Rich kids need free college too, whatever Pete Buttigieg thinks

During the seventh Democratic debate this week, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg echoed one of his consistent talking points; that he wants free public college, but just not for “rich kids.” This is in direct conflict with frontrunners Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have stated that public college should be free for everyone, regardless of their parent’s wealth or income. Billionaire Tom Steyer appeared to agree with Buttigieg’s position; when asked, “Should your kids have free college?” by one of the CNN moderators, Steyer answered simply, “No,” before talking about the importance of means-testing education.

How Buttigieg defines “rich kids”, however, is reckless. Under his plan, those from homes earning less than $100,000 would have tuition eliminated. And those from homes earning less than $150,000 would have “substantial tuition subsidies,” although it is a mystery as to how “substantial” they are.

In a November 19th tweet, Buttigieg referred to these “rich kids” as the “children of millionaires and billionaires.” It’s important to note that a household making over $150,000, while mostly likely privileged and comfortable, is not a “millionaire” or “billionaire” household. This is especially true for black and Latinx families, who, because of systemic racism, have a more difficult time retaining wealth despite high incomes.

Buttigieg isn’t alone in his disdain at the idea of giving the progeny of the wealthy a “handout.” In the November 20th debate, Senator Amy Klobuchar said she wouldn’t send “rich kids to college for free” because she wasn’t “going to go for things that sound good on a bumper sticker and throw in a free car.”

This is ironic, because while Buttigieg and Klobuchar’s talking points might sound good — especially to those who are rightfully enraged and resentful about horrific wealth disparities in this country — they are hollow, functionally useless, and dangerous.

Not only is it illogical to bar the children of the wealthy — who usually don’t even attend public college — from receiving free tuition, but it also makes it easier for children and teens who are being financially or otherwise abused to fall through the cracks of the system. Children and teens experiencing poverty are subject to higher rates of abuse. But abuse doesn’t disappear at higher tax brackets. Upper-middle class college students can equally be abused in multiple ways by their families.

I know, because I was one of them.

While my parents are far from ultra-wealthy, my father does have a very high income. My mother — who was in control of the household finances — was impulsive and reckless with money throughout my childhood, as well as being emotionally, verbally, or physically abusive to almost everyone in our immediate family.

As the eldest child, I am the first and the only one to go to college. When I first started applying, my mother had nothing saved for me or my siblings’ higher education. She frequently threw parties that cost thousands of dollars, but refused to pay for in-state tuition at my dream school.

Fortunately, I did get accepted to Howard University on a full academic scholarship. However, due to experiencing sexual assault, mental health issues, and physical abuse from my mother, I lost that scholarship because I couldn’t keep up with the intense academic rigor.

This was partly because my mother used money as a tool of control. Due to having a severe mental illness and healing from trauma, I was unable to work and maintain a full-time course load. My mother would often refuse to send me money to do laundry, even if I was out of clean underwear. She refused to help subsidize groceries, claiming that she didn’t want me to have “some boy I was having sex with eating the food she bought.” So, I had to get a job to survive — but managing severe mental illness, a job, and 15 credits was too much.

When I finally lost the scholarship, my family’s expected contribution was so high, there was no way for me to get the aid and grants I needed. By this time, my mother had forbidden my father and siblings from talking to me, so I couldn’t even reach out to my father for help. She refused to help me with anything, including tuition at community college.

Luckily, my grandparents stepped in and helped me. I still had immense privilege compared to most, and that is what allowed me to continue my education at Howard. It is also what allows me to do the work I do today.

I am aware of my privilege, and so I want to acknowledge that there are stories far more horrifying than mine. However, experiences like mine are ignored when we make blanket assumptions about the lives of people with high incomes. Their parents should be able and willing to send them to college, but this isn’t always the case, for many reasons, including abuse.

If it would be a larger social good to deprive “rich kids” of free college, I would champion it. But if free public college is to be subsidized by the upper middle-class, the ultra-wealthy, and Wall Street — as outlined in both Sanders’s and Warren’s plans — then what’s the point of barring their children from benefitting?

To reiterate, most wealthy children go to private schools. And even if they choose to go to public school, it would make almost no difference. According to the Roosevelt Institute’s Mike Konczal, if public higher education was free, only 1.4 per cent of those benefits would be allocated to the children of those who are in the top 1 per cent of the wealthy. Furthermore, taxes are meant to provide a service, and free public university is a service.

Opposing free college for “rich kids” may sound like a good idea in theory, but it won’t fix income inequality and it will make children more vulnerable to abuse and manipulation. And education is a civil right. Imposing arbitrary limits on who can access that right is not only illogical, but dangerous.

The writer of this piece has chosen to remain anonymous as a victim of abuse