RebKell's Junkie Boards

[Kelli]

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/sports/17220873.htm

This was also on OTL this morning, but I missed most of it.

First thought on this is that if an athlete becomes pregnant and can't compete in or train properly for her shcolarship sport, that the school should be able to pull her scholarship for that year. They should also be allowed to pull the scholarship of ANY athlete that is unable to compete because of something risky that they do outside of their scholarship sport that prohibits them from participating. By that I mean if they break their leg skiing, are driving drunk and have an accident, drug and/or alchol abuse, etc. If it is a training injury that occurs or an injury while participating for an organized team (team USA), then they shouldn't be able to pull it.

_________________
When life kicks you, let it kick you forward. ~~Kay Yow

[Rothum]

If the men do not lose their scholarships for fathering children then it is discrimination.

The military academies have a policy for all cadets and midshipmen that state loss of appointment if one is a father or a mother prior to completion of attendance at an Academy.

_________________
Kindness should never be random.
Sun STH

"What do you do when those with all the power are harming those who have none? You start by standing up and telling the truth."

I write for Off-Court.com Anything I write on this website are my own views and do not represent the organization in anyway.

[hooper1]

Hmmm, just to play devil's advocate... a father isn't physically unable to participate in a sport just because he has gotten a woman pregnant, but a mother is unable to physically participate. There's the defining difference.

[BBallFanCT729]

Don't people have better things to do than discuss a woman's reproductive system? First abortion...now taking scholarships away from pregnant athletes. Women treated equally my ass .

If it's one pregnancy, then the woman should be allowed to keep the scholarship. If a student-athlete can get a non-medical redshirt for 'developmental' reasons, then a pregnant student-athlete should be able to get a scholarship for the year she's pregnant.

[Kelli]

[shizanna]

Like in the other thread...and when a married student athlete gets pregnant? Is everyone going to get out the torches and pitchforks then? Because they do exist.

_________________
"The elephants get drunk all the time. It is becoming really dangerous. We need to stop making alcohol available to them" - Paris Hilton

[memphis10]

Sometimes I hate that the University of Memphis is treated as the bastard child of the Tennessee Board of Regents, but then something like this comes along and I'm ashamed to wear blue & grey, and I quickly turn heel and go all orange. This is the same university that has had several male student athletes commit serious crimes (domestic violence, assault, identity theft, aggravated robbery, money counterfeiting, and rape) and guess fucking what!!! Every last GAWD DAWN(excuse me Lawd ) one of them got their full scholarships back, and all of them either plead guilty or got a friend to take the charge. If I were Ms. Harding, I would put that criminal justice degree to good use and get a damn good lawyer because their is a blatant double standard. Dammit, now I gotta go pull out my orange polos.

_________________
Anti-Barbie

R.I.P Shara 1993-2009
R.I.P. Taylor Bradford

[hooper1]

[shizanna]

[bballjunkee212]

Why is anyone discussing this? Why is anyone acting like there is any merit at all in the notion of revoking scholarships of pregnant athletes?

Here are the two positions to this "debate":

Athletes are chattel. They are on campus for just one reason, to perform. If something impairs their performance, and thus their ability to enhance the school's reputation and generate revenue for the Program, then their scholarship should be revoked and they should thrown to the wolves.

Or, we could treat athletes as human beings and give them the education and support they need to understand their choices, and continue to educate and support even when they make dubious decisions.

There's not a college in America that couldn't afford to have every one of its scholarship athletes pregnant. Not one. Not that the financial burden of such an extreme wouldn't be felt, or that an athletic department full of expectant mothers would be an ideal situation. But higher education in America can afford to keep its pregnant athletes on scholarship. And not only can higher education in America afford it, it is uniquely positioned to bring the kind of expertise a truly humane policy would require.

But of the two positions above, the former allows people to think "deep thoughts" about how they can control others; allows politics to intrude; allows the display of religious and moral "values"; allows us to stigmatize people who have committed the "sin" of being sexual beings outside the Judaeo-Christian ideal of marriage between a man and a woman; reinforces the idea that control is necessary; that political and religious ideologies are themselves more important than the individuals or societies they are intended to serve; that the designation of others as "other" is both good and necessary.

The latter position does not permit so much posturing. It requires thought and action. It requires people to care; to actually look at other people and ask questions and learn and understand without judging.

So why is this "issue" presented-- talked about-- as if one of the positions is even worthy of consideration by an enlightened society? And yet, which position is more likely to prevail?

_________________
~Bill

[umbeta1455]

My issue is not letting her have a scholarship after her baby was born. She was still on the team the next year but they wouldn't' give her a scholarship. I say either be with her or against her. If she can be on the team as a walk on why not give her that scholarship. That just seems mean to me.

[Kelli]

Pat Backock article:

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=47938

_________________
When life kicks you, let it kick you forward. ~~Kay Yow

[hooper1]

Quote from the article: Is it really fair that female athletes are the only ones paying a price for unplanned pregnancies?

No, but no one said life was fair. Women give birth, that's just how it is. (That's not really fair either, but alas, we're stuck with how mother nature set things up.)

In the real non-collegiate world, if you are unable to perform your job for 9 months, you a) lose your job; or b) hope that you purchased long-term disability insurance so you can continue to get some income. You don't get full pay for not working, and you certainly shouldn't.

I think the same goes for scholarships. If you can't perform, especially because of your own negligence as in Jia Perkin's case, you should not get money for that.

As a taxpayer, I'm not interested in funding a state university that makes it their business to financially support pregnant women who aren't living up to their end of a scholarship deal. (I believe we have welfare and social services for those sorts of things.)