Timothy McMahon: Veterans’ GI Bill choices should not be limited | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Timothy McMahon: Veterans’ GI Bill choices should not be limited


After four years of serving our country in the Air Force, I began a career as an educator in Pennsylvania. For 4½ decades, I have worked with students and employers all across Pennsylvania to give students in-demand skills and give employers career-ready graduates.

At Triangle Tech, we have had the privilege of educating thousands of former service members. Recently, we have been discussing with our student veterans and alumni veterans why they chose to attend our career schools versus some other type of school in the community, and asked them what they think about proposals in Congress to limit access for veterans.

Some are surprised to learn that there are a number of proposals that, if enacted, would dictate to veterans where their earned GI Bill education benefits could be used. This would severely limit their choices to pursue an education at a career school like Triangle Tech. The GI Bill benefits were promised to every veteran who signed up to protect America. Any limitation on the education benefits earned by veterans would be a disservice and a broken promise.

I am a beneficiary of the original GI benefit, as it was my only option for pursuing higher education. I was one of seven kids; my father was a city police officer, and the only way I could afford to pursue an education was to join the Air Force. Luckily for me and so many others, the Air Force did everything it promised to do for me. While I had no clue at the time what my plans would be following my time in the Air Force, I now know that if I had come out of the military and had limitations on where I could take my benefit, it would have changed the direction of my career. And that’s what we should be concerned about with the legislation in Congress that will limit veterans’ choices.

Veterans’ freedom to choose where they pursue an education is extremely important because our nation’s veterans are capable people. Veterans are Americans who have functioned in a completely different environment, who are used to making difficult decisions under duress. It is beyond me, and so many other veterans, to think that lawmakers believe we don’t have the capacity to decide which education is best for us.

Today at Triangle Tech, we enroll over 200 veterans, around 20% of our student population. For those student veterans and every student enrolled, we assign a career adviser, a financial adviser and an academic adviser to make sure each student is reaching his or her potential. We go above and beyond to provide a cost-effective, high-quality career education so that our students — and student veterans — walk out of the door well prepared and well on their way to a successful career of their own choosing.

How can lawmakers in Washington tell my student veterans who so willingly sacrificed for the liberty of our great nation, that one school is better for their future than another? Personal freedom is ingrained in our country.

Veterans have a choice, and that choice should remain available to all those who served and those currently in uniform. Whether it be a community college down the road, a traditional four-year university, or a welding and fabrication career program, veterans know what is best for their own future.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.