Hits keep on comin' - school fraud claims to require more proof

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LizKat, Jan 3, 2018.

  1. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #1
    So while Trump tweets about Bannon's quotes in Wolff's book, the march towards watering down the functionality of everything that ever helped defend any ordinary American from predation by industry segments continues. Betsy deVos now seeks to move the needle towards universities and away from students in cases where loan forgiveness is sought on the basis of fraudulent representations by the schools.

    Ed Department Considering More Stringent Rules on Loan Forgiveness For Fraud Victims

    Excerpt:

    Trying to change Obama-era rules, the Trump administration is one step closer to making it more difficult for students to have loan debt wiped clean in cases involving fraud by universities.

    The Department of Education has been making incremental moves toward watering-down the policies for months, but a draft proposal obtained by Politico, lays out the administration's new vision, which places a higher burden of proof on students seeking to obtain debt forgiveness and requires applicants to individually present evidence that their college's deception was intentional.

    The existing program, called Borrower Defense to Repayment, provides relief to federal student loan borrowers who attended a school that misled them or engaged in other misconduct in violation of certain laws.

    Education Secretary Betsy DeVos convened a special committee to rewrite the policy last June saying the regulations are "overly burdensome and confusing" and need to be streamlined.

    "It is the Department's aim, and this Administration's commitment, to protect students from predatory practices while also providing clear, fair and balanced rules for colleges and universities to follow," DeVos said in a statement at the time.

    According to Politico, the draft proposal says applicants would have to establish "clear and convincing evidence" of their fraud claim. This is a change from the standard set under President Barack Obama which required only a "preponderance of evidence."
    In the meantime the administration has apparently suspended review of applications for debt forgiveness, and there's a backlog of fifteen thousand of them file since Trump took office on January 20th, 2017 up through July 2017.

    Further excerpt:

    A department spokeswoman explained the moratorium on reviewing new applications would remain until a new system to adjudicate pending claims had been developed.

    PBS reports that in the final year of the Obama administration the department approved more than 28,000 claims filed by former students of Cornithian Colleges. Those claims totaled $558 million.

    In June, NPR reported attorneys general from 18 states and Washington, D.C., filed suit against DeVos and her department, accusing DeVos of breaking federal law and giving free rein to for-profit colleges by rescinding the Borrower Defense rule.

    The rule had been put on hold less than one month after DeVos said her agency would re-evaluate it.​
     
  2. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
  3. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  4. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #4
    I love this, because it’s classic Trump, and I use it quite often....

    Trump said that only guilty people settle lawsuits. He settled this lawsuit. And yet, I guarantee you he would tell you Trump U was better than Harvard, Yale or Howard.
     
  5. LizKat thread starter macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #5
    Yeah... and the bit about each individual student having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the university specifically and intentionally defrauded him or her as an individual.

    Why don't they just say caveat emptor and so if you borrow, you owe, and we never meant to imply you deserved to receive something of value by borrowing money to attend a university, because this is the new America and the customer is always... stuck with the fine print in ways you never dreamed would be possible, so have a nice day and make sure you get the check in the mail on time because the fine print has interest rate jacks as penalties, or it will by time we get this rule change in place, and also manage to ditch what's left of any relevant bits from Warren's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulations.
     
  6. TonyC28 macrumors 65816

    TonyC28

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #6
    I’m going to need to research this or hopefully one of you can explain it...
    What’s the difference between clear and convincing evidence and preponderance of evidence? And if the new rules require that the fraud be proven intentional what was the standard before?
     
  7. AsherN macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Location:
    Canada
    #7

    My take on it is that "clear and convincing" is a video clearly showing you robbing the bank. A "preponderance" is witnesses seeing someone your height and weight, wearing your clothes, driving away in a car that matches yours, and then you spending the same amount of money that was stolen from the bank.
     
  8. TonyC28 macrumors 65816

    TonyC28

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #8
    I’m going to be cynical for a minute....
    Is another way of saying that “they have to prove it in a clear and convincing way before the taxpayers give them a refund”?
     
  9. LizKat thread starter macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #9
    I think the draft most recently negotiated said the individual student must prove that monetary damage has been inflicted. Sounds to me like the for-profit university that turns out to be a fraud mill is trying to skate over not having provided a useful degree, or going out of business before a student graduates, etc. So the kid is out a lot of time and effort... proving monetary damage on the other hand could be an uphill battle. Why should he repay university that didn't deliver the goods though?
     

Share This Page