Pregnant Student Athletes Losing Scholarships

[David in FL]

Okay maybe a bit of frustration in that last post. It's tough debating six or seven attackers at once.

My last point on the topic and you can all take your turn piling on as you see fit.

In a situation where a athlete loses her scholarship because she gets pregnant it seems to me that the school would be held in higher regard if they provided a way for the athlete to continue her studies via providing an affordable situation which would include student loans so she can finish her studies graduate and get a decent job to provide for her new family.

I believe that UMASS does have a young family assisted living program to address these issues.

It seems crazy to finance a student for a couple of years and not find a workable solution.

So she should lose her athletic scholarship, right?  If so, it sounds like we agree.  No one has ever said that helping her explore other options that are also available to other students wouldn't be appropriate.  I certainly think that it would be.

But that's vastly different than to give her a free ride.  And that's the missing piece.......she hasn't had a free ride thus far.  She's paid for her education just as everyone else does.  Most of us pay with money.  She was paying with her athletic skills.  If she can no longer pay with those skills, she'll need to find some way to pay with money.  If grants, student loans, part-time employment at the school, or other options that would be available to non-athletes in a similar situation are available, I'd certainly applaud the school for helping her explore those options.  Again, just as they would with any other student.

[club ho]

want to keep the scholarship - don't get knocked up...you are not there for free - you are getting paid to play - it is not like they got hurt - they were stupid, much like drugs, drinking or being out of shape. if you can't produce you are going to get dumped. it is pretty simple.

create a family planning program - please...just stop there is no place for that

What would you suggest in the case of pregnancy induced by rape?

[club ho]

So she should lose her athletic scholarship, right?  If so, it sounds like we agree.  No one has ever said that helping her explore other options that are also available to other students wouldn't be appropriate.  I certainly think that it would be.

But that's vastly different than to give her a free ride.  And that's the missing piece.......she hasn't had a free ride thus far.  She's paid for her education just as everyone else does.  Most of us pay with money.  She was paying with her athletic skills.  If she can no longer pay with those skills, she'll need to find some way to pay with money.  If grants, student loans, part-time employment at the school, or other options that would be available to non-athletes in a similar situation are available, I'd certainly applaud the school for helping her explore those options.  Again, just as they would with any other student.

I agree David she loses her athletic scholarship and the school provides a workable situation which would include work study,loans maybe some academic achievement awards etc.  Like I said I believe UMASS does have a workable option for these cases.

Another thought here is pregnancy might only effect the student for one season. If she still has game after the pregnancy I assume she would have a opportunity for that scholarship.

[David in FL]

I agree David she loses her athletic scholarship and the school provides a workable situation which would include work study,loans maybe some academic achievement awards etc.  Like I said I believe UMASS does have a workable option for these cases.

Not "provide".......but help explore options that would also be available to any other student who may need financial aid in order to pay for school.

It's a small nuance, but important.  The fact that she was previously a scholarship student should not grant her any special consideration.

Another thought here is pregnancy might only effect the student for one season. If she still has game after the pregnancy I assume she would have a opportunity for that scholarship.

She should absolutely be able to compete once again for a scholarship if there's one available.

[saevel25]

I agree David she loses her athletic scholarship and the school provides a workable situation which would include work study,loans maybe some academic achievement awards etc.  Like I said I believe UMASS does have a workable option for these cases.

Another thought here is pregnancy might only effect the student for one season. If she still has game after the pregnancy I assume she would have a opportunity for that scholarship.

I would say she would have to earn her spot back on the team. If I was a coach and a player got pregnant, then that is a serious trust concern right there. The coach and the school trusted her to put the best interests of the team first. What does it say to the team when she goes and gets pregnant, and throws her teammates under the bus when they were hoping on her ability to help the team that year? If I was a coach, I wouldn't want a player like that on the team. College sports isn't always about player ability, attitude is what makes a teams special.

UMASS should only do what that girl can have get. They should not make special compensation to her. If she doesn't meet the requirements for any academic scholarship or award, then she shouldn't get one just because she got knocked up. She shouldn't get special treatment by jumping other students who might be waiting for work study or other loans. She has to live her actions, and getting pregnant is a big one.

[rehmwa]

What would you suggest in the case of pregnancy induced by rape?

I'd suggest the legal system takes the rapist into custody.  I suggest the girl gets help and counseling.  Then:

The Girl has a serious of rough decisions.

The University has nothing to do with it.  they aren't responsible.  (anything they do is voluntary only, old discussion already).  If she doesn't meet her contract, the university doesn't have to meet their end either.   (for the U, it doesn't change the argument one single bit)

Girl has option to sue the rapist for whatever damages she considers needs to be addressed (in addition to society punishing him for his crime).

You are trying to tie the act of a bad individual to some sense of responsibility to an organization.  Unless the rapist is the coach or a professor, the U isn't part of the equation.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by club ho

Would you prefer to bear the burden of paying for section 8 housing and food stamps which could all have a much better chance of being avoided if we let her continue her education and graduate?

There is no "let her continue her education".....  A college education isn't free, someone has to pay for it.  As a scholarship athlete, she was "paying" for it with her athletic skills.

One more time......who should pay for her college education now that she, through her own poor judgment and actions, has rendered herself unable to do so.

I'm chiming in late, but here goes.

A woman is admitted to a college due to an athletic scholarship.  It is implicit that she is able to perform at a certain level to continue to qualify for that scholarship.  It is also implicit that she maintains a minimum GPA (I realize that this point is sometimes fudged for superior athletes).  As long as she fulfills those points, the scholarship continues.  Other possible scenarios:

She fails to perform athletically at the expected level, she is dropped from the program and loses the scholarship.  Depending on GPA, other assistance programs may be available.

Her grades fail and she is put on academic probation, then ultimately dropped.  At this point there is not much recourse except to get a job.

She is injured while playing - she is kept on in the expectation that she will be back when she recovers.

She suffers a career ending injury, either while playing or otherwise through no fault of her own and is dropped from the athletic scholarship.  Every effort is made to place her in another program to assist her in continuing her education.

She becomes pregnant - a condition avoidable in various ways from abstinence to chemical and physical contraceptives.  She is dropped from the program pending a future change in her status which would allow her to continue to compete.  Once again, if her GPA is in good shape, there may be other avenues for obtaining financial assistance to continue her education.  For all I know there may even be programs which specifically benefit student mothers.

In any event, as long as she is a decent student, she is unlikely to be turned out on a street corner to beg for food.  But she does not deserve to continue to take up an athletic scholarship position when she is unable to fulfill her end of the contract, particularly when that ability is impaired by her own poor decision .

[club ho]

Not "provide".......but help explore options that would also be available to any other student who may need financial aid in order to pay for school.

It's a small nuance, but important.  The fact that she was previously a scholarship student should not grant her any special consideration.

I go along with that "help explore" as opposed  to "provide". It is in the grand scheme of things it is semantics but you are right it should not be an automatic.

[saevel25]

I go along with that "help explore" as opposed  to "provide". It is in the grand scheme of things it is semantics but you are right it should not be an automatic.

Umm explore doesn't even come close to provide. Explore means to see if there is an opportunity. Provide is to give one that may or may not be there.

[rehmwa]

I go along with that "help explore" as opposed  to "provide". It is in the grand scheme of things it is semantics but you are right it should not be an automatic.

Not semantics at all.  not by any shot.  not in any scheme, grand or minor

[club ho]

Lol. Am I the only one that thinks it's hilarious when these types of comments pop up?

I just read your post with this guys voice:

On a side note I have to laugh that a 25 handicap who has made over 5000 posts in the time I am working on  breaking 150 posts has a stereo-type of what a person with  a moderate view point person looks like. I'll be thinking about that next the morning I am heading out at 4 am to haul 400 lobster traps.

Obviously must be stuck in a cubicle in front of a computer screen to make that many posts. You'd be better served to make a trip to the driving range when your on your lunch break! How do like that for a stereotype?

[club ho]

Not semantics at all.  not by any shot.  not in any scheme, grand or minor

In your opinion obviously. That's cool!

[saevel25]

In your opinion obviously. That's cool!

Umm, no! It's not semantics because the two words are not even close to each other. Semitics would be arguing over if a law should be written with the word, "Shall" instead of the word, "Must".  That is semantics.

On a side note I have to laugh that a 25 handicap who has made over 5000 posts in the time I am working on  breaking 150 posts has a stereo-type of what a person with  a moderate view point person looks like. I'll be thinking about that next the morning I am heading out at 4 am to haul 400 lobster traps.

Obviously must be stuck in a cubicle in front of a computer screen to make that many posts. You'd be better served to make a trip to the driving range when your on your lunch break! How do like that for a stereotype?

OMG, did you just think he thought you literally looked like that. Haven't you ever seen the movie Spaceballs. If you haven't you are missing out on one of the best cult classics of all time.

Does it really matter if the guy is a 25 handicap with 5000 posts. It sounds like you trying to win a pissing fight when you are the only one pissing. All I can say is, so what?

Also, so instead of actually posting something relevant to further the discussion you dig to a post that was 20 hours old just to bitch about it. That just sad isn't it. I mean the post is over 20 hours old, and you lock onto that to attack. You attack his golfing ability when we are discussing about pregnant women getting to keep an athletic scholarship. Can you see how petty and pathetic that is.

Lol. Am I the only one that thinks it's hilarious when these types of comments pop up?

I just read your post with this guys voice:

I don't know @Ernest Jones , when I read these comments I think of this.

[club ho]

Umm, no! It's not semantics because the two words are not even close to each other. Semitics would be arguing over if a law should be written with the word, "Shall" instead of the word, "Must".  That is semantics.

OMG, did you just think he thought you literally looked like that. Haven't you ever seen the movie Spaceballs. If you haven't you are missing out on one of the best cult classics of all time.

Does it really matter if the guy is a 25 handicap with 5000 posts. It sounds like you trying to win a pissing fight when you are the only one pissing. All I can say is, so what?

Also, so instead of actually posting something relevant to further the discussion you dig to a post that was 20 hours old just to bitch about it. That just sad isn't it. I mean the post is over 20 hours old, and you lock onto that to attack. You attack his golfing ability when we are discussing about pregnant women getting to keep an athletic scholarship. Can you see how petty and pathetic that is.

I don't know @Ernest Jones, when I read these comments I think of this.

Sorry not much of a movie buff. The last movie I went to was Titanic I think. Too busy working my free time is all golf!

[bplewis24]

So, I had to think long and hard about this.  My answer ends up being, “no they should not lose their scholarships, although their clock should keep running unless they have a redshirt year available.”  Allow me to explain (it is lengthy, I apologize):

Much of the reason for my deliberation of this is due to a lack of analogous events to compare it to.  Scholarship athletes are allowed to keep their scholarships despite not being able to perform for differing reasons all the time.  The problem is that none of those reasons approach the specific circumstances surrounding a pregnancy.   For example: many student-athletes have significant injuries that impact their ability to play for a season (sometimes more), but are allowed to keep their scholarships.  However, in the case of an on-field injury, the comparison fails because the student-athlete had no intention of getting injured and it cannot reasonably be argued that their willful negligence or behavior was cause for the injury.  On the opposite end, one could argue that a pregnancy is more analogous to a significant off-field injury resulting from a risky behavior (skiing, rock-climbing, off-road racing, etc).  The problem with this comparison is that we can’t really make assumptions about the risk-assessment and recklessness of sexual behavior without necessarily requiring somebody to find out the exact circumstances of the sexual encounter that resulted in the pregnancy (i.e., if protection was used, etc.).

What about a catch-all category of non-injury “life events”?  While I know of examples of athletes keeping their scholarships while going through things of this nature (e.g., a former teammate of mine who had a death in the immediate family, and another who had to take a year off after a tumor was found between his spinal cord and stomach), and I believe these examples are closer to a pregnancy consideration, they still lack the balance of a conscious, proactive action with a “life event” style result.

Also, it occurs to me that there is a distinctly biological nature to this.  In other words, this can only happen to a woman.  And I do believe that it is within that context that the conversation should be driven.  This got me to thinking about the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, so I decided to read up on it a bit.  In reading through the text of the act itself, these two provisions stood out to me:

Quote:

5. due to the nature of the roles of men and women in our society, the primary responsibility for family caretaking often falls on women, and such responsibility affects the working lives of women more than it affects the working lives of men; and

6. employment standards that apply to one gender only have serious potential for encouraging employers to discriminate against employees and applicants for employment who are of that gender.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/fmla.htm#SEC_2_FINDINGS_AND_PURPOSES

While discrimination isn’t a practical issue here, the social policy still resonates with me.  A man cannot go through this, so no considerations or analogies for male athletes are relevant.  In fact, the male athlete can go around having about as much sex as he wants, knowing this will never be his problem.  Therefore, the real question becomes, do we make special considerations for a woman’s unique biological nature?  In asking myself, “why shouldn’t we,” I can’t really think of any compelling reasons other than freeing up that scholarship for another female athlete (who can also get pregnant, by the way).  Considering that teams often have scholarships allocated to persons that cannot help them any given season, I don’t find this argument too persuasive.  Conversely, in asking myself “why should we,” I find that the social policy of the Family Medical Leave Act carries significant weight.

Tangentially, I’d like to point out that I believe there may be Title IX implications here to consider.  I haven’t read the full text of it, and while I do wish the title would be amended or eradicated (that’s another topic), it’s probably not going anywhere, ever.  However, if it did, I could see women’s programs being at risk of being marginalized if women are summarily dismissed from their scholarships due to pregnancy.

Another point I’d like to make is that, regardless of what it feels like, the NCAA and its member schools that hand out scholarships go to great lengths to affirm that scholarship athletes are Students first, with a primary obligation to be on a track to graduate in order to remain eligible.  My feeling is that if academic standing is the primary concern regarding athletic eligibility, then it, too, should be the primary concern for retaining the scholarship (which it already is).  If the pregnant athlete plans to continue their academic pursuits (and I’m writing this under the assumption that they are), then I believe that should be good enough.

Lastly, as to why I believe their athletic “clock” should keep ticking during pregnancy, I believe it sufficiently deters the student-athlete from getting pregnant in the first place, knowing they can lose a year of eligibility they will never get back.  This may incentivize the recruiting school to prioritize disciplined and focused athletes to the extent that they don’t already, since the school potentially loses a year of eligibility from an All-American caliber athlete.

And for anybody who made it this far, thanks for reading.

[Ernest Jones]

On a side note I have to laugh that a 25 handicap who has made over 5000 posts in the time I am working on  breaking 150 posts has a stereo-type of what a person with  a moderate view point person looks like. I'll be thinking about that next the morning I am heading out at 4 am to haul 400 lobster traps.  Obviously must be stuck in a cubicle in front of a computer screen to make that many posts. You'd be better served to make a trip to the driving range when your on your lunch break! How do like that for a stereotype?

Oh yeah? Well I'm tremendously well endowed, so there!!! :-P This is fun.

[club ho]

So, I had to think long and hard about this.  My answer ends up being, “no they should not lose their scholarships, although their clock should keep running unless they have a redshirt year available.”  Allow me to explain (it is lengthy, I apologize):

Much of the reason for my deliberation of this is due to a lack of analogous events to compare it to.  Scholarship athletes are allowed to keep their scholarships despite not being able to perform for differing reasons all the time.  The problem is that none of those reasons approach the specific circumstances surrounding a pregnancy.   For example: many student-athletes have significant injuries that impact their ability to play for a season (sometimes more), but are allowed to keep their scholarships.  However, in the case of an on-field injury, the comparison fails because the student-athlete had no intention of getting injured and it cannot reasonably be argued that their willful negligence or behavior was cause for the injury.  On the opposite end, one could argue that a pregnancy is more analogous to a significant off-field injury resulting from a risky behavior (skiing, rock-climbing, off-road racing, etc).  The problem with this comparison is that we can’t really make assumptions about the risk-assessment and recklessness of sexual behavior without necessarily requiring somebody to find out the exact circumstances of the sexual encounter that resulted in the pregnancy (i.e., if protection was used, etc.).

What about a catch-all category of non-injury “life events”?  While I know of examples of athletes keeping their scholarships while going through things of this nature (e.g., a former teammate of mine who had a death in the immediate family, and another who had to take a year off after a tumor was found between his spinal cord and stomach), and I believe these examples are closer to a pregnancy consideration, they still lack the balance of a conscious, proactive action with a “life event” style result.

Also, it occurs to me that there is a distinctly biological nature to this.  In other words, this can only happen to a woman.  And I do believe that it is within that context that the conversation should be driven.  This got me to thinking about the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, so I decided to read up on it a bit.  In reading through the text of the act itself, these two provisions stood out to me:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/fmla.htm#SEC_2_FINDINGS_AND_PURPOSES

While discrimination isn’t a practical issue here, the social policy still resonates with me.  A man cannot go through this, so no considerations or analogies for male athletes are relevant.  In fact, the male athlete can go around having about as much sex as he wants, knowing this will never be his problem.  Therefore, the real question becomes, do we make special considerations for a woman’s unique biological nature?  In asking myself, “why shouldn’t we,” I can’t really think of any compelling reasons other than freeing up that scholarship for another female athlete (who can also get pregnant, by the way).  Considering that teams often have scholarships allocated to persons that cannot help them any given season, I don’t find this argument too persuasive.  Conversely, in asking myself “why should we,” I find that the social policy of the Family Medical Leave Act carries significant weight.

Tangentially, I’d like to point out that I believe there may be Title IX implications here to consider.  I haven’t read the full text of it, and while I do wish the title would be amended or eradicated (that’s another topic), it’s probably not going anywhere, ever.  However, if it did, I could see women’s programs being at risk of being marginalized if women are summarily dismissed from their scholarships due to pregnancy.

Another point I’d like to make is that, regardless of what it feels like, the NCAA and its member schools that hand out scholarships go to great lengths to affirm that scholarship athletes are Students first, with a primary obligation to be on a track to graduate in order to remain eligible.  My feeling is that if academic standing is the primary concern regarding athletic eligibility, then it, too, should be the primary concern for retaining the scholarship (which it already is).  If the pregnant athlete plans to continue their academic pursuits (and I’m writing this under the assumption that they are), then I believe that should be good enough.

Lastly, as to why I believe their athletic “clock” should keep ticking during pregnancy, I believe it sufficiently deters the student-athlete from getting pregnant in the first place, knowing they can lose a year of eligibility they will never get back.  This may incentivize the recruiting school to prioritize disciplined and focused athletes to the extent that they don’t already, since the school potentially loses a year of eligibility from an All-American caliber athlete.

And for anybody who made it this far, thanks for reading.

Obviously I agree. It was nice to read a post that does not that referred to a pregnant athlete as "Knocked UP!"

[Golfingdad]

So, I had to think long and hard about this.  My answer ends up being, “no they should not lose their scholarships, although their clock should keep running unless they have a redshirt year available.”  Allow me to explain (it is lengthy, I apologize):

Much of the reason for my deliberation of this is due to a lack of analogous events to compare it to.  Scholarship athletes are allowed to keep their scholarships despite not being able to perform for differing reasons all the time.  The problem is that none of those reasons approach the specific circumstances surrounding a pregnancy.   For example: many student-athletes have significant injuries that impact their ability to play for a season (sometimes more), but are allowed to keep their scholarships.  However, in the case of an on-field injury, the comparison fails because the student-athlete had no intention of getting injured and it cannot reasonably be argued that their willful negligence or behavior was cause for the injury.  On the opposite end, one could argue that a pregnancy is more analogous to a significant off-field injury resulting from a risky behavior (skiing, rock-climbing, off-road racing, etc).  The problem with this comparison is that we can’t really make assumptions about the risk-assessment and recklessness of sexual behavior without necessarily requiring somebody to find out the exact circumstances of the sexual encounter that resulted in the pregnancy (i.e., if protection was used, etc.).

What about a catch-all category of non-injury “life events”?  While I know of examples of athletes keeping their scholarships while going through things of this nature (e.g., a former teammate of mine who had a death in the immediate family, and another who had to take a year off after a tumor was found between his spinal cord and stomach), and I believe these examples are closer to a pregnancy consideration, they still lack the balance of a conscious, proactive action with a “life event” style result.

Also, it occurs to me that there is a distinctly biological nature to this.  In other words, this can only happen to a woman.  And I do believe that it is within that context that the conversation should be driven.  This got me to thinking about the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, so I decided to read up on it a bit.  In reading through the text of the act itself, these two provisions stood out to me:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/fmla.htm#SEC_2_FINDINGS_AND_PURPOSES

While discrimination isn’t a practical issue here, the social policy still resonates with me.  A man cannot go through this, so no considerations or analogies for male athletes are relevant.  In fact, the male athlete can go around having about as much sex as he wants, knowing this will never be his problem.  Therefore, the real question becomes, do we make special considerations for a woman’s unique biological nature?  In asking myself, “why shouldn’t we,” I can’t really think of any compelling reasons other than freeing up that scholarship for another female athlete (who can also get pregnant, by the way).  Considering that teams often have scholarships allocated to persons that cannot help them any given season, I don’t find this argument too persuasive.  Conversely, in asking myself “why should we,” I find that the social policy of the Family Medical Leave Act carries significant weight.

Tangentially, I’d like to point out that I believe there may be Title IX implications here to consider.  I haven’t read the full text of it, and while I do wish the title would be amended or eradicated (that’s another topic), it’s probably not going anywhere, ever.  However, if it did, I could see women’s programs being at risk of being marginalized if women are summarily dismissed from their scholarships due to pregnancy.

Another point I’d like to make is that, regardless of what it feels like, the NCAA and its member schools that hand out scholarships go to great lengths to affirm that scholarship athletes are Students first, with a primary obligation to be on a track to graduate in order to remain eligible.  My feeling is that if academic standing is the primary concern regarding athletic eligibility, then it, too, should be the primary concern for retaining the scholarship (which it already is).  If the pregnant athlete plans to continue their academic pursuits (and I’m writing this under the assumption that they are), then I believe that should be good enough.

Lastly, as to why I believe their athletic “clock” should keep ticking during pregnancy, I believe it sufficiently deters the student-athlete from getting pregnant in the first place, knowing they can lose a year of eligibility they will never get back.  This may incentivize the recruiting school to prioritize disciplined and focused athletes to the extent that they don’t already, since the school potentially loses a year of eligibility from an All-American caliber athlete.

And for anybody who made it this far, thanks for reading.

Good post Brandon.  Solid points all around.

Obviously I agree. It was nice to read a post that does not that referred to a pregnant athlete as "Knocked UP!"

And while I think you've been way, way out of line in several of your previous posts, I agree with you here.  We're already a bunch of dudes talking about women's issues, and doing so flippantly just doesn't sound right.