Incessant Exclusion: The G.I. Bill and Black Veterans

Credit: U.S. News

Black Veterans and the G.I. Bill
Introduction

The G.I. Bill refers to one of the many instances of non-inclusive social policy and legislation in the United States. An assessment of the G.I. Bill and its impact, whether intentional or not, speaks more seriously to the implementation of public policies in the United States and its detrimental effects on people’s lives. In this paper, I make the claim that the G.I. Bill was ineffective in eradicating or even mitigating institutional racism and discrimination as it was established on the ongoing promotion of Jim Crow segregation, despite statistics that attempt to assert otherwise. Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, the G.I. Bill did not extend opportunities to and better the lives of all veterans. Instead, the law disproportionately enforced the continuing discrimination and marginalization that Black veterans experienced prior to World War II. My claim can be substantiated by the racist practices of the Veterans Administration, the G.I. Bill’s decentralization, and institutional racism, and discrimination. The effects of this law alone serves to inform us that social policies can certainly have a negative impact with tangible effects in marginalized communities under white supremacy. The implementation of ‘well-intentioned’ social policies aiming to eliminate social ills requires careful scrutiny and consideration to determine the extent to which institutionalized racism and discrimination actually renders them ineffective and unfeasible.

History

Passed on June 22, 1944 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the G.I. Bill, has been praised by veterans and scholars alike for providing the former a plethora of opportunities. This bill, often regarded as an extension of the government’s gratitude to valiant veterans returning from World War II, has viewed as an attempt to  prevent another devastating Great Depression. It gave millions the opportunity to buy homes, begin new businesses, and gain employment, making for the construction of a middle class. It also allowed many veterans to receive one year of schooling if they served for a minimum of ninety days and were not older than twenty-five years old when they began their service. These veterans were deemed eligible for another year of education for every year of service. Additionally, they received a monthly allowance of $50 for single veterans and $75 for married ones, aside from their tuition, fees, and books being free of charge. However, these benefits did have limitations the bill limited the veterans to four years of education. The law also provided opportunities to enroll in vocational or technical programs, which the majority of veterans did, especially Black veterans.

Much of the literature surrounding the educational benefits of the G.I. Bill describes it as a sweeping piece of legislation that changed the face of America. It was credited with not just the construction of a young, new middle class but also with democratization of higher education. What was once reserved for society’s most wealthy now appeared to be accessible to millions of Americans due to skewed images by media depicting veterans rubbing elbows with and learning alongside the elite, as seen in American Magazine’s “Yanks at Yale”. Initially, however, veterans were not seen favorably by college presidents who publicly stated their skepticism of enrolling married veterans, who they believed would lower academic standards. However, after the successful completion of many veterans enrolled in colleges and universities across the country, administrators were pleasantly surprised by what they saw. Veterans were not only performing well but outperforming their non-veteran peers, as demonstrated by a study conducted by the University of California Los Angeles. Thereafter, veterans gained a reputation for being mature students who increased the academic standards of colleges and made universities more receptive to married students.

Argument

However transformative and idyllic the G.I. Bill ostensibly appears, in practice, the G.I. Bill was not an inclusive social policy that secured educational opportunities for all veterans. While the Bill had it merits such as making college more accessible to those who do not belong to the American elite, Black veterans were disproportionately shortchanged. Black veterans were routinely excluded from attaining the full educational benefits promised by the G.I. Bill, whose implementation and distribution was dependent on the local offices of the Veteran’s Administration. As author Hilary Herbold notes,“staffed almost entirely by whites empowered to deny or grant the claims of black GIs, the [Veteran’s Administration] became a formidable foe to many blacks in search of education.”

This incessant exclusion was made possible by a social policy that appeared “neutral” and “color-blind” on paper, but in practice was discriminatory and racist, which was due in large part to the decentralization of the G.I. Bill. When the Bill was crafted, it was decided that is implementation would be left to the hands of the state, providing much discretion to local administrative offices. This discretion allowed for local offices to restrict and deny benefits “consistent with their environment’s racial laws and customs.”

The decentralization of the G.I. Bill allowed for segregation to thrive, a practice which prevented many Black veterans from enrolling in college, and allowed local offices responsible for dispersing the benefits to funnel them into technical work. Evidently, it became a practice of the Veteran’s Administration, and universities, to channel Black veterans into less competitive and less prestigious institutions of higher education. Universities themselves set unofficial and official quotas to restrict the matriculation of Black students and the Veteran’s Administration threatened to deny benefits to Black veterans seeking to matriculate into a competitive degree program. In these ways, the Veteran’s Administration, along with racist university practices, worked to keep Black veterans out of competitive programs and funnel them into technical programs. The actions and philosophy of the Veteran’s Administration reflected Booker T. Washington’s “industrial philosophy”, which argued that “Blacks should be trained for agricultural and technical work, for that was the route to economic advancement; they had no use for the benefits of a liberal education.” The racist practices of the Veteran’s Administration thus ensured that those who did have access to the educational benefits of the GI Bill would however be restricted to marginal occupations and less prestigious programs.

Consequently, the pressure also grew on Historically Black Colleges and Universities to manage the swelling number of applications from Black veterans, denied entrance to other schools, as their institutions were struggling and had two-year waitlists.

The latter however, remains only one indication of the ways in which Black veterans were shortchanged.  Despite a Veteran’s Administration survey which indicated that 49% of Black veterans compared to 43% of white veterans used educational and vocational benefits, one can find a grimmer picture beneath the surface. Although this statistic can aid the argument that Black veterans, just as white veterans, benefited from the educational benefits from the G.I. Bill the quality of educational and technical programs proves otherwise since only 12% of Black veterans enrolled in college. This percentage however, is likely to be indicative of Black veteran participation in technical programs and on-the-job programs.

Counter-Arguments

Political Scientist, Suzanne Mettler, however, argues that Black veterans greatly benefited from what she describes as, “the most racially inclusive policy of the era”. However, this claim fails to consider the fact that Black veterans were relegated to all-Black private and public vocational schools in Jim Crow states, and were being prepared for “black jobs”. This fact is essential to an assessment of the G.I. Bill, especially when looking at the participation rates published by the Veteran’s Administration survey. Unfortunately, these rates did not effectively demonstrate that Black veterans who attended Black private institutions were most susceptible to fraud. These schools were often scams that offered little to no instruction, yet often expected the highest amount of tuition allowed.When 314 vocational schools for Blacks in the South were reviewed in 1947, the Urban League questioned whether they even met minimum standards for that particular type of school.  On-the-job training programs also resulted in disappointment, with white businesses refusing to hire Black veterans.

This type of discrimination and exclusion characterized much of the G.I. Bill despite claims that it fostered equal citizenship and was an inclusive policy. Mettler however, argues that the VA survey demonstrates an expansion of opportunities for all because of the seemingly similar usage rates of Black veterans and white veterans, 49% of Black veterans and 43% of white veterans who used the educational and vocational benefits. However, Mettler cannot rely solely on these numbers to make her claims because the authors of the Veteran’s Administration survey themselves, have admitted to the possibility of error in the survey and also remained anonymous. Surely, these usage rates also do not measure the number of Black veterans who were unable to access these benefits because of racist and discriminatory practices at their local offices. As mentioned, with the discretion afforded to these offices due to the decentralization of the Bill, which was decided in its creation, the Bill was vulnerable to the practice of segregation and institutionalized racism.

Conclusion

In sum, the fact that the local offices of the Veteran’s Administration were primarily responsible for disbursing G.I. Bill benefits, which allowed for racist and discriminatory practices, led to an unfair and ineffective policy. The commonly held idea that the G.I. Bill did not only afford many Black and white veterans alike a variety of opportunities, but that it was a color-blind policy, is dangerous for our assessment of it as a whole, and for the development of future policies. It in reality teaches a valuable lesson of the implementation of public policies at the local and state level. It exposes its vulnerability to ongoing racist practices that severely limit and interfere with the opportunities afforded to marginalized populations. Without a doubt, the discriminatory implementation of the Bill warns us about decentralized social policies.

Bibliography

Atkinson, Byron. "Veteran vs. Non-Veteran Performance at U.C.L.A.: The G. I. Bill as an

Academic Experiment." The Journal of Educational Research 43 (1949): 299-302. Accessed March 8, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27529147.

Clark, Daniel A.. ""The Two Joes Meet. Joe College, Joe Veteran": The G. I. Bill, College

Education, and Postwar American Culture." History of Education Quarterly 38, no. 2 (1998): 165-189. Accessed March 8, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/369985.

Herbold, Hilary. "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill." The Journal of

Blacks in Higher Education 6 (1995): 104-108. Accessed March 8, 2015.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2962479.

Katznelson, Ira. When Affirmative Action was White: An Untold History of Racial 
Inequality in Twentieth-Century America. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005.

Katznelson, Ira, and Suzanne Mettler. "On Race And Policy History: A Dialogue About

The G.I. Bill." Perspectives on Politics 6, no. 03 (2008): 519-537. Accessed March

8, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20446759.

Olson, Keith W.. "The G. I. Bill and Higher Education: Success and Surprise." American

Quarterly 25, no. 5 (1973): 596. Accessed March 8, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2711698.

Olson, Keith W.. The G.I. Bill, the Veterans, and the Colleges. Lexington: 
University Press of Kentucky, 1974.

Turner, Sarah, and John Bound. "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." The Journal of Economic History 63, no. 01 (2003): 145-177. Accessed March 8, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3132498.