College is a public good and should be equally available to all. This is why Massachusetts needs to pass the Debt-Free Future Act (DFF) instead of a weaker bill known as the CHERISH Act. The DFF would guarantee tuition-free college for all in-state students while providing help with additional costs, such as housing and food for those in need.
On the other hand, the CHERISH Act would only add to the tangled web of bureaucracy we have for financial aid. Its debt-free college program is a form of a “last-dollar” grant, meaning it only calculates how much aid students need after factoring in existing financial aid and grants. The program also requires that students contribute money from their jobs to qualify. This peculiar condition would take away money students often need for their families or college expenses. In addition, students are only eligible if they do not get enough financial aid or scholarships to cover their tuition.
This all amounts to an extreme waste of time and opportunities for better policy. Why should students be required to have a job to qualify for the CHERISH Act when many need their wages to help their families pay for supplies and just enjoy life?
Meanwhile, the DFF has all the benefits of the CHERISH Act and none of the drawbacks. Like the CHERISH ACT, the DFF would make college debt-free and cover additional living costs such as groceries and supplies.
But it goes even further by having the state cover the cost of tuition for all students regardless of income. In doing so, the bill would eliminate all the bureaucracy needed to provide financial aid and determine students’ needs.
An even stronger point in the DFF’s favor is that the CHERISH Act alienates middle-class and wealthier students because they do not benefit as much. By only making it more affordable for the poorest as opposed to making it free for everyone, this bill has the potential to create opposition from the middle and upper classes. Since they would still pay the bulk in taxes for it without seeing any benefits, they would have a reason to support defunding it over time.
This kind of policy also stigmatizes public colleges by saying only people experiencing poverty are worthy of attending for free. We have already seen how only designing public goods for lower-income people makes the more well-off reluctant to use them simply because they believe using these services will make them look poor.
But, if we make our public colleges tuition-free for all, middle-class and wealthier Americans will have a greater reason to support funding it and eventually send their children there, ensuring citizens of all backgrounds will defend it.
Not only is a tuition-free college system more efficient and politically sustainable in the long term, but it is also completely affordable. Massachusetts is the nation’s third wealthiest state; we have about the same population as Denmark and a higher GDP, yet they have free college, and we don’t.
The DFF would only cost $1.8 billion as of 2023, according to calculations by the office of House sponsor Natalie Higgins. We could easily fund that through a combination of Massachusetts’ tax on millionaires, the $375 million spentyearly on financial aid or passing the Endowment Tax, to name a few.
Massachusetts built its cutting-edge status on its strong focus on a college education, but a looming shortage of college-educated workers and rising inequality puts that under threat if we refuse to act. The CHERISH Act means well, but it does not guarantee the tuition-free college that people need and deserve. Let’s do affordable college right and pass the DFF.
Liam Rue can be reached at [email protected].
