Attaining a higher education in the U.S. has long been seen as the great equalizer. "We see education as a way to level the playing field among low-income families, low-income communities and communities of color," Mark Huelsman, the report's lead author, told NBC News.
But the current education system is rife with racial and class disparities contributing to an expanding wealth gap between whites and people of color, according to the "Less Debt, More Equity" report.
Despite its reputation as an antidote to inequality, the U.S. higher education system has reinforced and even exacerbated racial wealth inequality, by preventing many students of color from accessing college and loading black students with debt when they do attend.
Late Monday night, while protesting the recent police killing of Jamar Clark, a 24-year old Black man, in Minneapolis, 5 people were shot. They were just a block away from the Minneapolis Police Department’s 4th Precinct, where protesters have held daily demonstrations for the past nine days. Demos President Heather McGhee:
”Protesters represent the very best of our democracy and every candidate for president should denounce last night’s shooting in the strongest possible terms."
Eliminating student debt for low- to middle-income families could dramatically narrow the racial wealth gap between black and white households, according to a joint study by liberal think tank Demos and the Institute for Assets & Social Policy at Brandeis University.
Though 43 million Americans across the racial and socioeconomic spectrum have nearly $1.3 trillion in college loans, black households are far more likely to have student debt at all income levels.
In addition, federal student loans — which usually cap at $27,000 over four years — don’t always cover the full cost of a higher education, and many students are forced to secure private loans or work jobs to pay for their degree.
“Student debt is not the same to every borrower,” Mark Huelsman, a senior analyst at public policy nonprofit Demos, said in a statement. “It can look a lot different to a first-generation student from a very modest economic background than to someone going to graduate school getting a law degree.”
Mark Huelsman, a senior policy analyst at Demos, compared the movement to the one seen with universal health care, which had been an issue for quite awhile until “a moment of consensus” came in 2008.
A striking piece of the 2016 Democratic primary is the consensus among the candidates on substantially lowering the price students pay to attend public colleges.
Yesterday, Sen. Sanders offered a solid, detailed plan to combat big money in politics. His proposal means that heading into Saturday’s debate all three Democratic candidates now have specific policy agendas aimed at addressing the unprecedented influx of big money into U.S. elections.
The concept of Short-Termism is fast becoming the darling of progressive economic policy wonks. Predictably, the discourse is littered with inaccuracies and half-truths as pundits rush to publish so as not to be left behind. It is time for a serious convening of interested experts to sort through the issues, but none is scheduled. Until one is convened, a brief walk through the weeds is in order.
The second democratic debate is approaching on Saturday, and the American people want to know: if elected, what will the candidates do to get big money out of our democracy?
“Student debt has become a kitchen-table issue at this point,” says Mark Huelsman, a senior policy analyst at Demos. “Because borrowing is now a prerequisite to college, it’s now embedded in traditional issues of economic fairness and things that students tend to be active about.”
Connecticut is poised to undo a signature accomplishment—the Citizens Election Program. Facing budget cuts, some legislators in Connecticut have proposed allowing wealthy donors to, once again, dominate the state’s elections.
Yesterday, voters from coast to coast fought back against big-money politics. Voters in Maine and Seattle resoundingly approved ballot measures aimed at empowering the voices of ordinary citizens in the political process.
On a late evening this past summer and without warning, one of the oldest buildings in Atlanta caught fire. Gaines Hall — a former dormitory on the campus of Morris Brown College — had been shuttered for years, closed when the school fell on hard times. After firefighters extinguished the two-alarm blaze, what was essentially left of the building was a charred red brick shell.
Parents and students enter into an often complicated and opaque process when trying to secure financial aid, making some kind of financial discussion essentially a requirement for anyone hoping to successfully pay for college, said Mark Huelsman, a senior policy analyst at Demos, a left-leaning think tank.
How has the rise of big donors affected our policies? In a recent post, political scientist Seth Masket, whose work I deeply respect and have read for years, argues that “what's not happening here is the superdonors skewing American politics rightward.”
His argument is that so far in the 2016 election, superdonors have tended to be Republican, because that’s where the interesting contest is. Here, I have no qualms.
Critics — and even some supporters — of the program say its designations are arbitrary, and raise questions about whether the benefit should be rethought, expanded, or even eliminated.
Adding farming to the list could introduce further complexity, since farmers in the U.S. work mainly for for-profit business.