Talk:African Americans and the G.I. Bill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that this article is heavily biased, and talks far less about the GI Bill itself than it does about the overall history of African-Americans in education at the time. The GI Bill has allowed millions of African-Americans to attend college in the 60 years since its passage who otherwise would never have been able to pay for it. The text of this article should stick to the effects of the GI Bill itself, and not other factors affecting African-American educational opportunity.

Agreed, it also needs quite a bit of cleaning up in regard to spelling/grammar. Also, some things are not explained/linked well such as "VA" (the disambiguation page doesn't help). A more appropriate link would be to the Veteran's Administration.

Disagreed. Discussing other factors that limited the benefits of the bill is perfectly reasonable for this article. It does need some clean up and, more importantly, expanded discussion about the benefits (or lack thereof) of the bill's loan provisions. 6-21-2006

I have heard that many of the black soldiers who were in the military during WWII were discharged without proper paperwork such as DD-214 documents. The lack of such documentation made it far more difficult for them to prove they were elligible for the GI Bill, and undoubtedly would have discouraged many from pushing forward to get a higher education. If a researcher can confirm that allegation, it clearly should be included in the article. Also, although the article mentions black veterans' difficulty in getting housing loans, it doesn't stress the well-known and legal banking and insurance practice of redlining portions of cities and whole towns until redlining was made illegal under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Also, somewhat anecdotal, years ago when I looked into buying an old house with the help of the GI Bill, I was told they would not finance a house more than 25 years old. In many slums, ALL the houses that a black person might want to or be able to buy would be older than 25 years. 66.245.8.210 08:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This article needs much better citation of source material. Many of the statements look like hearsay or the author's interpretation. I think that more work needs to be done to make use of inline citations to show where particular (and not commonly known) claims come from. Further, the current references listed are a short journal article and a short magazine article. Perhaps there are additional reputable sources that have been left out. 06 Jan 2007

This article reads like a critical essay, not an encyclopedia. The subject matter deserves better treatment. --JD79 02:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this seems to be original research and just attacks on the GI bill. Maybe this should be merged with the main article for GI bill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116135 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)