Eroding the Promise and Potential of the G.I. Bill
When President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 — also known as the G.I. Bill — into law, he said the act “gives emphatic notice to the men and women in our armed forces that the American people do not intend to let them down.” Within a few short years, millions of veterans were attending college for the first time, and by 1956, close to 8 million veterans had participated in some form of advanced training. In the decades since, the G.I. Bill — adapted over time by Congress — has sustained a powerful cycle of service and upward economic mobility, transforming the civilian trajectories of millions of veterans while adding immeasurably to America’s prosperity.
The continued success of the program is at risk, however, as the U.S. Department of Education (ED) under Secretary DeVos rolls back critical safeguards put in place to protect college students — including and in particular military veterans — from predatory actions on the part of for-profit institutions of higher education (IHEs) and related agencies (e.g. firms that service student debt). Such actions ignore persistent incentives that drive for-profit IHEs to see military veterans as, in the words of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) committee, “nothing more than ‘dollar signs in uniform.’” The continued weakening of oversight by ED risks turning the promise of the G.I. Bill from one of opportunity and hope into one of misfortune and debt.
Secretary Devos’ antipathy towards federal oversight of higher education funding shows a clear misreading of the G.I. Bill’s history. Although arguably one of the most successful federal programs of all time, the G.I. Bill has nevertheless required numerous interventions to address significant issues in terms of equity and opportunity. At the onset, the original legislation allowed discriminatory policies at the state, local, and institutional level; as a result, African-American veterans were denied admission to most IHEs outside of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). It required the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect students from discrimination on the basis of race.
More recently, the Obama Administration launched a serious campaign to investigate and remedy widespread predatory actions on the part of the for-profit higher education industry. In 2014, the Obama Administration enacted regulations holding IHEs accountable for the degree to which their graduates went on to earn enough to pay off student debt (“gainful employment”). In 2015, the ED fined for-profit Corinthian College $30 million for misleading applicants about its graduates’ job placement rates, following multiple state and federal investigations that effectively forced Corinthian out of business. Finally, in 2016, the ED announced regulations (“borrower defense”) to strengthen students’ rights for debt relief in situations of fraud or abuse, including Corinthian borrowers left in debt and with worthless degrees.
Despite this clear, demonstrated need for strong federal intervention to protect students, Secretary DeVos has steadily handed power to the for-profit education sector.
For instance, in April 2017, Secretary DeVos rescinded guidance documents issued by the ED under President Obama that would have made servicers’ treatment of borrowers part of the calculus for awarding federal contracts to service student loans. Secretary DeVos’ version of the guidance removed new requirements that would have required servicers to focus their efforts on high-risk borrowers and prevent the unacceptably high rates of default among student loan borrowers.
In early 2018, Secretary DeVos went even further to weaken oversight of loan servicers by asserting that only the ED has the authority to oversee entities with federal contracts to service student debt. In recent years, state governments have passed legislation to tighten state-level oversight of loan servicers and protect their citizens; however, rather than work with state officials to advance borrowers’ rights, Secretary DeVos decided to back loan servicers. (Note: A bipartisan coalition of state Attorneys General is fighting back against this assertion.)
Additionally, in July 2017, Secretary DeVos halted the loan forgiveness process created to remedy situations where (overwhelmingly for-profit) IHEs had misled or defrauded students. After delaying for many months, Secretary DeVos renewed the process, but then announced in December 2017 that many students with valid claims — even some of those who had already seen their claims approved — would only receive partial relief from their debt, depending on their current earnings. This will leave potentially thousands of students on the hook for their student debt despite their degrees being worthless.
This pattern of neglect for students’ rights will have an outsize impact on veterans. A 2017 report from the nonprofit Veterans Education Success highlighted how for-profit IHEs are increasingly reliant on veterans for revenue, meaning service members are most at-risk for targeting by predatory actors. Further erosion of student protections will mean more G.I. Bill dollars wasted and more opportunities lost for service members and their families.
Secretary Devos’ actions represent not just a break with the policy direction set by President Obama, but an abdication of the federal government’s responsibility towards veterans and other student borrowers. There will be widespread damage done by this diminution of an essential covenant between the nation and those who serve.
Dan Vallone is a member of Truman National Security Project’s Defense Council. From 2015 to 2016, he served as Special Advisor for Innovation and Chief of Staff for the Office of Innovation and Improvement at the U.S. Department of Education. Views expressed are his own.
