Editing G.I. Bill (section)

==Problems==

===Racial discrimination===

The G.I. Bill aimed to help American [[World War II]] [[veteran]]s adjust to civilian life by providing them with benefits including low-cost [[mortgages]], low-interest loans and financial support. The chairman of the American Veterans Committee at the time, Charles G. Bolte, wrote that federal agencies were consistently discriminating "as though the legislation were earmarked 'For White Veterans Only'".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Bolte|first1=Charles|last2=Harris|first2=Louis|url=https://gateway.uncg.edu/islandora/object/wvhp%3A4804#page/22/mode/1up|title=Our Negro Veterans, Public Affairs Pamphlet No. 128|date=1947}}</ref> According to historian Ira Katznelson, "the law was deliberately designed to accommodate [[Jim Crow]]".<ref>{{cite news|last1=Kotz|first1=Nick|title=Review: 'When Affirmative Action Was White': Uncivil Rights|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/books/review/when-affirmative-action-was-white-uncivil-rights.html?_r=0|access-date=2 August 2015|work=The New York Times|date=28 August 2005}}</ref> In the New York and northern New Jersey suburbs 67,000 mortgages were insured by the G.I. Bill, but fewer than 100 were taken out by non-whites.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Katznelson|first1=Ira|title=When affirmative action was white : an untold history of racial inequality in twentieth-century America|date=2006|publisher=W.W. Norton|location=New York|isbn=978-0393328516|edition=[Norton pbk ed.]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Lw5xzMyzE5AC&q=ewer+than+100+of+the+67%2C000+mortgages+insured+by+the+G.I.+Bill+supported+home+purchases+by+nonwhites&pg=PA140 | title=When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America| isbn=9780393347142| last1=Katznelson| first1=Ira| date=2006-08-17| publisher=W. W. Norton & Company}}</ref>

Additionally, some banks and mortgage agencies refused loans to black people.<ref name="Herbold 1994" /> After the war, many people, black people included, returned to their former lives of poverty, making it difficult for them to pursue the higher education opportunities afforded by the G.I. Bill.

In the South, which was still segregated at that time, some universities refused to admit black people until the Civil Rights movement. Colleges accepting black people in the South initially numbered 100. Some of those institutions were of lower quality, with 28 of them classified as sub-[[Bachelor's degree|baccalaureate]]. Only seven states offered post-baccalaureate training, while no accredited engineering or doctoral programs were available for blacks. These institutions were all smaller than white or non-segregated universities, often facing a lack of resources.<ref name="Turner and Bound">{{cite journal|last1=Turner|first1=Sarah|last2=Bound|first2=John|title=Closing the Gap or Widening the Divide: The Effects of the G.I. Bill and World War II on the Educational Outcomes of Black Americans|journal=The Journal of Economic History|date=March 2003|volume=63|issue=1|pages=151–2|doi=10.3386/w9044|doi-access=free}}</ref>

By 1946, only one fifth of the 100,000 black people who had applied for educational benefits had been registered in college.<ref name="Herbold 1994"/> Furthermore, [[historically black colleges and universities]] (HBCUs) came under increased pressure as rising enrollments and strained resources forced them to turn away an estimated 20,000 veterans. HBCUs were already the poorest colleges. HBCU resources were stretched even thinner when veterans' demands necessitated an expansion in the curriculum beyond the traditional "preach and teach" course of study.<ref name="Herbold 1994">{{cite journal|last1=Herbold|first1=Hilary|title=Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill|journal=The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education|date=Winter 1994|issue=6|pages=104–108|doi=10.2307/2962479|jstor=2962479}}</ref>

Though black people encountered many obstacles in their pursuit of G.I. benefits, the bill greatly expanded the population of African Americans attending college and graduate school. In 1940, enrollment at Black colleges was 1.08% of total U.S. college enrollment. By 1950 it had increased to 3.6%. However, these gains were limited almost exclusively to Northern states, and the educational and economic gap between white and black nationally widened under the effects of the G.I. Bill.<ref name="Turner and Bound conclusion">{{cite journal|last1=Turner|first1=Sarah|last2=Bound|first2=John|title=Closing the Gap or Widening the Divide: The Effects of the G.I. Bill and World War II on the Educational Outcomes of Black Americans|journal=The Journal of Economic History|date=March 2003|volume=63|issue=1|pages=170–72|doi=10.3386/w9044|doi-access=free}}</ref> With 79 percent of the black population living in southern states, educational gains were limited to a small portion of black Americans.<ref name="Herbold 1994" />

===Merchant marine===
Congress did not include the [[United States Merchant Marine|merchant marine]] veterans in the original G.I. Bill, even though they were considered military personnel in times of war in accordance with the [[Merchant Marine Act of 1936]]. As President Roosevelt signed the G.I. Bill in June 1944 he said, "I trust Congress will soon provide similar opportunities to members of the merchant marine who have risked their lives time and time again during war for the welfare of their country." Now{{when|date=April 2025}} that the youngest World War II veterans are in their 90s, efforts have been made to recognize the merchant mariners' contributions by giving some benefits to the remaining survivors. In 2007, three different bills to address this issue were introduced in Congress, of which one only passed in the House of Representatives.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.usmm.org/urgent.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120131131445/http://www.usmm.org/urgent.html|url-status=dead|title=Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of 2007|archive-date=January 31, 2012}}</ref> The Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of 2007 establishes Merchant Mariner equality compensation payments by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of a monthly benefit of $1,000 to each individual who, between December 7, 1941, and December 31, 1946, was a documented member of the U.S. Merchant Marine (including Army Transport Service and the Naval Transport Service).  This bill was introduced to the House by Rep. Bob Filner (D-California) in 2007 and passed the House but not the Senate so did not become law.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/23|title=H.R.23 - 110th Congress (2007-2008): Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of 2007|first=Bob|last=Filner|date=September 5, 2007|website=www.congress.gov}}</ref> Another attempt to notice Merchant Marines in the G.I. Bill was the 21st Century GI Bill of Rights Act of 2007, introduced by Sen. Hillary Clinton, Entitles basic educational assistance to Armed Forces or reserves who, after September 11, 2001: (1) are deployed overseas; or (2) serve for an aggregate of at least two years or, before such period, are discharged due to a service-connected disability, hardship, or certain medical conditions. Entitles such individuals to 36 months of educational assistance.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/1409|title=S.1409 - 110th Congress (2007-2008): 21st Century GI Bill of Rights Act of 2007|first=Hillary Rodham|last=Clinton|date=May 16, 2007|website=www.congress.gov}}</ref> Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Florida)  got the house to pass easier access to the GI Bill by "verifying honorable service as a coast-wise merchant seaman between December 7, 1941, and December 31, 1946, for purposes of eligibility for veterans' benefits under the GI Bill Improvement Act of 1977." It passed the House and went no further.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2189|title=H.R.2189 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): To improve the processing of disability claims by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.|first=Jeff|last=Miller|date=October 29, 2013|website=www.congress.gov}}</ref>

===Colleges that target veterans===
After the GI Bill was instituted in the 1940s, a number of "fly-by-night" vocational schools were created. Some of these for-profit colleges still target veterans, who are excluded from the [[90-10 rule]] for federal funding. This loophole encourages for-profit colleges to target and aggressively recruit veterans and their families.<ref name="newgibill.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.newgibill.org/blog/the-90-10-rule-why-predatory-schools-target-veterans|title=The 90-10 Rule: Why Predatory Schools Target Veterans|access-date=June 19, 2016|archive-date=August 17, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150817223750/http://www.newgibill.org/blog/the-90-10-rule-why-predatory-schools-target-veterans|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/06/for-profit-college-veterans-loophole/396731/|title=Why For-Profit Colleges Target Military Veterans|first=Alia|last=Wong|website=[[The Atlantic]]|date=June 24, 2015|access-date=June 19, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Davidson |first=Jake |date=November 11, 2014 |title=Money Military Heroes: How For-Profit Colleges Target Military Veterans (and Your Tax Dollars) |url=https://money.com/collection-post/veterans-college-for-profit/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200224143504/https://money.com/collection-post/veterans-college-for-profit/ |archive-date=February 24, 2020 |access-date=June 19, 2016}}</ref> Legislative efforts to close the 90-10 loophole have failed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/best-for-vets/education/2015/06/23/for-profit-colleges-gibill-problems/29160377/|title=For-profit schools targeted again over GI Bill payouts|access-date=June 19, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ibtimes.com/profit-colleges-9010-loophole-latest-target-democrats-military-veterans-education-1982127|title=For-Profit Colleges' 90/10 Loophole Latest Target For Democrats With Military And Veterans Education Protection Act|website=[[International Business Times]]|date=June 24, 2015|access-date=June 19, 2016}}</ref>

Lead generators like [[QuinStreet]] have also acted as third parties to recruit veterans for subprime colleges.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/2012/04/09/150148966/for-profit-schools-under-fire-for-targeting-veterans|title=For-Profit Schools Under Fire For Targeting Veterans|website=NPR.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/military-branded-websites_b_9131742|title=Military-Branded Websites Push Veterans to Troubled For-Profit Colleges|date=February 1, 2016|website=HuffPost}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.democraticmedia.org/article/private-profit-colleges-and-online-lead-generation|title=Private For-Profit Colleges and Online Lead Generation &#124; Center for Digital Democracy|website=www.democraticmedia.org|access-date=August 26, 2017|archive-date=August 27, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170827001627/https://www.democraticmedia.org/article/private-profit-colleges-and-online-lead-generation|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Inadequate disability coverage ===
The bill specified that any veteran requiring a prosthetic limb would be entitled to one and the training required to utilize it, as well as limited funding for  custom automobiles and home renovations. Author Bess Williamson highlighted that there were extensive obstacles to veterans receiving prosthetic limbs following the first and second World Wars. These included inadequate types of prosthetics, poor quality of prosthetics, and a high emphasis on societal reintegration that emphasized aesthetics over function.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Williamson |first=Bess |title=Accessible America: A History of Disability and Design |publisher=NYU Press |year=2019 |isbn=9781479894093 |pages=19–42}}</ref> However, the sympathetic perception of veterans, influenced by films like ''Meet McGonegal'' (1944),<ref>Department of Defense (1944), Meet McGonegal http://exhibits.usu.edu/items/show/18493</ref> helped to drive innovation of prosthetic devices. Williamson also argued that these veteran's benefits, despite their flaws, set the stage for later government support and legislation, like the [[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990|Americans with Disabilities Act]].<ref name=":0" />