Pregnant Student Athletes Losing Scholarships

[David in FL]

No. It's sex discrimination. Pure and simple.

How so?  Especially when the same standard is applied to males, i.e. become physically unable to meet your obligation to the school due to your own choices/behavior the school no longer has an obligation to you.  The specific behavior is irrelevant.

[misty_mountainhop]

How so?  Especially when the same standard is applied to males, i.e. become physically unable to meet your obligation to the school due to your own choices/behavior the school no longer has an obligation to you.  The specific behavior is irrelevant.

How so? Man has sex, fails to get pregnant, continues with scholarship. Woman has sex, gets pregnant, has scholarship pulled. Not sure it can be that much clearer. She loses her scholarship simply for being a female having undertaken the same choices. I'd be interested to see someone push this through the courts. It's no different, for example, to the situation here in that an employer is in deep doo-doo if they discriminate against a female employee (or discriminate during an appointment) based on whether a female candidate is, or becomes, pregnant.

[David in FL]

How so? Man has sex, fails to get pregnant, continues with scholarship. Woman has sex, gets pregnant, has scholarship pulled. Not sure it can be that much clearer. She loses her scholarship simply for being a female having undertaken the same choices. I'd be interested to see someone push this through the courts. It's no different, for example, to the situation here in that an employer is in deep doo-doo if they discriminate against a female employee (or discriminate during an appointment) based on whether a female candidate is, or becomes, pregnant.

When the woman has sex and fails to get pregnant, she doesn't lose her scholarship either.....  It's about the result, not the behavior.

You're right though, it can't be that much clearer.

[dsc123]

I don't see those situations as all that similar. Pregnancy is virtually 100% preventable, and IS 100% preventable if you abstain.

In both situations, I think the athlete should lose his scholarship. If you can't minimize risk for four years in exchange for $200,000 of education, tough beans.

I also think that athletes injured playing, training, or practicing their sport should keep their scholarships. That could lead to a few grey areas in the football player injured playing basketball scenario, but would never include pregnancy or someone getting in a motorcycle accident, for example.

The football player getting hurt shooting hoops is equally preventable--you're on a scholarship that depends on your physical health and you did something that carried a risk of getting hurt.  I'm ok with deciding that both lose their scholarship, as long as they're treated equal.

Ok, I get what your saying, but in terms of the injured player it isn't cut and dry.

To me what's the difference if a woman gets drunk, sleeps with a guy, gets pregnant.  Compared to a guy who gets drunk, gets in an accident and gets injured.

To me both actions are totally on the athlete in question. Both should have their scholarships revoked. So I guess I can't see were a situation would arise for a woman who is pregnant, and keep a scholarship. I also wont say that all injuries should keep a male athlete on scholarship.

Is that the only way women had sex with you in college? Its possible for ladies to get pregnant while sober, too.

No. It's sex discrimination. Pure and simple.

When the woman has sex and fails to get pregnant, she doesn't lose her scholarship either.....  It's about the result, not the behavior.

You're right though, it can't be that much clearer.

Its really not that clear cut.  I'm not saying your wrong, but misty has a point.  Penalizing two people for engaging in the same conduct is pretty much the definition of discrimination.

Or maybe it is really just the girl's fault because even after having sex and getting pregnant, she could have just.....well...let's not go there

[dsc123]

Hasn't this come up somewhere in similar contexts?  Pro athletes getting hurt skiing or boating or whatever?  Aaron Boone! that's it.  He got cut.

Quote:

Boone agreed Dec. 1 to a $5.75 million, one-year contract, and the contract contained language saying it would become nonguaranteed if he played basketball.

"Concerning his contract, I can confirm that there are certain prohibited activities, which include basketball," Cashman said.

[iacas]

Its really not that clear cut.  I'm not saying your wrong, but misty has a point.  Penalizing two people for engaging in the same conduct is pretty much the definition of discrimination.

That isn't the definition - men can't get pregnant - and as has been pointed out, it's not so much the pregnancy but the inability to perform your athletic obligation.

You're not "punishing" having sex. You're "punishing" getting pregnant and/or "being unable to perform athletically."

[misty_mountainhop]

When the woman has sex and fails to get pregnant, she doesn't lose her scholarship either.....  It's about the result, not the behavior.

You're right though, it can't be that much clearer.

I'm sorry you don't see it the right way. It's discrimination. This sort of thing has been done to death here (this side of the pond). Argued legally and it's discrimination. If I, as a guy, break my back sky diving and it puts me out of action for ages, that is something anyone, male or female, can do. There's no discrimination if I'm told my scholarship is pulled. I can't, however, get pregnant having sex whereas my female colleague on the team can. She gets chucked off whereas I don't? For the same thing? No. It's sex discrimination. If we were talking contraction of an STD and that making someone unwell enough and thereby losing their scholarship, that's a totally different thing.

Better to have a 'no sex' bit in a contract - it'd be a bit silly but at least it wouldn't be discriminatory any more.

[dsc123]

That isn't the definition - men can't get pregnant - and as has been pointed out, it's not so much the pregnancy but the inability to perform your athletic obligation.

You're right, its not the definition.  It would have been more accurate to say that it is proof of discrimination.  Without going into too much detail, the most common way to prove discrimination is to show that the policy has a disproportionate impact on a particular class of people.  I'm not saying there aren't exceptions or justifications.  And a lot of other things come into play.  But I'm just saying its not clear cut .

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

You're not "punishing" having sex. You're "punishing" getting pregnant and/or "being unable to perform athletically."

No you're not.  That would only be true if you took away all scholarships of all injured athletes.  But I think we would all agree that (even though it has happened) it is not "right" or moral to boot the football player who suffers a career ending concussion during the game.  In fact, you yourself said that getting pregnant isn't the same as the football player who gets hurt shooting hoops, right?  So you're not simply punishing people for their inability to perform.

You're punishing them for engaging in activity outside their sport, that is avoidable, that carries the risk of rendering them unable to perform, and results in them actually being unable to perform.  So you're punishing a combination of conduct and result.

Like I said, I'm not saying that Misty is right...I'm just saying that it really isn't as clear cut as you and Dave are making it out to be.

I wouldn't argue with a rule that kicked out the football player hurt playing hoops and the field hockey player who got pregnant.  I'd probably say they should both keep their scholarship, but as long as they're treated the same, its ok with me.

[David in FL]

I'm sorry you don't see it the right way. It's discrimination. This sort of thing has been done to death here (this side of the pond). Argued legally and it's discrimination. If I, as a guy, break my back sky diving and it puts me out of action for ages, that is something anyone, male or female, can do. There's no discrimination if I'm told my scholarship is pulled. I can't, however, get pregnant having sex whereas my female colleague on the team can. She gets chucked off whereas I don't? For the same thing? No. It's sex discrimination. If we were talking contraction of an STD and that making someone unwell enough and thereby losing their scholarship, that's a totally different thing.

Better to have a 'no sex' bit in a contract - it'd be a bit silly but at least it wouldn't be discriminatory any more.

The OP didn't ask for a legal precedent, it asked "should", as in personal opinion......simply because a man is incapable of screwing up (huh......inadvertent pun there) in that particular manner, doesn't absolve the woman of the consequences of having done so herself.  But, one more time, the pregnancy is immaterial.  SHE ISN'T LOSING HER SCHOLARSHIP BECAUSE SHE'S PREGNANT.  SHE'S LOSING IT BECAUSE SHE PURPOSELY DID SOMETHING THAT RESULTED IN HER INABILITY TO MEET HER OBLIGATION TO THE SCHOOL.  If she could somehow continue to participate and compete with no restrictions throughout the pregnancy, she should be allowed to do so.

Any other answer simply doesn't recognize personal accountability for the consequences of actions.  But then, you're not alone in that either.......sadly, there's plenty of that, even on this side of the pond.

[dsc123]

The OP didn't ask for a legal precedent, it asked "should"......simply because a man is incapable of screwing up (huh......inadvertent pun there) in that particular manner, doesn't absolve the woman of the consequences of having done so herself.  But, one more time, the pregnancy is immaterial.  SHE ISN'T LOSING HER SCHOLARSHIP BECAUSE SHE'S PREGNANT.  SHE'S LOSING IT BECAUSE SHE PURPOSELY DID SOMETHING THAT RESULTED IN HER INABILITY TO MEET HER OBLIGATION TO THE SCHOOL.  If she could somehow continue to participate and compete with no restrictions throughout the pregnancy, she should be allowed to do so.

Any other answer simply doesn't recognize personal accountability for the consequences of actions.  But then, you're not alone in that either.......sadly, there's plenty of that, even on this side of the pond.

Don't buy into the idea that if you just say something over and over and over again and louder and louder and louder (the internet equivalent of caps), that what you're saying will magically become true.  You're not Dorothy--tapping your heels together three times doesn't make your dreams come true.

I really don't think you can make the personal responsibility argument because we're taking the contract/scholarship/ncaa rules out of it and talking about what they should say.  For example, if the ncaa rules say that you keep your scholarship even if you get pregnant, then the girl who gets pregnant didn't fail to meet her obligation to her school.

Legal precedent is relevant because it represents society's moral judgment calls.  Discrimination is illegal because most people think its wrong.

[iacas]

I'm sorry you don't see it the right way. It's discrimination.

No, it's not.

I can't, however, get pregnant having sex whereas my female colleague on the team can. She gets chucked off whereas I don't? For the same thing?

It's not for the same thing. She got pregnant. You did not. She was not chucked off the team for having sex, nor were you.

Another way to make it completely non-discriminatory (not that I believe it is right now, but it'd chip away substantially at your belief that it is): remove scholarships from men who impregnate a woman. After all, in being a responsible father he surely won't have time to keep up his studies and his athletic endeavors. :P

[14ledo81]

I'm sorry you don't see it the right way. It's discrimination. This sort of thing has been done to death here (this side of the pond). Argued legally and it's discrimination. If I, as a guy, break my back sky diving and it puts me out of action for ages, that is something anyone, male or female, can do. There's no discrimination if I'm told my scholarship is pulled. I can't, however, get pregnant having sex whereas my female colleague on the team can. She gets chucked off whereas I don't? For the same thing? No. It's sex discrimination. If we were talking contraction of an STD and that making someone unwell enough and thereby losing their scholarship, that's a totally different thing.

Better to have a 'no sex' bit in a contract - it'd be a bit silly but at least it wouldn't be discriminatory any more.

How would you feel about this example.  Two college athletes (one male and one female) are riding bikes.  They start taking jumps (not supposed to be).  They both crash on one particularly difficult jump.  The male crushes his testicles (and now he is not able to play sports).  The female has no testicles, and so she does not get hurt.  Would taking the males scholarship away be sex discrimination?

[dsc123]

Do you people think its ok to fire a woman because she gets pregnant and will be unable to work for a significant amount of time?

[iacas]

Do you people think its ok to fire a woman because she gets pregnant and will be unable to work for a significant amount of time?

You're not comparing like things. Most jobs don't require you to be a physical specimen for almost the entirety of the pregnancy. You can sit at a desk until the day you give birth, and be back at work a week later.

[David in FL]

Do you people think its ok to fire a woman because she gets pregnant and will be unable to work for a significant amount of time?

No.

But absent some form of disability insurance or accrued PTO, she's not going to get paid for the period that she's unable to do her job either.  In the case of the scholarship, the "payment" is her free ride at the University.

It's also worth noting that even U.S. employment law (which really isn't the issue here, but some seem to want to go in that direction), limits the protection against job loss to only 12 weeks of unpaid leave under FMLA.

[k-troop]

How so? Man has sex, fails to get pregnant, continues with scholarship. Woman has sex, gets pregnant, has scholarship pulled. Not sure it can be that much clearer. She loses her scholarship simply for being a female having undertaken the same choices. I'd be interested to see someone push this through the courts. It's no different, for example, to the situation here in that an employer is in deep doo-doo if they discriminate against a female employee (or discriminate during an appointment) based on whether a female candidate is, or becomes, pregnant.

What if she gets an ovarian cyst and has to have a complicated surgery/treatment that prevents her from competing for 2 years?  Or breast cancer?  What if a male student has a a thyroid cyst that turns out to be malignant (a condition that predominantly affects men in their early 20s).

What if she's just too weak to play football because of genetic limitations of her gender?

None of those folks are being punished for a gender-specific condition.  They're losing a benefit of an athletic scholarship, which is a privilege granted to only a very few who can carry their school colors in high-level athletic competition.

Do you people think its ok to fire a woman because she gets pregnant and will be unable to work for a significant amount of time?

No.

An athletic scholarship is not "employment."  It's a very specific benefit awarded to very specific persons for very specific reasons.  If you can't compete, then you can't compete.  And if you can't compete, then why should you get a scholarship?

[SloverUT]

There is some very strange logic in this thread.  It amuses  me!

[14ledo81]

Do you people think its ok to fire a woman because she gets pregnant and will be unable to work for a significant amount of time?

I would not say "fire".  What if a woman is working in an extremely labor intensive position and is unable to perform up to a acceptable standard if she is pregnant?  Should the employer have to pay her the same to do less?