another, each with slightly different emphases. Readers may see this as a conflict; however, probing the space between these analyses helps make sense of customer backlash, illustrates why “woke capitalism” of any variety is a miasma, and underlines that charitable decisions are best made by private individuals. Dylan quotes Milton Friedman’s...
There is no moral difference between eating Chick-fil-A and a McChicken
I am grateful to Fr. Ben Johnson for his thoughtful response to my recent post, “The social responsibility of Chick-fil-A is to make delicious sandwiches.”He adds some extra nuance, but I still stand my ground. Fr. Ben begins with an objection I’ve heard several times now: Friedman rightly notes that a CEO who funds a charity with the profits of a publicly held corporation spends the firm’s money, not his own. However, Chick-fil-A is a privately owned business, founded by...
Marco Rubio’s ‘Common-Good Capitalism’ lacks sound economics
In this week’s Acton Commentary I examine Sen. Marco Rubio’s case for “Common-Good Capitalism”: Americans are searching for answers for the disintegration of the family, falling participation in religious and civic institutions, drug dependency, suicide, and economic dislocation. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., believes he has found the answer to the social crises of our time in Catholic social teaching. He describes his own reading of Catholic social teaching as “Common-Good Capitalism,” drawing principally on Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum...
Calvin Coolidge on Thanksgiving: Gratitude for ‘the things of the spirit’
Despite being surrounded by unprecedented levels of opportunity and prosperity, we live in a profoundly anxious age, fearful of economic decline and disruption even as we strive to resist idols of status, wealth, fortability. When observing such a state, many are quick to proclaim that “the market is not enough.” They are correct: We also need gratitude. “We should bow in gratitude to God for His many favors,” said President Calvin Coolidge in his 1925 Thanksgiving Proclamation, remarking on a...
Spare a thought for China’s Muslim Uyghurs
The days in which many Westerners celebrated what many thought was mainland China’s inevitable march towards freedom as a consequence of its limited opening to global trade are now well and truly over. The present battle over Hong Kong, one of the world’s most economically-free regions, is plainly a proxy for a wider fight about China’s future—a future in which Beijing has made clear does not include much room for political freedom and rule of law. Then there is the...
Hong Kong demands freedom in landslide election
The citizens of Hong Kong expanded their democratic revolution to the ballot box on Sunday, as pro-democracy parties won control of virtually every local government from pro-Beijing functionaries. Yesterday’s district council elections – the largest in history, with an estimated 71 percent of all registered voters (or 2.94 million of 4.13 million) participating – proved voters’ overwhelming support for the traditional rights enjoyed by the former British protectorate. The South China Morning Post described the landslide election as a “tsunami...
Wealth inequality is a First World problem
As the West has e progressively more interventionist, concern with e inequality” has been eclipsed by “wealth inequality.” However, that focus betrays a certain blindness to a vital economic reality. Measures of equality and inequality tell us nothing about what really matters: a society’s prosperity or poverty. Communist societies were far from equal in practice. However, modern concerns about inequality focus on the fact that the free market does not reward all labor evenly. Yet the West’s efficiency creates the...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved