Demanding people pay their student loans while cancelling payment plans is diabolical.

Question

This claim was made by a woman named Dr. Allison Wiltz on X. Dr. Wiltz is a "Pro Black Womanist Writer and Scholar". After a deeper dive into some of her work, articles, and groups she is apart of, it is very clear that she places herself on the left side of the political spectrum, as could have probably been guessed given her original claim. While I am sure Dr. Wiltz has more than enough evidence to back her claim, it is important to note her liberal bias while analyzing the claim. 

That being said, I was able to find an article from the Associated Press that proves both her assumptions true. The government is indeed demanding student loans to be paid, while also passing a court ruling in February that blocked payment plans for some students. To an outsider, it is not hard to tell how these two actions can be considered counterintuitive and confusing.

Overall, although the claim consists of language that is incredibly polarizing and emotional, specifically the word, "diabolical", the claim is completely justifiable and warranted in my opinion. The federal government consists of lots of details that the public may not know much about, but given the information released to the public, such actions on there behalf could very well appear as confusing and hard to grasp from a fiscally responsible standpoint.

Trusted source: https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-debt-default-collection-fa6498bf519e0d50f2cd80166faef32a

Answer 1

The statement, “Demanding people pay their student loans while canceling payment plans is diabolical” is a very opinionated and emotion-based statement. One cannot verify it as true/false because it is simply an opinion. However, the things that can be verified is the concepts of “demanding people pay student loans” and “canceling payment plans.” According to a recent article from The Guardian, Beginning 5 May, the department will begin involuntary collection through the treasury department’s offset program, which withholds government payments – including tax refunds, federal salaries and other benefits – from people with past-due debts to the government. After a 30-day notice, the department also will begin garnishing wages for borrowers in default.” This quote states that the government will start to involuntarily collect or even garnish people’s wages in an attempt to collect student loan payments. It also specifies that the garnishing of wages will happen to borrowers in default, an important fact to note is that, “ Less than 40% of all borrowers are current on their student loans, department officials said.”, meaning the involuntary collection of student loan payments could affect ~60% of all student loan holders. The other part of the statement we can verify is the cancellation of payment plans. This statement is also true. A federal court recently prevented the US Department of Education from implementing certain parts of various student loan payment plans, notably the payment plan “SAVE.” The destruction or even temporary removal of these payment plans will harm American’s nationwide, as we just discovered that less than 40% of student loan borrowers are current. 

A link to an article detailing the involuntary garnishing of wages: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/22/education-department-student-loan-collection

A link to the Department of Education’s explanation of next steps regarding “SAVE” and many other student loan payment plans: https://www.ed.gov/higher-education/manage-your-loans/save-plan

Comments

You did a great job breaking down the difference between opinion and fact in that statement. I agree that calling it "diabolical" is subjective, but when you look at the facts you presented, it’s easy to understand why people feel that way. The combination of restarting aggressive collection methods, like wage garnishment and tax refund withholding, while also seeing payment plans like SAVE being blocked, really puts those borrowing in a tough spot. Also, I think you used good sources such as the ".gov" source.

---

This is a great fact check. You navigated the difficulties of a very political and argument creating topic that was very subjective. Your focus on the facts you can confirm solidified that the ultimate decision made regarding this claim can be believed and accepted no matter how one may think personally by the subjective language.

---

This is a great response to the original claim that demanding people pay their student loans while cancelling payment plans is diabolical. You explained the claim, and the many facts that the claim is based on. However, you did a great job separating this "claim" from an opinion statement.

---

I agree that the first statement is very emotional, but I also get why people feel that way. If most borrowers aren't current and payment plans like SAVE are being paused or blocked, it really leaves a lot of people in a tough spot.

---

You did a great job mindfully unpacking such a highly charged and complex topic and used a verifiable source to elaborate. By clearly distinguishing between subjective language—like calling the situation "diabolical"—and the verifiable facts behind the claim, you brought much-needed clarity. Highlighting the reinstatement of aggressive collection practices alongside the legal challenges to relief programs like SAVE helps explain public frustration without leaning into bias.

---

You did a really great job separating opinion from verifiable fact, which made your response feel balanced and well informed. I liked how you didn’t dismiss the emotional weight of the original statement but instead focused on what could actually be proven. As well citing both a credible news source and a government website added a lot of strength to your explanation.

---

Very informative response. I appreciate that you provided your answer and then continued to explain more about the topic which the claim discussed, even though it was opinionated. Additionally, you cited relevant information from a credible source that made me better informed of the topic. Utilizing two separate sources is also a plus as it validates your response.

---

Excellent work on this answer. You used great statistical facts in order to dissect an opinionated claim.

---

Your response is good! You clearly distinguish between opinion-based statements and factual claims, using relevant evidence to support your analysis. Including statistics about borrowers and explicitly referencing current policy from credible sources like The Guardian strengthens your points significantly. If anything, you might consider briefly acknowledging the emotional impact of these policies to further highlight why the original statement feels justified to some individuals. Overall, you did a solid job presenting your analysis thoughtfully and accurately

---

I throughly agree with your comment. I like that you pointed out the opinion and emotional language used within the claim made, but you took it a step further by breaking the claim apart and finding non-opinion based statements within and answering those. It was very cleaver and well put which makes your comment not only valid but strong and reliable. Good Job!

---

I appreciate the inclusion of imperial evidence despite the claim being completely subjective as it doesn't shut down the topic. It allows the important or nuanced aspects of the debate to continue while removing the more biased and subjective aspects of the discussion.

---

I appreciate the detailed information regarding explaining the situation and proving the perspective of emotions to the claim.

---

I liked how you also noted that her statement was very heavily opinion based so therefore it cannot be true or false, which is something that the other replies did not note. I also appreciated how you then gave evidence to support the portions of her claim that could be fact checked. Though if I were to add one thing I would also go into who she is and what her bias is, especially because her statement was very opinion based.

Answer 2

While the question of whether or not it's diabolical is a deeply subjective measure, the oxy-moron the government has created with the plans is quite riduculous in my opinion.

Comments

You did well on finding who said this claim and finding a reliable source that backs this up. Looking at the source, I was able to find where they agree with this claim. I'm able to connect it to the claim and also learn more while reading this source. I liked how you included your opinion on the claim and how the use of the word "diabolical" is emotional because I would agree with this. I think the reason she included this was to show her view on it.

---

While it's true that the original claim is opinion-based and subjective, your response is much the same. If you had provided some sources explaining the reasoning behind the original claim and supporting Dr. Wiltz's conclusion, your own response would be stronger and more could be learned from the discussion at large.

Answer 3

I definitely agree with your claim. I feel that Dr. Allison Wiltz' wording is definitely emotional and strong (diabolical). This doesn't take away the validity of her actual claim however, it instead tells us that this is coming from a place of frustration or a political view. Dr. Wiltz writes a lot about social justice, race, and equity. She seems to heavily favor the left side politically, so it makes sense that she'd be critical of the government policies she sees as unfair, especially surrounding student debt. According to a report from the Associated Press, there are two major things happening:

1. Student loa payments have resumed after bring paused during COVID

2. A court ruling in February 2024 blocked parts of Biden SAVE plan, which would have helped make payments more afforable or even gotten rid of some debt.

Overall, while calling it "diabolical" is an opinion based word, the core of what she's saying is true. Payments are back, and some relief options are being blocked. Whether you agree with her or not, there's solid evidence behind her frustration.

Comments

You did well with your fact-check, and I enjoyed reading about it; however,  although what Dr. Wiltz is saying is true, and she can point out the biggest faults/facts, it is highly opinionated. When writing your claim, you also stated that her points are opinionated: "She seems to heavily favor the left side politically." When claiming facts, we must remain unbiased and simply use the facts to create a better argument. Overall, great job!

---

I really enjoyed reading your fact check, I believe you did a good job bringing up points to support your argument. I do agree how however, with the other comment that she has a bias towards left-leaning opinions. This takes away from her opinion because of her bias, meaning that it is not as valid as another opinion. All in all, her opinion is correct, but due to bias, it is less meaningful.

---

Good job checking the facts surrounding the claim but it would be good to give the sources you used as well as clarifying more about how while the statement is an opinion you deem it to be true because the reasoning is solid.