Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, not at all. There are three players in the student loan game: lender, servicer, and guarantor. The lender is pretty much what it sounds like. The servicer is the agency that handles the repayment process (and any deferment or forbearance) as long as the loan is not in default. The guarantor is where the loan is transferred if it goes into default. The guarantor will add collection fees of up to 20% of the default…
Given that explanation, I find it hard to understand why Navient should provoke a moral outrage over activities which seem to fall under what you describing as servicing: isn't their incentive to keep the debtor to the original terms of the loan? It could be argued that these debtors should have never signed on to begin with, but that would be on the lender's shoulders. Thanks for the explanation.
These articles from The Consumerist give you a better idea what the outrage is about:
https://consumerist.com/2017/04/03/navient-claims-its-under-...
https://consumerist.com/2017/01/18/student-loan-giant-navien...
I think the first covers the "moral outrage" a bit more than the second when it mentions how Navient's public statements are all to the effect of "we're here to help you," while their actions all point the other way. The second is just some straight up shady shit they've been doing.