Originally Posted by iacas
Those who want to argue that scholarships should be held for a year for athletes that get pregnant will not get an argument from me. THAT is similar to a woman taking maternity leave (or a man taking paternity leave) from work. They're not being paid while they're off work, nor should the student be getting the scholarship IMO. Neither are performing their "duties."
If the pregnant female athlete loses her scholarship when she can no longer compete, she still retains her eligibility (subject to medical redshirt rules, etc.). If she can get back into shape and compete following the pregnancy, nothing stops her from re-earning that scholarship. Or, if she's a blue-chip athlete, the school may redshirt her and let her continue to be part of the program, on scholarship. That's an issue for the school, board of regents, state, whatever to work out. (It is important to note that state schools are run by political bodies. If the politics of a particular jurisdiction wants to treat this issue the same way they do in an employment environment, then that's their prerogative.)
Originally Posted by Golfingdad
I, so badly, want to agree with you on this. I typed out a response to David's post above: "Any other answer simply doesn't recognize personal accountability for the consequences of actions."
But I scrapped it because I couldn't come to a reasonable conclusion. I totally agree that even though he's saying he's only punishing the consequences of the actions, it surely SOUNDS like he's also punishing the actions. After all, "personal responsibility" should apply to actions you can control, right? Not matters of luck that follow. If you blow your life savings on lottery tickets, you're not irresponsible because you lost, you're irresponsible because you bought the damn tickets in the first place. So I have a hard time agreeing with David's statement there unless he's prepared to apply it to the men involved in the same situation (like both you and Erik already mentioned).
But, then, that solution falls totally flat as well because I know there are a lot of men in college (well, no I don't ... I have heard of a few in the past, and I know of one currently) that play sports and already have a family. The only one I can currently cite is Derek Carr. The current QB for Fresno State, who is also married and the father of a 2 1/2 month old baby. He's the star of the (undefeated, ranked 15th) team and a borderline Heisman candidate. I don't know specifics of his home life or his grades, but he seems like un upstanding, smart kid. Taking away his scholarship doesn't make a whole lot of sense because he is doing precisely what they're "paying" him for.
This isn't really a response to GD's post, but his made me think about it.
Service academies (West Point, Annapolis, AFA, etc.) have a strict "no dependants" rule. While a cadet, midshipman, etc. (i.e. prior to graduation from the Academy) the student is not allowed to be married or have dependant children. This has created the unfortunate situation from time to time where a cadet/midshipman has been expelled from the Academy for getting pregnant. In some cases two cadets have become pregnant together (that's the best way I can think of to describe it), and the female will automatically be expelled unless she gives up the child. The male may not be expelled if he does not have to accept responsibility for the child as his dependant.
That's a pretty perverse incentive: if the male doesn't accept responsibility for his child, then he gets to remain enrolled FOR FREE at one of the country's premier academic institutions.
I actually had a classmate that found himself in this situation. He was dating another cadet and got her pregnant. She left the Academy and he stayed. They married in secret, and when the "Academy" found out he was asked to leave.
I bring this up because this is an action taken directly by the U.S Government (not a private school which could arguably be exempt from government interference) to treat male and female cadets differently, and to discriminate against both as a direct result of the result of their conduct (parenthood). It's perfectly legal.
It's also right in a moral and utilitarian sense. Becoming an officer of the United States Armed Forces is a privilege. Earning that commission through education at a Service Academy is an even more select privilege. They set the rules--based on a "fit for duty" standard that the institution has decided is appropriate. Either you follow those rules and retain the benefit of that privilege, or you don't and you lose it.