RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 1

Rhetorical Analysis:

The GI Bill

By Kathleen J. Frydl

Roosa Yloenen

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

March 3, 2019
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 2

Abstract

The GI Bill is a system that worked well after the World War II, but nowadays fails to meet

its original goals. Kathleen J. Frydl argues this in her book The GI Bill (2009) and points out several

significant issues inside the widely-beloved Bill. To back up her claims, Frydl uses two rhetorical

appeals: ethos and logos. She doesn’t use pathos, because it wouldn’t be suitable for a scholarly

monograph. She has done an extensive and decorated academic career in history, which enhances

her credibility as a writer for this particular topic. The author has done extensive research for this

book. She uses for example government research data, President’s Secretary’s files, testimonies

from the field and bureau papers to justify her controversial claims. Frydl focuses on covering the

history of the GI Bill, from its roots to present day, as well as pinpointing along the way the

decisions and legislations that lead to issues greater than imagined.

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 3

Rhetorical Analysis:

The GI Bill

By Kathleen J. Frydl

How can an author with contradicting, offending and heated opinions, still manage to

convince their audience effectively? Kathleen Frydl faces this dilemma in her monograph The GI

Bill (2009). Frydl writes about the GI Bill’s triumphs and tragedies in a revealing way from the both

sides of the coin. She argues that the modern GI Bill is faulty, outdated and even discriminating,

and it needs to be revised in order to serve American veterans the way it was originally designed

for. The topic is difficult, because many of us have a very superficial and reverential view of it,

therefore any criticism can leave some readers offended. Frydl acknowledges this and convinces her

audience by using her own credibility, the university’s reputation and a wide array of data,

statistics, interviews from the field and government records to her advantage.

Frydl covers the topic from several viewpoints. The chapters’ names – The Roots of the GI

Bill, The GI Bill, Fall from Grace, Scandal and the GI Bill, African-American Veterans, Housing,

and Higher Education – reveal the topics covered in Frydl’s book, and also unveil the unusually

critical and objective perspective in the book. The primary audience is most likely those studying

the history of the GI Bill and are looking for an objective view of it, although it might be harsh for

them to read.

Instead of merely criticizing the GI Bill, Frydl (2009) admits that it is an excellent source of

motivation for students to join the armed forces to get a degree, and to also get a future that

otherwise could’ve been out of grasp. She acknowledges that “the iconic status of the GI Bill is

well-deserved” (p. 1), because it has undoubtedly made a material difference in the lives of millions

of veterans. However, the Bill isn’t all flawless and picture-perfect. Just like in any large

government project, inside it lies tragedies among its triumphs (p. 15), such as covered-up PTSD’s,
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 4

high dropout rates and extensive misuse. Frydl also brings to the spotlight the deep-rooted racial

injustice that limited black veterans’ opportunities in the south (p. 253) amongst other issues.

Discussion

Academic genres – just like genres in general – create expectations. They “help us write by

establishing features for conveying certain kinds of content” (Bullock, Goggin and Weinberg, 2016,

p. 60). Understanding academic genres helps find knowledge much faster. Knowing, for instance,

that in a monograph the claim is usually the first sentence of a paragraph simplifies the hunt for the

claim notably. Academic genres can be separated into five categories. Monographs are studies of a

single specialized subject, usually written by only one author from one point of view. It is

essentially an argument that is broken into chapters. According to Vierra (2019), monographs

“require an introduction and an argument”. Anthologies and compilations are collections of essays

compiled around an argument. These have multiple sources, viewpoints and authors. Journals are

forums to present the conclusion of a research. Then there are non-scholarly digital sources, such as

CNN.com, and reference works that are all tertiary sources, such as Wikipedia or encyclopedia. The

academic genre of a monograph restricts its ways of using rhetorical appeals. It must always

support their claims by using ethos or logos; stone-cold facts that can be peer-reviewed and proven

to be true or false. Pathos is improper, because it takes advantage of the audience’s emotions, and it

cannot be proven through a research or a peer-review.

Ethos

The author is highly qualified to be writing of this particular topic. She has worked as an

assistant professor in the history department at the University of California, Berkeley since 2003.

She received her PhD from the University of Chicago, worked at the National Academy of Sciences

and has won several academic awards throughout her career. The book was published by

Cambridge University Press, which is an academic press for the University of Cambridge, one of

the most credible and acclaimed universities in the world. The author also uses numerous
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 5

parenthetical citations, making her seem “more credible because she has done the required

homework in the field and shown it through the citations”, according to Covino and Joliffe (1995, p.

337). By knowing that the author is credible enough to be writing of this particular topic, she can be

used as a scholarly source in research papers, for example.

Pathos

The author doesn’t use pathos in this book. As an academic writer she takes a clinical

approach to the subject at hand. Pathos is only to be used when the author’s desire is to “activate or

draw upon the sympathies and emotions of the auditors, causing them to attend to and accept its

ideas, propositions, or calls for action” (Covino & Joliffe, 1995, p. 338). Scholarly texts, such as

this monograph, must therefore never use pathos, because they have to provide stone-cold facts to

support their claims.

Logos

Along with ethos, the author uses logos in her monograph. Wood (2015) defines logos as

“the use of logic and reasoning” (p. 24). If ethos relied on the credibility of the author, logos is used

to back up claims with logic by using statistics, interviews from recognized authorities, data et

cetera. Frydl (2009) claims that inside the GI Bill, as iconic and meaningful as it is, lies tragedies

among its triumphs (p. 15), such as covered-up PTSD’s, high dropout rates and extensive misuse.

Frydl has had an extensive career in the historical field working at two reputable universities, which

improves her credibility as an author. She backs up her claims with statistics, case studies,

interviews from the field, government reports and other credible data. Her text must also have been

peer-reviewed, because it’s published by a university press. She improves her credibility

considerably by combining these credible and relevant sources with the many ways of ethos in her

research.

Audience
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 6

The intended audience for this monograph is those studying the history of the GI Bill.

Frydl’s audience is revealed through her usage of ethos and logos, and the absence of pathos. The

author writes in a formal and objective language about the GI Bill and focuses on presenting the

covered-up flaws inside the glorified program in an objective and informal way. According to Ede

and Lunsford (1984), “writers must rely in large part upon their own vision of the reader” (p. 158),

which means that Frydl must have her own vision of the reader that she is targeting the text. Frydl

(2009) states that she expects “this book will incur a kind of dual displeasure: some will be upset –

– while others will find it too celebratory, too willing to excuse or explain” (Preface, ix). This

implies that her audience is both those who will get upset from her uncensored fact-based criticism

on this topic, and those who want to hear about the harsh reality, possibly students.

Conclusion

Frydl can be considered as an author credible enough to be writing about the topic. She

backs up her claims by using a wide variety of facts, statistics, data and interviews from the field.

She has had a lengthy, academic and acclaimed career in the field of concern, which improves her

believability as an author. Frydl writes in an academic way without using any pathos, which is also

essential in improving her credibility, because an academic paper must convince its audience with

cold facts, not through manipulating emotions.

With the knowledge that Frydl is a credible author, we can now conclude that her

monograph can be used in research, and that her controversial opinions are justified.
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 7

References

Covino, W., & Jolliffe, D. (1995). “What Is Rhetoric?” Rhetoric: Concepts, Definitions,

Boundaries. Ed. William Covino and David Jolliffe. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 325-344.

Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in

Composition Theory and Pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 35(2), 155-

171. doi:10.2307/358093

Frydl, K.J. (2009). The GI Bill. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Vierra, P.J. (RWS 1301, PowerPoint, February 4, 2019).

Wood, J. T. (2015). Communication mosaics: An introduction to the field of communication (8th

ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.