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
Apr 20, 2026 11:58 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
Audio: Samuel Gregg Discusses ‘Tea Party Catholic’
Acton Institute Director of Research Samuel Gregg joined host Mike Murray on his show “Faith, Culture and Politics” on the Guadalupe Radio Network to discuss his latest book, Tea Party Catholic. The interview lasted nearly a half an hour, and you can listen to it via the audio player below. ...
A Wesleyan Approach to Faith, Work, and Economic Transformation
“[Wealth] is an excellent gift of God, answering the noblest ends. In the hands of his children, it is food for the hungry, drink for the thirsty, raiment for the naked: It gives to the traveller and the stranger where to lay his head. By it we may supply the place of an husband to the widow, and of a father to the fatherless. We may be a defence for the oppressed, a means of health to the sick, of...
Stewardship and Thanksgiving
Today at Ethika Politika, I reflect on what it might look like to adopt thanksgiving as one’s orientation toward human experience and society: We may think of gratitude … as an appreciation of the joy that es from what is virtuous and the recognition of “what God has done or is doing.” Now we have a hermeneutic for our experience, grounded in the God-given “‘eucharistic’ function of man,” to borrow from Fr. Alexander Schmemann. It is not enough to simply...
Donald Miller’s Lopsided Theology of Work
When es to theology of work, the church has enjoyed a healthy season of self-critique and introspection. Sermons, books, and seminars abound. Dead theologians and forgotten works are routinely remembered and resurrected, challenging a host of our modern assumptions about wealth, exchange, and the nature of work itself. We have, as monly hears it, begun the process of tearing down the “divides” between Sunday-morning spirituality and grindstone temporality. In line with such a development, bestselling author Donald Miller recently shared...
What Does Religious Liberty Stand Upon?
With everything from the HHS mandate to Duck Dynasty to Sister Wives, there is much in the news regarding religious liberty. What are we to make of it? Is religious liberty simply being tolerant of others’ religious choices? Michael Therrien, at First Things, wants to clear up the discussion, from the Catholic point of view. He starts by looking at an article quoting Camille Paglia, atheist, lesbian and university professor. In it, Paglia rushes to the defense of Phil Robertson,...
From Aid to Enterprise
Can the current model of humanitarian aid generated by networks of large philanthropic foundations, NGOs, and Western governments actually alleviate global poverty? The latest Liberty Law Talk podcast asks Acton’s Michael Miller, director of the new Poverty Cure Initiative, to address that question and to explain what conditions can lead to prosperity: As Miller discusses, the prevalent humanitarian aid model frequently uproots the very beginnings of the circles of exchange that must exist for wealth to be created in these...
Business and the Option for the Poor
There is no reason to assume that the preferential option for the poor is somehow a preferential option for big government, says Acton research director Samuel Gregg. Gregg writes that lifting people out of poverty — and not just material poverty but also moral and spiritual poverty — does not necessarily mean that the most effective action is to implement yet another welfare program: What does living out the option for the poor mean in practice? We must engage in...
What Liberal Evangelicals Should Know About the Economic Views of Conservative Evangelicals
We read the same Bible and follow the same Jesus. We go to the same churches and even agree on the same social issues. So why then do liberal and conservative evangelicals tend to disagree so often about economic issues? The answer most frequently given is that both sides simply baptize whatever political and economic views they already believe. While this is likely to be partially true, I don’t think it is a sufficient explanation for the views of more...
Hobby Lobby Owners Speak Out on HHS Mandate
In a new video from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Green Family, owners of the embattled retail chain, Hobby Lobby, discusses the religious foundation of their business and the threat the federal government now poses to those who share their beliefs. “What’s at stake here is whether you’re able to keep your religious freedom when you open a family business,” says Lori Windham, Senior Council at The Becket Fund, “whether you can continue to live out your faith...
Video & Audio: Why Libertarians Need God
The 2014Acton Lecture Seriesgot underway last week with an address from Jay Richards on the topic of “Why Libertarians Need God.” In his address, Richards argued that core libertarian principles of individual rights, freedom and responsibility, reason, moral truth, and limited government make little sense in an atheistic and materialist context, but make far more sense when grounded in a theistic belief system. The video of the full lecture is available below; I’ve embedded the audio after the jump. ...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved