Staff Reports
In a recent New York Times column, journalist Ron Lieber suggested some questionable methods for borrowers to escape their student loan debt. The column, titled “Six Ways You Can Still Cancel Your Student Loan Debt,” originally included a shocking option: death. While Lieber’s intention may not have been to encourage suicide, the vague wording left room for interpretation. This caused a public outcry and prompted the New York Times to attempt a stealth edit of the column.
NYT Columnist Suggests 'Death' as an Option to Avoid Student Loan Repayment, NYT Fumbles Stealth-Edit Attempt https://t.co/ccYw7ZhfeH
— RedState (@RedState) July 1, 2023
Lieber’s column was published shortly after the Supreme Court struck down President Biden’s unconstitutional student loan forgiveness plan. The court ruled that Biden did not have the authority to cancel up to $10,000 in federal loans per borrower. In his column, Lieber expressed sympathy for the disappointment felt by borrowers who will now have to fulfill their contractual obligations and repay their loans.
NYT what the fuck are you doing bro pic.twitter.com/mK6WbLLsPZ
— Katelyn Burns (@transscribe) June 30, 2023
Nice stealth edit they did too. This is really, really gross. pic.twitter.com/vaDAOXapXS
— Brooke Binkowski (@brooklynmarie) June 30, 2023
However, Lieber proceeded to suggest several alternative options for borrowers to explore. These options included income-driven repayment, public service loan forgiveness, closed or low-performing schools, bankruptcy discharge, disability discharge, and, disturbingly, death. Lieber did not specify how death might be an option for borrowers, leaving readers to draw their own conclusions.
Following the public backlash, the New York Times made edits to the column, removing the option of death and rephrasing the section about inheriting loan balances. However, the Internet has a long memory, and Lieber’s initial wording can still be found online.
While it is important to have conversations about student loan debt and potential solutions, suggesting death as an option is both irresponsible and insensitive. It is crucial for journalists to exercise responsible journalism and to consider the potential interpretations and implications of their words. In this case, Lieber’s column was a sloppy and ill-thought-out piece of writing.
Ultimately, the New York Times failed in its attempt to stealthily edit the column, as the original version can still be found online. The incident serves as a reminder that the Internet is forever, and the words we write can have lasting consequences. It is essential for journalists to be mindful of the impact of their words and to prioritize accuracy and sensitivity in their reporting.
