or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › Pregnant Student Athletes Losing Scholarships
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pregnant Student Athletes Losing Scholarships - Page 5

Poll Results: Should a female student athlete on an athletic scholarship lose her scholarship if she becomes pregnant and cannot perform as an athlete?

 
  • 76% (40)
    Yes
  • 23% (12)
    No
52 Total Votes  
post #73 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

 


The crime, of course, is conduct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL go_quote.gif

 

You're still thinking of the "situation" as revolving around pregnancy.  It's not.  It's simply that the woman in question is physically unable to meet her obligation.  If a man does something that affects his ability to meet his obligation, then he will suffer the same consequences.



Until you say that you are going to revoke scholarships from the football player who misses a year due to a concussion sustained during a game, you are wrong to say that revoking a pregnant woman's scholarship is only based on her inability to play. 

You have a real problem with reading comprehension. I'll bow out here, at least until you actually read all that I've already written.....

Sorry, I just don't want to have to keep multi-quoting myself to prove what I've already said.
post #74 of 227
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

Early on I said they should both keep it

 

I think that's why people are confused about your later posts.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

 

I think we started out disagreeing--in posts 21 and 28 you seemed to argue that a player hurt during an "other sport" activity should not be treated the same.  But now it looks like you think they should be treated the same, and both lose the scholarship. 

 

I never said that, no. I felt post #21 in particular was very clear.

 

IMO, a player injured playing his or her sport should keep the scholarship (unless doctors say they've healed and they're unwilling to play).

IMO, a player injured by virtually any activity that is NOT his or her sport should* lose their scholarship.

 

*should = "the university would be justified in doing so"

post #75 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

I never said that, no. I felt post #21 in particular was very clear.

 

IMO, a player injured playing his or her sport should keep the scholarship (unless doctors say they've healed and they're unwilling to play).

IMO, a player injured by virtually any activity that is NOT his or her sport should* lose their scholarship.

 

*should = "the university would be justified in doing so"

 

Concur.....

post #76 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

As long as taking away an athletic scholarship is done fairly and equally, it makes sense to force the student to lose it.

 

If someone decides that a female athlete should lose her scholarship for getting pregnant, then a male athlete should also also lose his scholarship especially when injured for anything unrelated to the sport. There should be many other reasons for losing a scholarship as well, including bad grades, bad behavior, getting arrested, etc.

 

Academic scholarships are the same way. If your grade goes below the threshold, you lose it. Why treat athletic scholarships differently? If you can't play, you don't get paid.

 

If the athlete loses their scholarship, there are other avenues for helping them finish school. I know plenty of people who went this route, some got grants and loans, some joined ROTC.

 

Let’s face it life is not always fair, sometimes you cannot even everything out between a man and a woman even when the best intentions are there. Should a man lose his scholarship for getting a woman pregnant, sure, men are not exempt from making a bad decision if you want to be fair across the board. But reality is a woman has a choice to have un-protected sex, being in collage you have to know this by now could lead to a pregnancy and loss of your scholarship for not being able to play.

 

Lihu you are right if they lose it they can pay like 98% of all the other collage kids out there. Life does not stop just because you lose a scholarship.

post #77 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post


You have a real problem with reading comprehension. I'll bow out here, at least until you actually read all that I've already written.....

Sorry, David, not trying to gang up here ... but I, apparently, have the exact same reading comprehension problem as DSC in regards to your position.  What he said in his last post to you (bottom of #72) is EXACTLY what I've also been trying to say.  EXACTLY.

 

And, believe me, and I'm pretty confident that this goes for DSC as well ... I have read everything you've written.

post #78 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

 

 

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.

The pregnancy is immaterial?? Good luck trying to convince anyone of that. You seem to be missing the point. The fact that this is based around something that is gender-specific makes it, de facto, sex discrimination.

 

We obviously aren't going to agree on this so I'll leave it now.

post #79 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

No, it's not.

 

 

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

Yes, it is. Sorry, you are not correct on this. I also never said anyone was chucked for having sex - that has nothing to do with it. It's to do with the genders being treated demonstrably differently based purely on an accident of anatomy/biology.

 

I'll accept (maybe) the point re. men impregnating women. In fact, I said as much above re. a contract which stipulates a 'no sex' clause. That would non-discriminatory. The situation as is being discussed is definitely discriminatory.

post #80 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by hacker101 View Post
 

Let’s face it life is not always fair, sometimes you cannot even everything out between a man and a woman even when the best intentions are there. Should a man lose his scholarship for getting a woman pregnant, sure, men are not exempt from making a bad decision if you want to be fair across the board. But reality is a woman has a choice to have un-protected sex, being in collage you have to know this by now could lead to a pregnancy and loss of your scholarship for not being able to play.

 

Lihu you are right if they lose it they can pay like 98% of all the other collage kids out there. Life does not stop just because you lose a scholarship.


I agree with your point. The only real point I am trying to make is that everyone should lose it if they are incapacitated to play, that's the simplest solution.

post #81 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 


I agree with your point. The only real point I am trying to make is that everyone should lose it if they are incapacitated to play, that's the simplest solution.

I agree 110%.

post #82 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Sorry, David, not trying to gang up here ... but I, apparently, have the exact same reading comprehension problem as DSC in regards to your position.  What he said in his last post to you (bottom of #72) is EXACTLY what I've also been trying to say.  EXACTLY.

 

And, believe me, and I'm pretty confident that this goes for DSC as well ... I have read everything you've written.

 

I've been very clear, from the beginning.....

 

The scholarship should be withdrawn because the athlete (note the gender neutral language), knowing that engaging in a certain activity (again, gender neutral) might result in said athlete being unable to physically fulfill their obligation to the university, recklessly engaged in that activity nonetheless.  If it comes to pass that the worst happens, and the athlete is rendered physically unable to fulfill their obligation to the school, they should have their scholarship revoked. 

 

Injured while participating in your own sport, no loss of scholarship, unless as Erik said, they're deemed healthy and opt not to play for some personal reason.  But that wasn't what this thread asked, at all.

post #83 of 227
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by misty_mountainhop View Post
 

Yes, it is. Sorry, you are not correct on this.

 

If you do not understand why you cannot say things like that when CLEARLY there is a debate here, and not facts, then please stop participating in the discussion.

 

Your mind is made up - about how you define things, how you'd apply things, etc. - but that doesn't mean you're "right" and that's how EVERYONE feels or else they're wrong.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

The scholarship should be withdrawn because the athlete (note the gender neutral language), knowing that engaging in a certain activity (again, gender neutral) might result in said athlete being unable to physically fulfill their obligation to the university, recklessly engaged in that activity nonetheless.  If it comes to pass that the worst happens, and the athlete is rendered physically unable to fulfill their obligation to the school, they should have their scholarship revoked.

 

That's not discrimination (I'm quoting this for misty's sake).

post #84 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

I think that's why people are confused about your later posts.

 

 

Well I thought the many other posts where i restated my opinion would have made that clear by now :-)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

I never said that, no. I felt post #21 in particular was very clear.

 

Well sure, but only if I read past  your first sentence.  :doh:

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL View Post


You have a real problem with reading comprehension. I'll bow out here, at least until you actually read all that I've already written.....

Sorry, I just don't want to have to keep multi-quoting myself to prove what I've already said.

 

Well after what I just said in response to erik directly above you might not believe this but I've read what you said.  The problem is that you say things like:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 
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.

 

The two bolded parts conflict.  Same with saying that its a matter of personal responsibility--that conflicts with your assertion that its conduct-neutral.  

 

 

But now I understand that we are all in agreement, except that I am on the fence about whether they SHOULD lose a scholarship, and instead believe that as long as you treat the other sport injury and the pregnancy the same, I'd be happy.  Can we at least agree on that?  

 

 


 

I'm not sure what to say about Misty's position.  I'm tend to think she's probably wrong, but I'm less certain.  
 
There are plenty of cases where women are treated different than men based on gender--men can take shirts off at any beach, women usually get more maternity leave then men get paternity leave, etc.  There are people who reasonably argue that those are examples of discrimination too, though.

Edited by dsc123 - 10/23/13 at 3:36pm
post #85 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by misty_mountainhop View Post
 


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.

 

No it isn't.

post #86 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by misty_mountainhop View Post
 

Yes, it is. Sorry, you are not correct on this. I also never said anyone was chucked for having sex - that has nothing to do with it. It's to do with the genders being treated demonstrably differently based purely on an accident of anatomy/biology.

 

I'll accept (maybe) the point re. men impregnating women. In fact, I said as much above re. a contract which stipulates a 'no sex' clause. That would non-discriminatory. The situation as is being discussed is definitely discriminatory.

 

Did you read my earlier post about the male athlete injuring his testicles (while engaging in certain reckless activities)?  Do you think he would have a case for sex discrimination because females do not have testicles?

post #87 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

If you do not understand why you cannot say things like that when CLEARLY there is a debate here, and not facts, then please stop participating in the discussion.

 

Your mind is made up - about how you define things, how you'd apply things, etc. - but that doesn't mean you're "right" and that's how EVERYONE feels or else they're wrong.

 

 

That's not discrimination (I'm quoting this for misty's sake).


Sure thing. I'm pretty comfortable although a few (k-troop and one or two others) make some difficult points. Pretty sure such a position based around pregnancy would be untenable in the U.K. I guess life is discriminatory but that doesn't mean things out of voluntary control shouldn't be ironed out as when they can be. Obviously not an entirely black/white issue, hence the increasing traffic and comment. Enjoy.

post #88 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

 

But now I understand that we are all in agreement, except that I am on the fence about whether they SHOULD lose a scholarship, and instead believe that as long as you treat the other sport injury and the pregnancy the same, I'd be happy. Can we at least agree on that?


 

 

By "other sport injury" you mean injured while participating in another sport/activity other than the one for which he was awarded the scholarship?  Absolutely.

 

He can play if he wants, but he's taking an elevated risk that he'll become injured.  If that happens and he subsequently becomes unable to play the sport for which the scholarship was awarded, bye bye free ride....

 

Your basic risk reward.  Is the reward (having some fun playing a little street ball, rock climbing, sky diving, whatever....) worth the risk of the consequences if something goes wrong?  In this case that risk is a little more serious than dumping a ball in the water in an ill-advised attempt to reach a par-5 in two, but the concept is the same.  :beer:

post #89 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by hacker101 View Post
 

Let’s face it life is not always fair, sometimes you cannot even everything out between a man and a woman even when the best intentions are there. Should a man lose his scholarship for getting a woman pregnant, sure, men are not exempt from making a bad decision if you want to be fair across the board. But reality is a woman has a choice to have un-protected sex, being in collage you have to know this by now could lead to a pregnancy and loss of your scholarship for not being able to play.

 

I agree, the decision to have unprotected sex is risky (on many levels) and if you don't take the necessary precautions, birth control/condoms, you have to deal with the consequences.   

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 


I agree with your point. The only real point I am trying to make is that everyone should lose it if they are incapacitated to play, that's the simplest solution.

 

Even if they get injured playing their own sport?

post #90 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by misty_mountainhop View Post
 

Yes, it is. Sorry, you are not correct on this. I also never said anyone was chucked for having sex - that has nothing to do with it. It's to do with the genders being treated demonstrably differently based purely on an accident of anatomy/biology.

 

I'll accept (maybe) the point re. men impregnating women. In fact, I said as much above re. a contract which stipulates a 'no sex' clause. That would non-discriminatory. The situation as is being discussed is definitely discriminatory.

It is not discriminating the woman for being pregnant. She's unable to keep up her part of what is required by the scholarship, which is to play the sport she was awarded the scholarship for. Anyone who has lost the ability to play the sport they go the scholarship for has given the University the right to withdraw said scholarship. Nobody is saying they have to do so, but that they should be able to do so. If they allow students to retain their scholarship after a career ending injury which occurs as a direct result of taking part in that sport that doesn't necessarily mean that they should have to do so for students who are injured or become unable to perform due to outside factors. 

 

It irritates me when people throw around "discrimination", "sexism", and "racism" where they don't really apply. This is no different than if a black athlete became unable to play due to sickle cell or a male athlete who got testicular cancer. Either case only certain people can have these conditions and either case the University should be able to remove the scholarship if they want/need to. It all comes down to failure to perform, plain and simple.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › Pregnant Student Athletes Losing Scholarships