Pregnant Student Athletes Losing Scholarships

[dsc123]

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.

First, that is sometimes true, but sometimes not.  My wife was on bed rest for 2 or 3 weeks leading up to delivery.  She was probably physically unable to work a desk job for a total of 5 weeks or so.  (As a proud new father I don't miss an opportunity to talk about my children ;).  And she didnt' have any complications...i can't imagine the terrible scenario some women must face.

I also think it is similar because most women get maternity leave.  I doubt the military kicks women out if they get pregnant.  And even for jobs that are not physically demanding, Federal law requires that employers with 50 employees (or some other employers, like public schools) give a pregnant woman 12 weeks leave.  Some states give more time and apply to more employers.  So if a woman with a desk job gets pregnant, she can stay home and not perform any work for 3 or 4 months, without losing her job.

That doesn't necessarily mean its discriminatory to not give that much leave--because small employers are not subject to those laws, generally.  But discrimination laws do require you to treat pregnant women equal to any other disabled employee.  There are always exceptions and details to every rule and I'm sure you can think up a scenario where its ok to fire a pregnant woman.  But I think this shows that its not as simple as saying that she can't perform so she's out of luck, and its not discriminatory because only women can get pregnant.  Something can be discriminatory even if it isn't done because you don't like person A or B.  At the very least you have to find a comparable male situation and treat them as the same.

sort of separately, I don't know if I convinced you or if you just don't want to "argue" with me, but I think I may a pretty solid case that you're not "punishing" the "inability to perform" irrespective of the conduct, right?

[iacas]

First, that is sometimes true, but sometimes not.  My wife was on bed rest for 2 or 3 weeks leading up to delivery.  She was probably physically unable to work a desk job for a total of 5 weeks or so.  (As a proud new father I don't miss an opportunity to talk about my children ;).  And she didnt' have any complications...i can't imagine the terrible scenario some women must face.

As was stated before, employment is not the same as a scholarship. Furthermore, plenty of athletes have been out of commission for five or six weeks.

I also think it is similar because most women get maternity leave. I doubt the military kicks women out if they get pregnant.  And even for jobs that are not physically demanding, Federal law requires that employers with 50 employees (or some other employers, like public schools) give a pregnant woman 12 weeks leave.

12 weeks is not that long, and there are exceptions to that law all the time (you pointed one out - a small business, which is more akin to a team of athletes than a large business), particularly for "mission critical" employees. You don't hear about them because "mission critical" employees don't take 12 weeks off. They understand that their job is important to them, and do what they can to not get pregnant during a bad time. Men in mission critical positions don't undergo surgeries that require a long recovery time (unless they have to for emergencies, etc.). Nobody, male or female, takes ten weeks of vacation time even if they've accrued it and are thus legally "owed" it per their contracts during critical times.

That doesn't necessarily mean its discriminatory to not give that much leave - because small employers are not subject to those laws, generally.  But discrimination laws do require you to treat pregnant women equal to any other disabled employee.

Male athletes who are injured outside of their sport or otherwise unable to perform athletically are stripped of their scholarships regularly as well. There you go - equal treatment for being "disabled."

There are always exceptions and details to every rule and I'm sure you can think up a scenario where its ok to fire a pregnant woman.

You saved me the effort when you provided one yourself: "small employers are not subject to those laws".

At the very least you have to find a comparable male situation and treat them as the same.

A male athlete is unable to perform athletically. Scholarship stripped. Comparable situation, same treatment.

P.S. Vote is 14-4, not that it means all that much.

[Golfingdad]

sort of separately, I don't know if I convinced you or if you just don't want to "argue" with me, but I think I may a pretty solid case that you're not "punishing" the "inability to perform" irrespective of the conduct, right?

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.

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

And I think the big difference in your comparisons to work is that usually women aren't paid by their employers for the time that they are unable to perform, and if they are, it's by accrued sick or vacation pay, and lets be honest ... there's no such thing as "time off" in season for college athletes.  They don't get to take vacation.

[iacas]

And I think the big difference in your comparisons to work is that usually women aren't paid by their employers for the time that they are unable to perform, and if they are, it's by accrued sick or vacation pay, and lets be honest ... there's no such thing as "time off" in season for college athletes.  They don't get to take vacation.

Right.

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."

P.S. I ignored that last little bit from dsc because I wasn't sure if he was talking to me.

[David in FL]

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.

.

I used the caps because I thought you missed the basic concept when wasn't highlighted in that manner.

Now I understand that you simply don't comprehend the simple point that there is no discrimination.  That all athletes are being treated in exactly the same manner, for exactly the same reason.......and it ain't pregnancy.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

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?

You congratulate her on the exciting new addition to her family, give her you're preferred canned line about not getting any sleep or having her hands full or whatever, then tell her you'll see her when her in 12 weeks.  Basically, the equivalent of redshirting.

K-troop, you're quoting me, so I assume you're talking to me.  My position is that you treat the pregnant lady the same as any other player who gets hurt or ill, unrelated to his or her sport.  If you want to add the qualifier "preventable" so that we're only talking about Aaroon Boone situations and not getting struck by lightning, I'm ok with that.  I suspect that you think I am saying that under no circumstances should a pregnant girl lose her scholarship, which is not my position.  So I'm not really sure where you're going, but I'll try...

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

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).

Easy, treat them the same, right?  Maybe I don't understand your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

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

Huh?  I'm not sure where this is going, but I'll try to answer:  A school that gives a football scholarship to a girl that is too weak to play football should fire its scouting director.

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

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.

Ok, but you treat the woman that gets breast cancer and the man with a malignant cyst the same, right?  I don't get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

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?

One is an agreement that if you come and work for me I'll pay $X.  The other is that if you come and play for my team, I'll educate you for free.  Whether you can't play, or can't work, you're not living up to your end, right?

You also seem to imply that a job involves greater rights than a scholarship.  But unless you have a contract or work for the gov't, you can generally be fired for any reason or no reason at all.  If you're an athlete on a scholarship, you've probably got more protections, not less.  And even at at will employee cannot be fired for discriminatory reasons.  Well, not where I live.

[David in FL]

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.

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

And I think the big difference in your comparisons to work is that usually women aren't paid by their employers for the time that they are unable to perform, and if they are, it's by accrued sick or vacation pay, and lets be honest ... there's no such thing as "time off" in season for college athletes.  They don't get to take vacation.

What do you mean?!

I've said, several times now, as has Erik,  that it's not discrimination for exactly that reason, that it MUST be applied to men who are unable to fulfill their obligations due to physical ineligibility of their own making just as with the woman in question.  This has nothing to do with pregnancy, having a family or anything other than a physical inability to participate because of behavior completely unassociated with the sport in question.

[k-troop]

Right.

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.)

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.

[dsc123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Male athletes who are injured outside of their sport or otherwise unable to perform athletically are stripped of their scholarships regularly as well. There you go - equal treatment for being "disabled."

A male athlete is unable to perform athletically. Scholarship stripped. Comparable situation, same treatment.

Well then we agree, but were mostly misunderstanding each other.  I'm ok with that as long as they're treated the same.  Based on something you said earlier I thought you held a different position.

Quote:

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."

P.S. I ignored that last little bit from dsc because I wasn't sure if he was talking to me.

The first part we're in total agreement, and the second, yes, i was talking to you

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

P.S. Vote is 14-4, not that it means all that much.

I'd argue  35 years of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, means a bit more,but for all I know that could have been a really close vote.

Quote:

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.

It sounds like you disagree with misty more than me.  I'm not arguing that men who get a woman pregnant and women who get pregnant, should be treated the same.  A man having sex and a woman having sex face different consequences, therefore the risks of their conduct aren't the same and their decision to have sex don't impose the same burdens on their school.  So I'm not saying if you get rid of the lady you have to get rid of Derek Carr.

My point is that you're not only punishing the result, as David has...said...and Erik has argued. The result is that she can't play, and if that's all you were punishing, you'd get rid of every injured player.  You're punishing people unable to play because of an avoidable decision or something like that.  So conduct--the decision--is part of it.  The other part is the result, or status, or whatever you want to call it, yes.  Its both.

But the other part of it is that the contract or ncaa rule or whatever would set forth your obligations.  So if it says that if you get pregnant, you lose your scholarship, then sure you should.  But if sheand the school agree that she can keep your scholarship even if she gets pregnant, then she hasn't failed to take personal responsibility.  Her responsibility is defined by the agreement.  That's really why I don't think personal responsibility is relevant to this discussion.  There's a logical fallacy there, I think.  Its like using a word to define that same word or something.  Its 1pm and I haven't done a minute of work, I have to stop thinking about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

And I think the big difference in your comparisons to work is that usually women aren't paid by their employers for the time that they are unable to perform, and if they are, it's by accrued sick or vacation pay, and lets be honest ... there's no such thing as "time off" in season for college athletes.  They don't get to take vacation.

Two things.  One, they become equivalent if we allow for redshirting, which I dont think anyone has disagreed with.  Two, I was talking about work because I figured most would say "of course you can't fire someone for getting pregnant, that would be discriminatory !".....even though men can't get pregnant and a pregnant woman can't work, i.e., live up to her end of the deal. So my point was just that treating someone different because they are pregnant is discriminatory, not that students and employees should receive the same treatment. Pregnant employees must be treated like other disabled employees, and pregnant athletes should be treated like other injured/disabled athletes.

[dsc123]

What do you mean?!

I've said, several times now, as has Erik,  that it's not discrimination for exactly that reason, that it MUST be applied to men who are unable to fulfill their obligations due to physical ineligibility of their own making just as with the woman in question.  This has nothing to do with pregnancy, having a family or anything other than a  physical inability to participate because of behavior completely unassociated with the sport in question.

You're not reading what people are writing.  I think that I, GD, and Erik, have agreed to this:  A female athlete that gets pregnant, and a male athlete who is unable to play due to an injury suffered that was unrelated to his sport, should be treated equally.  I think GD and Erik think they should both lose their scholarship.  I came down on the other side, and not by much and wouldn't argue against their position.

What you're missing is that you haven't taken a stand on that.  So if you also agree with that, than believe or not, you and I are in agreement and just talking past each other.  But I've repeatedly stated that position, and since you continue to argue the opposite, my conclusion is that you do not agree.

[Golfingdad]

What do you mean?!

I've said, several times now, as has Erik,  that it's not discrimination for exactly that reason, that it MUST be applied to men who are unable to fulfill their obligations due to physical ineligibility of their own making just as with the woman in question.  This has nothing to do with pregnancy, having a family or anything other than a  physical inability to participate because of behavior completely unassociated with the sport in question.

Honestly ...

I'm not really talking about anything other than your words here.  I'm nitpicking a little bit.  I don't disagree with what you feel the results should be.  I am just bothered by the fact that you use the phrase "personal accountibility" in reference to a woman becoming pregnant, rather than in reference to her performing the actions leading to that.  I think my lotto analogy is accurate here, and that if you're going to use "personal accountibility" as one of the justifications, then you should stipulate that that should apply to "men in the same situation."  (And by "same situation" I mean the guy that got the girl pregnant)

To repeat ... I'm NOT saying that men who have kids should be required to give up their sport (as explained with the Derek Carr story), but I'm simply saying that I don't like the "personal responsibility" card being played as justification here unless you are willing to admit that that is a double standard.

[iacas]

You congratulate her on the exciting new addition to her family, give her you're preferred canned line about not getting any sleep or having her hands full or whatever, then tell her you'll see her when her in 12 weeks. Basically, the equivalent of redshirting.

It's not really the same. First, the period is longer than twelve weeks, and second, as has been pointed out, employees are not paid.

As I've said already:

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."

dsc, please multiquote, and I don't think we agree, no. I'd strip any athlete of a scholarship if he or she is physically unable to meet his or her athletic obligations unless he or she were injured playing the sport for which he or she earned the scholarship. I'd allow them to re-earn it in following years, of course.

I think that I, GD, and Erik, have agreed to this:  A female athlete that gets pregnant, and a male athlete who is unable to play due to an injury suffered that was unrelated to his sport, should be treated equally.  I think GD and Erik think they should both lose their scholarship.

I'll clear a little bit up here about the way I've used the word "should." I've used it as shorthand for "the university would be justified in rescinding the scholarship." I did not mean to imply that they MUST take away the scholarship by "rule" or "law" or anything. If they want to allow an "injured" or "disabled" athlete to continue to have a scholarship while "injured," then that's good, but in using the word "should" I'm saying it's not "bad" IMO for a university to revoke a scholarship to an "injured" athlete who sustained his "injury" outside of his sport.

I DO think they SHOULD keep the scholarship in place if the athlete was injured playing his or her sport.

[David in FL]

Honestly ...

I'm not really talking about anything other than your words here.  I'm nitpicking a little bit.  I don't disagree with what you feel the results should be.  I am just bothered by the fact that you use the phrase "personal accountibility" in reference to a woman becoming pregnant, rather than in reference to her performing the actions leading to that.  I think my lotto analogy is accurate here, and that if you're going to use "personal accountibility" as one of the justifications, then you should stipulate that that should apply to "men in the same situation."  (And by "same situation" I mean the guy that got the girl pregnant)

To repeat ... I'm NOT saying that men who have kids should be required to give up their sport (as explained with the Derek Carr story), but I'm simply saying that I don't like the "personal responsibility" card being played as justification here unless you are willing to admit that that is a double standard.

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.

Don't do the "crime" (whether or not you have an accomplice ) if you aren't willing to do the "time".

[Golfingdad]

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.

Don't do the "crime" (whether or not you have an accomplice  ) if you aren't willing to do the "time".

Yes, that is what you are saying but ... I don't think that is REALLY what you are saying when you add in the "personal responsibility" part without also applying that to the man that got her pregnant.  DSC is correct ...

My point is that you're not only punishing the result, as David has...said...and Erik has argued. The result is that she can't play, and if that's all you were punishing, you'd get rid of every injured player. You're punishing people unable to play because of an avoidable decision or something like that. So conduct--the decision--is part of it. The other part is the result, or status, or whatever you want to call it, yes. Its both.

So, since you're not also punishing the male athlete that got a girl pregnant, then it's either A) Not about personal responsibility or B) It's a double standard.

[Lihu]

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.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by dsc123

You're not reading what people are writing. I think that I, GD, and Erik, have agreed to this: A female athlete that gets pregnant, and a male athlete who is unable to play due to an injury suffered that was unrelated to his sport, should be treated equally. I think GD and Erik think they should both lose their scholarship. I came down on the other side, and not by much and wouldn't argue against their position.

What you're missing is that you haven't taken a stand on that. So if you also agree with that, than believe or not, you and I are in agreement and just talking past each other. But I've repeatedly stated that position, and since you continue to argue the opposite, my conclusion is that you do not agree.

Excuse me......?!

Here are several very clear (I thought) examples of exactly that.....and yes, they should both lose their scholarship, as I've said many times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

I've said, several times now, as has Erik,  that it's not discrimination for exactly that reason, that it MUST be applied to men who are unable to fulfill their obligations due to physical ineligibility of their own making just as with the woman in question.  This has nothing to do with pregnancy, having a family or anything other than a  physical inability to participate because of behavior completely unassociated with the sport in question.

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.

If the injury was a result of the player recklessly participating in an activity that he knew could cause him to be unable to fulfill the obligation he agreed to in exchange for his education, then yes, he should have no expectation that the school will continue his free ride.

What was ambiguous in any of that?

[David in FL]

So, since you're not also punishing the male athlete that got a girl pregnant, then it's either A) Not about personal responsibility or B) It's a double standard.

It's not a punishment.  It's simply not compensating someone for something that they're currently unable to do.  If she can still participate, even though pregnant, she should be allowed to do so.  If a male track star can still participate even though he stupidly broke both his legs, he should be allowed to do so.

.....you're still all wrapped up in the pregnancy thing.  If I can't make you understand that the specific physical impairment has nothing to do with it, then I give up.

Sorry all, I should have added this one as another multi-quote to my reply to dsc above......

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

You congratulate her on the exciting new addition to her family, give her you're preferred canned line about not getting any sleep or having her hands full or whatever, then tell her you'll see her when her in 12 weeks. Basically, the equivalent of redshirting.

It's not really the same. First, the period is longer than twelve weeks, and second, as has been pointed out, employees are not paid.

As I've said already:

Quote:

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."

First, I was answering his question about what you do to an employee in that situation.  Second, often times, they are paid for some of that time.  Third, my only comparison there was to say the leave is like redshirting, which I am ok with, and which you then said is the same and is ok?  Not sure where the disagreement is.

dsc, please multiquote

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

and I don't think we agree, no. I'd strip any athlete of a scholarship if he or she is physically unable to meet his or her athletic obligations unless he or she were injured playing the sport for which he or she earned the scholarship. I'd allow them to re-earn it in following years, of course.

here is what I mean:

I have said.....

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

I keep coming back to treating pregnancy as the same as, say a football player that breaks his ankle shooting hoops. Since I think it would be unfair to take away the football players scholarship, I think I have to say that the girl who gets pregnant should keep hers too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Male athletes who are injured outside of their sport or otherwise unable to perform athletically are stripped of their scholarships regularly as well. There you go - equal treatment for being "disabled."

A male athlete is unable to perform athletically. Scholarship stripped. Comparable situation, same treatment.

I'm ok with that as long as they're treated the same.  Based on something you said earlier I thought you held a different position.

....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Two things.  One, they become equivalent if we allow for redshirting, which I dont think anyone has disagreed with.  Two, I was talking about work because I figured most would say "of course you can't fire someone for getting pregnant, that would be discriminatory!".....even though men can't get pregnant and a pregnant woman can't work, i.e., live up to her end of the deal.  So my point was just that treating someone different because they are pregnant is discriminatory, not that students and employees should receive the same treatment.  Pregnant employees must be treated like other disabled employees, and pregnant athletes should be treated like other injured/disabled athletes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

You're not reading what people are writing.  I think that I, GD, and Erik, have agreed to this:  A female athlete that gets pregnant, and a male athlete who is unable to play due to an injury suffered that was unrelated to his sport, should be treated equally.  I think GD and Erik think they should both lose their scholarship.  I came down on the other side, and not by much and wouldn't argue against their position.

The only difference between that, and what you've said, I think, is that you firmly think they should both lose the scholarship.  Early on I said they should both keep it, but then I backed off a bit and said as long as they're treated the same, that's fine.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I'll clear a little bit up here about the way I've used the word "should." I've used it as shorthand for "the university would be justified in rescinding the scholarship." I did not mean to imply that they MUST take away the scholarship by "rule" or "law" or anything. If they want to allow an "injured" or "disabled" athlete to continue to have a scholarship while "injured," then that's good, but in using the word "should" I'm saying it's not "bad" IMO for a university to revoke a scholarship to an "injured" athlete who sustained his "injury" outside of his sport.

I DO think they SHOULD keep the scholarship in place if the athlete was injured playing his or her sport.

Originally Posted by David in FL

Don't do the "crime" (whether or not you have an accomplice  ) if you aren't willing to do the "time".

The crime, of course, is conduct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL
What was ambiguous in any of that?

Because you keep saying its conduct-neutral and a matter of personal responsibility, which makes no sense.  Take responsibility for what? having sex!