Pregnant Student Athletes Losing Scholarships

[MS256]

This was my initial thought on this whole topic. It doesn't cost the school the manufacturers suggested list price of lets say $40K to have a student attend classes. I have owned businesses for over 25 years and can tell you the actual cost for keeping the girls scholarship during the pregnancy would be minimal.  It seems like the folks supporting taking away the scholarship are doing it as punishment for having premarital sex. They will say I "missed the point" and will bring out the "she broke her contract line" in about 5 minutes. But the tone of "She got herself KNOCKED UP and deserves her fate" says it all.

For me that's not it at all. There are scholarship limitations for each sport. I can't see why it's more important for her to keep her scholarship to sit at home than it is for the girl without a scholarship that's out there busting her butt every day to have a chance to get it.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Pregnancy isn't an accident, it's negligence.

That is fundamentally untrue.  The only 100% full-proof birth-control is abstinence.  And there are only a handful of places where sex is specifically prohibited for these folks.  If a lady can use birth control, have the consenting male use a condom, and still get pregnant, would you still call that negligence?  What if she wasn't taking birth control but the guy was wearing a condom?  Where do you draw the line?  Because if you say it's negligence no matter what, you're essentially prohibiting the act for females where there is no prohibition.

On the other point, it should be noted that the "other deserving athlete" point is only relevant to the extent that the university can find another scholarship athlete to fill the role during the window which the pregnant athlete is out of commission.  In a good percentage of cases (if not most) that would be unlikely.  Also, the fact that the woman bears 100% of the risk under your argument is necessarily discriminatory by gender (which is the point of the FMLA).

If that's what it takes, then that's what it takes.  Of course we all know that isn't true.  While no form of contraceptive is 100% guaranteed, there are many forms, and if those are combined, then the odds go way, way down.  Heck, just using a 2nd condom over the first one would effectively put the risk of leakage at zero.

A female athlete on an athletic scholarship who allows herself to get pregnant is showing negligence.  She is letting her teammates and her school down.  She has no right to a scholarship which was awarded based on her athletic prowess, a prowess with has likely been curtailed for a year at least, between pregnancy and infant care.  Her usefulness to the program has been set back at least one full season of competition.  To say that there are no other candidates for that scholarship during that period seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Most working women do not lose as much time, simply because most of them don't participate in hard physical labor which would prevent them from working through most of the pregnancy.  Most will only have to stop work when they near term.

[rehmwa]

Not sure why you'd say I missed the point,

"you missed the point"  "you don't get it"

I've come to believe that this just means - "you don't agree with me"

Seems super common on this site for some reason to lead off debates this way.  I'm not a fan of a leading statement that implies ignorance or lessened intelligence with the other person..

There is a demographic in the world that truly believes that understanding a position automatically means agreement.....

But I think on this site most people that make statements like this just use it as a means to say they disagree.  mostly harmless and not intended to be disparaging.  David comes across decent.  (I did say most though.  there are a couple here that use it all the time and they are just arrogant dorks).

I think the short answer here is simple - the school and the athlete have a contract.  They both need to abide by that contract.

If they decide to have extra considerations that take into account special situations, they should get it done up front in the contract.  And that content is no one else's business.  If something happens outside that contract, then both parties are improvising and I hope they try their best to be fair and decent to each other.  But it's certainly not anyone else's business to define that for them.

[Golfingdad]

Here is the thing, its always like, "Well it isn't that much to help one person." Well isn't that just a snow ball effect. You let one girl have this. Or you mandate they can keep it, then suddenly everyone with any sort of condition is going to demand they keep their scholarship.

I don't think so, because we're talking about a unique situation; an athlete, who is obviously exceptionally good, which in turn, means that shes worked extremely hard to get to that point and earn that scholarship.  It's not like we're creating a big loophole for a bunch of girls who are only paying for college because having kids is more important to them than playing sports.  The minute this happens, they go "sweet, now I can just go play on the softball team and have kids and get free school!!  Yippee!!!"  That's silly.  I don't believe there is a precedent or "slippery slope" or anything like that here.

I didn't respond last night because I was so shocked at your statement that I didn't want to come across as condescending to someone whose arguments are generally well reasoned and whose opinion I respect.  I'm glad, because now we just have to discuss that just because there's no incremental expense to the school, the fact remains that they're still paying her for not performing the service for which she contracted.  Those expenses were allocated to her, in exchange for compensation in the form of something the college finds to be of value.  That compensation is no longer a part of the equation, so all that remains is the expense.

Yes, she broke the contract.  And I don't think a school would be wrong if they took away her scholarship and gave it somebody else ... if there were somebody else to give it to.  But if there wasn't, and you're just taking it away and having it sit "empty," leaving an empty dorm room and an empty seat in each class, then I feel like a school would also not be wrong in allowing her to maintain that scholarship and maintain her schooling.

For me that's not it at all. There are scholarship limitations for each sport. I can't see why it's more important for her to keep her scholarship to sit at home than it is for the girl without a scholarship that's out there busting her butt every day to have a chance to get it.

I don't disagree.  But I started this latest part of the discussion on the premise that there wasn't another girl out there who this scholarship could go to.

---------------------------------------

Look, I don't think anybody is wrong in this.  If we just replaced all of the "shoulds" with "coulds" I'd likely agree with everybody here.  I can see a situation where a girl gets pregnant and loses her scholarship and I can see the opposite.

I also wish we had a bunch of women on here discussing this with us because it feels a lot like the old guys in congress talking about birth control/womens health issues.  It feels callous.

[club ho]

As I said, I may have missed one......in 200 posts.

Is that your only response to my last post? I'm really curious how you feel on the whole "personal responsibility" issue in general and also whether, in equity, all pregnant women should receive a free ride

David I didn't ask you to write a 250 word diatribe basically rehashing the same crap we have been slinging at each other. Sorry but I don't have time for that. I think I have made my feelings well known you can take them as you please. Actually I thought we had come to a basic agreement on how these situations should be handled. I guess not. My basic point is it would be better served if a female student unfortunately gets pregnant and is forced to quit school it might be better to find a way to finish her studies if possible. This would include student loans academic achievemnet awards, work study etc. All of these remedies would qualify as "taking personnel responsibilty" IMO.

I noticed two other posters who have taken more time investigating the laws and have found and I paraphrase:  The girl should be allowed to continue receiving her scholarship. There words not mine.

[David in FL]

David I didn't ask you to write a 250 word diatribe basically rehashing the same crap we have been slinging at each other. Sorry but I don't have time for that. I think I have made my feelings well known you can take them as you please. Actually I thought we had come to a basic agreement on how these situations should be handled. I guess not. My basic point is it would be better served if a female student unfortunately gets pregnant and is forced to quit school it might be better to find a way to finish her studies if possible. This would include student loans academic achievement awards, work study etc. All of these remedies would qualify as "taking personnel responsibilty" IMO.

From your response to Golfingdad, it seemed as if you had reverted to believing that she should be allowed to keep her scholarship and have her education paid for by the school.  If that's not the case, then I misunderstood that particular post.....and you're right, I think we're now very close.  It would be nice if she could continue her education, but she needs to do so by making use of the same opportunities that are available to every other woman who finds herself in the same situation.  A good school counseling center should be able to help all of them find those opportunities equally.

I noticed two other posters who have taken more time investigating the laws and have found and I paraphrase:  The girl should be allowed to continue receiving her scholarship. There words not mine.

The only "law" that I saw referenced was on FMLA.  That was quickly shown to be irrelevant to the discussion and actually more closely aligned with the student losing her scholarship than retaining it.

[saevel25]

The only real debate is if the school should be giving out a handout to a pregnant woman. It seems that the agreement that she should not keep her scholarship because she would not fulfill her obligation to the sport she is in. The only real debate is now if the school should do anything to help the student over and beyond the current measures they have already for normal students. Meaning do they make a special case of her situation.

The answer should be no. I think people don't understand that fair isn't what always is right, and fair isn't always equal. Though the school probably has resources available, does that mean they should allocate them in that situation. I say no again. The reason being that if you grant this woman a special case, and allow her to continue her education due to means that are not offered to other students it is then setting a standard by which you get special treatment if you are pregnant. It also sets up the "Can of Worms" situation were now students will be looking for any means that could get them special treatment. What if a student suddenly gets ill, or a family emergency happens. Also, what seems like a charitable action is thrown in the face of students who don't have such situations. What does it say for the person who works two jobs, get loans, and works their butt of to get good grades in college. Then to see a person granted special leniency with tuition due to special circumstances. To me if the woman, once she looses her sport scholarship and can not get any other means of tuition through normal channels, she is out of luck.

Of course there are other options to her. Postpone her education till later on in life. Dedicate herself to her new family and move on. There is also the option of going to a community college, maybe something closer to home so her family can help care for the child as well if the father isn't going to help. To say the school should just stand up and help her, I have to ask, what makes her case so special compared to any other person with hard circumstances?

If the school wanted to help, then they should set up a fund or a deferment program so that they can continue their education later or provide family services to any student who needs it. Besides a general program like that, specifically isolating cases in which to help isn't right.

[geauxforbroke]

I'm a little late to the party, but it's an interesting debate, so here goes.

Just out of curiosity, I tried to find some examples of athletic scholarship offers or athletic scholarship policies that specifically mentioned pregnancy. The University of Washington athletic scholarship information that I found here states that a scholarship cannot be cancelled during the year for "illness or injury which prevents participation". Additionally, the only conditions that may cause an athletic scholarship to be revoked are (and I'm paraphrasing here) 1) not keeping a satisfactory GPA, 2) misrepresenting any information during the application or LOI process, 3) engaging in misconduct or being placed on university disciplinary probation, and 4) voluntary withdrawal from the sport. The information sheet goes on to say that an athletic that an athlete no longer able to participate is required to work for the Athletic Department. So no direct mention of pregnancy, but one would conclude that pregnancy would fall under the "illness or injury" mentioned.

However, this document and others I looked at also state that student-athletes must abide by all rules and policies established by the coach of their respective team. There have been several stories about scholarships lost due to pregnancy, and in all the cases I've read about (which admittedly is only a handful), the student-athlete was given a handbook of policies and they were required to sign their agreement. These handbooks invariably included a policy stating that a scholarship could be immediately revoked due to pregnancy during the school year. So student-athletes (and not just females) often have to agree to abide by policies in order to remain on the team, and thereby retain their scholarships. In light of that, athletic departments are well within their rights to revoke a scholarship due to pregnancy.

One thing for @club ho to keep in mind (and I'm sure this has been said before), generally speaking scholarships are good for one year and must be renewed annually. However, the school or athletic department can choose not to renew a scholarship without cause. So even if pregnancy wasn't a reason for automatic revocation of a scholarship, the school has no obligation to extend the scholarship thereafter.

[club ho]

From your response to Golfingdad, it seemed as if you had reverted to believing that she should be allowed to keep her scholarship and have her education paid for by the school.  If that's not the case, then I misunderstood that particular post.....and you're right, I think we're now very close.  It would be nice if she could continue her education, but she needs to do so by making use of the same opportunities that are available to every other woman who finds herself in the same situation.  A good school counseling center should be able to help all of them find those opportunities equally.

The only "law" that I saw referenced was on FMLA.  That was quickly shown to be irrelevant to the discussion and actually more closely aligned with the student losing her scholarship than retaining it.

I am not in the belief  that everyone needs to find common agreement on issues. Frankly I tend to believe that the student should be allowed a maternity leave from the program. The reason: I do not believe that female athletes intentionally gain athletic scholarships with the intention of getting pregnant so they can exchange there obligation from the sport that they are obviously good at so they can try to go to college while having a baby. However the likelihood of that athlete returning to the sport probably is unlikely. If  that is the case then I would say she would no longer qualify for the scholarship and at that point it would behoove IMO that the college council the student and  help set up an alternative as I have mentioned that we both agree with.

On another note a student who gets pregnant while having another scholarship lets say for academic achievement is still able to carry on. I am pretty sure there brains don't shut down when they are pregnant.

I suggest you question the other posters about the FMLA and I believe it was something with Chapter IX?

All being said this my last post on this subject it is geting too exhausting. Best regards!

[iacas]

I do not believe that female athletes intentionally gain athletic scholarships with the intention of getting pregnant so they can exchange there obligation from the sport that they are obviously good at so they can try to go to college while having a baby.

Nobody is saying that. Why are you? That would be silly.

[Golfingdad]

Just read this story , made me think of this thread.

[David in FL]

Completely different situation though......

[Golfingdad]

Completely different situation though......

It's certainly different, but I wouldn't go so far as to say completely.  A lot of people in this thread claimed that they'd remove the girls scholarship, not as punishment for engaging in certain activities, but simply because she was pregnant, and thus unable to "pay" for her free school with her athletic ability.

Well, this kid is unable to "pay" for his school before it even starts.  If its not about punishment for the activity in the girls case, then it seems to me that for consistency's sake, that same group of people would think this kid doesn't deserve his scholarship either.

[David in FL]

I don't remember a single post where someone thought that an athlete hurt while competing in their sport was the same as becoming unable to compete due to irresponsible behavior completely unrelated to their sport. I guess I could be forgetting one, but they're not the same at all....

[Golfingdad]

Without question.

As it is, plenty of intelligent people have to pay more than a lot of athletes to get into college, just because the athlete can throw a ball/hit a ball/etc.,

Fail to do what got you the scholarship, and you should lose it. Period.

It wasn't me, but I'll just say that its hard to answer the question without knowing the details of how scholarships work.  If part of the deal is that it can't be revoked for performance reasons, then I'd say no.

But generally, pregnancy should be treated exactly like a physical injury or disability.

I voted "yes" as well.

The only thing that gives me sympathy for the pregnant athletes is that the balance of power between athletes and the colleges is so far on the side of the colleges, giving them more kinda sucks. But I agree, if you can't fulfill your end of the bargain, the school shouldn't either.

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."

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?

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.

I started leafing through the pages of this thread and this is just a handful of comments that I found on the first couple of pages (before I got bored ;)) that I believe fairly demonstrate that these two stories certainly have some similarities.

---------------------------------------------

For the record, I think what A&M; is doing is absolutely fantastic.  And from the comments I read on that story (either directly in that link, or on reddit where I originally found it) it sounds like this isn't uncommon at all.  All of this talk makes me curious as heck to see what a school would actually do in our situation.

[David in FL]

I started leafing through the pages of this thread and this is just a handful of comments that I found on the first couple of pages (before I got bored ;)) that I believe fairly demonstrate that these two stories certainly have some similarities. --------------------------------------------- For the record, I think what A&M; is doing is absolutely fantastic.  And from the comments I read on that story (either directly in that link, or on reddit where I originally found it) it sounds like this isn't uncommon at all.  All of this talk makes me curious as heck to see what a school would actually do in our situation.

None of those equate getting hurt while playing the sport with becoming unable to compete due to irresponsible behavior off the field.

[Golfingdad]

None of those equate ...

Never said that.  Simply said that the story reminded me of this thread.  There are SOME similarities.  That's it.

[k-troop]

That's a pretty good story. The fact that he's from Dallas Skyline makes me think there's some self-interest on aggy's part (Skyline is consistently one of the best football schools in the country), but it certainly reads like they're just helping out a kid who committed to them. The fact that it's news shows clearly that they're under no obligation to do so.