Two veterans service organizations expressed outrage over comments made by an official from an organization that represents public universities in early September — but the dispute appears largely to be the result of a misunderstanding.
Barmak Nassirian, director of federal policy for the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, was quoted in a September Stars and Stripes article criticizing a law passed by Congress that pushed public universities to offer in-state tuition to students using the GI Bill.
Nassirian objected to the fact that Congress was saddling public universities and states with new costs, while offering no federal financing to cover those costs. But officials from the American Legion and Student Veterans of America interpreted him as saying that veterans didn’t deserve the lower tuition — something Nassirian said he absolutely did not mean — and they had sharp retorts.
“That some believe this earned benefit did not cost the men and women who utilize it is astonishing,” D. Wayne Robinson, president and chief executive officer of SVA, said in a written statement.
The measure in question, signed into law as part of a larger veterans’ health care bill on Aug. 7, will require public colleges and universities to offer Post-9/11 GI Bill and Montgomery GI Bill recipients in-state tuition, regardless of normal residency rules, under certain conditions. If the schools do not, they will not be able to accept GI Bill benefits.
Central to the objections of SVA and the Legion was this excerpt from the Stripes article quoting Nassirian about Congress’ action: “It legislated ‘the proverbial free lunch by mandating in-state tuition for veterans and their dependents’ without covering ‘the significant costs this will impose on public colleges.’ ”
Nassirian made similar comments to Military Times in February: “For Congress to simply come in and basically legislate a free lunch without paying for it ... would throw an enormous monkey wrench into the operation of public institutions.”
When Nassirian spoke with Military Times, his meaning was clearly that the undeserving recipient of the “free lunch” was Congress — not vets and GI Bill users — because lawmakers were establishing policies it didn’t have to pay for. This month, Nassirian said, his meaning was the same.
“I think any reasonable person who reads the entire quote would grasp what I’m saying,” he said. “Congress failed to pay for a benefit that it legislated. .... I leave absolutely no ambiguity that I actually believe that vets deserve it.”
Nassirian added that he continues to advocate for veterans in public higher education, considers veterans service organizations to typically be allies in this effort and took “personal offense at a huge misinterpretation of my plain meaning.”
After an initial statement criticizing Nassirian, the Legion later sent Military Times a short statement indicating that it misunderstood Nassirian‘s comments and now realizes they were directed at Congress, not vets.
William Hubbard, SVA’s vice president of government affairs, was not entirely swayed.
“We are still concerned and the reason for that is ultimately even if he alleges his words were misconstrued ... we really take contention with even remotely, in any sense, comparing the GI Bill to something that’s free.”
Nassirian, who expressed regret for any misunderstanding, said his concerns about the law remain, but they will not stop him, his organization or public institutions from working to attract and educate vets.
“Veterans are getting the benefits that we, as a nation, have quite correctly decided to provide for them,” Nassirian said. “Whatever the problems [with the law] may be, we will work through them, because we’re very committed to veterans education within the public sector.”
No comments:
Post a Comment