Just earlier this year the nation was compelled to weigh the merits of a full student debt jubilee, as proposed by presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Crucially, he proposed this reform alongside others to higher education, including tuition-free public college and trade school.

But Sanders lost, and while the issue of student debt has been successfully shuffled to the top of the Democratic Party agenda, full student debt cancellation is off the table, and eliminating financial barriers to education and training is no longer part of the dominant conversation. The debate is now between up to $50,000 of means-tested student debt forgiveness, as proposed by Democratic senators Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren, and a maximum of $10,000, which President-elect Joe Biden finds more amenable, though he’s not sold on it.

Meanwhile, as the prospect of even modest executive action to relieve student debt becomes more realistic, the chorus of critics grows louder. They decry the policy as regressive, a giveaway to the higher earners who owe the majority of debt — which they do, even though lower earners with college degrees also have lots of student debt and have a harder time paying theirs back. Proponents of student debt cancellation have solid evidence that the policy is progressive, not regressive, but instead of simply bristling at these mounting criticisms, we would do well to take them seriously and strategize against them.