Eric Adams, New York City’s mayor elect, will inherit an agenda full of problems when he takes office in the New Year. There are many areas of great concern in the City. Among them are security, safety, subways, infrastructure and police policies. This essay will address public education and how focused financial assistance could be of great importance to our students.

You might be surprised to know that New York City has nearly 1,800 schools across its five boroughs. The school system has a budget of $34 billion. About 1.1 million students attend these schools and are instructed by 75,000 teachers. The New York City public school system is gigantic and plays a monstrous role in educating students in the area.

This essay will propose a new way to improve the public school system. In essence, it could bring the financial strength and intellectual acumen of large corporations and affluent citizens to bear. The proposal will encourage corporations and philanthropists to provide direct monetary support and engagement into the affairs of our public schools. This would be a double barrel benefit for the children.

Most experts agree that the New York City public school system is not doing a great job of educating urban children. And, most would concur that notwithstanding the large budget, the instruction by teachers is not optimal. How could a corporation or an affluent person improve the system? You probably would reply that more money would be helpful. This could be accomplished by raising taxes and adding to the billion already flowing into the system.

But suppose more money was provided directly to schools and administered by a panel consisting of the principals, teachers and representatives of a corporate sponsor. The money would be available to meet important non-budgeted operating needs, such as painting, fixing toilets, rodent control and safety along with cultural endeavors like music and dance programs. At the start, money would not be available for teachers’ compensation. This would complicate negotiations with teacher unions in the future.

Here’s a straw man proposal for you to consider. A corporation commits to provide $1 million each year for three years, a pittance for most large corporations in New York City. The number of good things that can be done with $3 million over the three years at a single urban school in one of the worst areas of the City might be nothing short of amazing.

I think more creative ideas need to be explored in connection with corporate desires to make meaningful social impact. Paying taxes, some of which go to education, is impersonal. Giving funds directly to an “adopted school” would be a much more significant event for the school and for the donor.

The evolution of this concept began just after 9/11 when I tried to find ways to help living first responders. Everyone at the time was rushing to give money to the survivors, while I looked at the situation in a different way. It should be noted that adopting a firehouse or police station would also be a wonderful piece of eleemosynary giving.

Last week we celebrated a child’s graduation from business school. It was a very emotional and enjoyable experience.

The celebration was online, which was a bit of a disappointment. Essentially, a photo of each graduate appeared on screen and names were read. I feel that the extraordinary cost of said education is so great that parents deserve to sit among thousands of others in the scorching heat for three hours and watch the dean hand their children a diploma. It was not to be because of the damn COVID pandemic. I hope and pray that future graduates and their parents are not deprived of this momentous experience.

I prepared myself to hear ubiquitous ranting by ultra-liberal administrators, deans and selected students. Given what has taken place recently, I expected a full-fledged attack about how America is no longer as great as it was because of income inequality, too many affluent people, too many poor people, overzealous police activities, racism, nativism and support of Israel. I must apologize to the university, the administration and the students because this was not what took place.

The principal speaker, a CEO of one of the largest companies in the world, spoke about his career and the responsibility of all businesses to be diverse, fair with employees, concerned with the environment and to speak up against injustice when it arises anywhere in the world. I thought the presentation was appropriate, balanced and inspirational.

Speeches were also made by the President of the University and Dean of the College. Both were informative for the graduates and parents. Of course, they encouraged the graduates to “make something happen,” a common theme throughout the day. The quid pro quo for all this education should be a vow by graduates to strive for greatness in an area they are passionate about. Entrepreneurship and social consciousness were themes of all the presenters.

The student speakers were outstanding orators. One gave a lecture in Latin. Maybe two or three people knew what he was saying, but fortunately, subtitles were provided. The young man could have been addressing Julius Caesar and the Senators in Roman. I wondered how long it took him to memorize and hone his presentation.

The most eloquent speech was offered to us by a Shakespearean connoisseur who could, and probably has, played a major role in one or more of the Bard’s plays.

The event was noteworthy for what did not take place. There was very little bitterness and resentment. There was practically no bashing of one political group or another. Significant issues were gently and tastefully touched upon as one would expect in a bastion of liberal thought and achievement.

I award the graduation ceremony an A plus. I didn’t perspire or feel uncomfortable in the heat, but I thoroughly enjoyed the encouragement for the graduates to be great and make a real contribution to society.

The spirit and attitude of the speech-givers and the recipient students was a welcomed divergence from the destructive politicization of societal issues taking place every day in our nation’s capital and around the country. I hope that a number of graduates someday take the place of self-centered political hacks that today represent us in Congress and other parts of the government. My optimism has been restored to an extent.  

There is $1.7 trillion of student debt outstanding in the US. The Biden administration is considering a debt forgiveness program that would reduce that amount somewhere between $10,000 and $50,000 per student. These proposals would not have any impact on private student debt or debt already paid by borrowers.

Three out of four Americans are in favor of reducing student debt by $10,000, according to the latest College Investor Survey; this amount has been endorsed by the Biden administration. If instituted, it probably would be with an executive order and not enactment of a new law. Biden’s fellow Democrats are pushing for a $50,000 per student reduction, including Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Elizabeth Warren. They claimed that such a move would “close the nation’s racial wealth gap.”

Women and people of color would be the greatest beneficiaries of a debt forgiveness program. At $50,000, 80% of federal student loans would be stricken. This would reduce debt for 36 million Americans. Women owe 2/3 of the total student loans, $31,300 is the average for white women, $29,900 is the average for white males and $35,700 is the average for Black males. Within the last 12 years, 38% of Blacks have defaulted on loans, three times higher than whites. 85% of Black Bachelor of Arts recipients have student debt and 69% of whites have student debt. 90 percent of student debtors have accepted government offers to put monthly payments on pause during the pandemic.

[Note: Fox News 8 and Pimco were the sources for most of the aforementioned statistics.]

The questions surrounding this costly entitlement proposal are:

• What if any benefits would accrue to students who have paid back loans? Answer: None.

• Where will money come from to pay for the program? Answer: From taxpayers.

• How much money would accrue to debtors? Answer: Zero. Loan payments would cease.

• How would forgiveness of debt impact the economy? Answer: It would increase the chances of inflation as the federal government cancels debt and increases payments to those affected by the pandemic.

• How would students who have been paying feel about the program? Answer: Probably, they would feel cheated.

What alternatives could be considered in lieu of forgiveness of debt?

• A universal reduction in college tuition across the board.

• A moratorium on debt payments, rather than forgiveness of debt. It would give debtors a chance to catch up on payments 5 to 10 years in the future when they are earning more money.

• Forgive $10,000 per student, not $50,000.

• A surcharge on tuition for wealthy families. Once again, look to the affluent to pay more to subsidize the needy.

• Elimination of college tax exempt status. This would force colleges to pay taxes on profits.

• Free tuition at state and community colleges.

• Revamp college curricula to include more practical studies that would increase employment and wages.

• Force private colleges to give more scholarships rather than using cash to increase endowments.

Here we go. Biden hasn’t even moved into the White House and radical progressives are calling for massive forgiveness of college debt. A New York Times article on the subject of student debt was the inspiration for this blog post.

The bid and ask range of college debt forgiveness stretches from $10,000 per borrower, or a total of $400 million, to $50,000, a total of $1 trillion. The Department of Education owns $1.4 trillion of student debt and is the largest consumer lender in the country. Liberals including teachers’ unions and the NAACP are calling for the higher amount. Biden has endorsed a $10,000 program and a promise to chip away at the remaining debt overtime.

The first major issue to contend with is whether a debt forgiveness program is best legislated or accomplished with a presidential executive mandate. There is an embedded constitutional issue with the mandate, as only Congress has the power to effectively pay Americans. But this is now being hotly contested by attorneys. Obviously, a mandate is the most efficient way to forgive the debt.

It should be noted that forgiving $400 million or $1 trillion would not be a cash outflow from the Treasury. The money has already been spent. Student loans were funded. The federal government would essentially be forgiving principle and interest on the loans, which would reduce future cash flow assuming borrowers paid the money and debt service in the future.

Then of course, someone must decide whether the most needy people would be getting the benefit of the debt forgiveness. Some say debt forgiveness is inefficient as 70% of the unemployed do not have college degrees. And 60% of the debt owed belongs to 40% of earners who have annual income of $74,000 or more. It appears that most debt forgiveness programs will benefit middle and upper class individuals more than the poor.

Proponents say debt forgiveness would be a stimulus to economic activity as borrowers would instantly have more cash flow to spend. And as mentioned earlier, the government would be providing stimulus without incurring more national debt.

Opponents say that those who have paid off loans will surely feel cheated. And, many students would borrow more money hoping that future debt payment forgiveness programs would happen again. Nevertheless, forgiveness of debt does not address the systemic problem of high cost of a college education.

Various experts have said that state schools should be free of charge. Others say repayment should be based upon the borrower’s earning power. But there have been no suggestions to date that would address the underlying problems outlined above.

There has been a lot of talk of the evils of student debt. Mistakes were made by many parties. Students borrowed today and did not concern themselves with the specter of repayment or taking courses that would enable them to repay their student loans after graduation.

Overzealous congresspeople incorrectly thought that providing debt for higher education without any quid pro quos was good policy. They were wrong to the tune of $1.7 trillion. Now the same people want to double down and make the debt disappear.

This legislation will be difficult to consummate unless the number is far lower than what progressives are demanding.  

Federal prosecutors charged 50 people on Tuesday in schemes to bribe their children into elite colleges. These indictments are probably only the tip of the iceberg of illicit efforts by parents to unfairly assist their children. Based on the sizes of bribes most of the offenders are wealthy individuals.

It should be noted that not all the children were aware of the illegal behavior of their parents, and none of them were charged with crimes.

It’s understandable that caring parents want to do whatever they can to help their kids gain admission into the best colleges. They know a diploma from a top-notch institution is often a requirement to obtain the most prestigious and lucrative jobs after graduation in most fields of endeavor. But the assistance of parents should not offset the academic and athletic shortcomings of their children. In America the expectation is that the most qualified students, not the wealthiest, will gain admission to the best colleges.

The people who were caught up in a complex web of bribery included school administrators, athletic directors and a number of employees of the test taking organizations. The operation involved millions of dollars. And, many laws have been broken. It will be interesting to see whether offending parents will do real jail time in for their efforts to help their children.

One of the most offensive aspects of the sordid affair is that deserving students are denied admission when undeserving students take spots illegally. Throwing gasoline on the fire is that illegal bribes, money laundering and improper used of tax exempt organizations occurred. In fact some of the bribes were made through not-for-profits so the parents could deduct them for tax purposes.

Elite colleges raise enormous amounts of money each year, much of which is provided by alumni and added to significant endowments. This is a tradition that has gone on for years. In most cases there is no quid pro quo for the donations. Sometimes big donors get ego appointments to boards of trustees and prime seats to football and basketball games.

The real problems surround the money paid before a new student gains, or does not gain admission. Every year large grants are promised based upon admission. These arrangements are totally legal but considered the darker side of college development activities. In essence some students gain admission over other more qualified students because their parents can afford to make a large contribution to the school.

It would be more appropriate, fairer, less conspiratorial and more palpable to admission equality for colleges to not accept promises of money before a student applies. But many colleges need the flow of donations each year to offset increasing costs (except those institutions with large endowments), so it’s unlikely that colleges will change their current fund raising tactics.

Seems to me that the baked in advantages of the well-to-do over other students (white vs. color, private school vs. public school, tutors vs. no tutors, single parent families vs. two parent families, etc.) should not be expanded because parents of a student applying are prepared to make a 5, 6 or 7 figure donations contingent upon acceptance. Perhaps the current scandal will move Congress to address this growing problem and inequality.