In mid-January, the National Collegiate Athletics Association Board of Directors ruled that, as of Aug. 1, schools no longer have the right to revoke a scholarship from a student-athlete due to eating disorders, depression, addiction, mononucleosis or pregnancy.
This regulation, while having good intentions, is misguided when it comes to pregnancy. To come to this conclusion, we must first examine why scholarships are awarded to student-athletes.
Scholarships are a way for schools to compensate students for time spent playing a sport. They are a way for coaches to help their busy student-athletes pay for the ever-rising cost of tuition, books and housing. In return, athletes invest their time into practice and travel for competitions. In essence, the athletic department is paying these people so that they, in turn, can be paid.
The entire athletic department, including the granting of scholarships, is based upon business transactions. Why should the school be held accountable for holding up their end of these transactions if the student-athlete is not holding up their end of the deal? If one party is going to be responsible for their arrangements in the contract, both sides should be forced to comply.
Not everyone who plays for the team gets a scholarship, and the amount of money that the scholarship is worth is dependent on the athlete's performance both on and off the court. Thus, the modified NCAA regulation is misguided because it takes the student's personal situation into account, instead of focusing on improving the school. It is unfair to give money to people who will not be able to play for the team for an extended amount of time, especially with pregnancy.
It's also understood that teenage pregnancy is often a mistake and shouldn't control the person's life. In reality, pregnancy is not simply a nine-month ordeal. Instead, it involves long nights of caring for a crying infant, months of not being able to exercise, and then the additional time getting the athlete back into shape. This is true for both men and women fulfilling the extra responsibilities of raising a child.
The Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, commonly referred to as Title IX, tries to even the playing field for male and female athletes, which is perfectly acceptable. However, treating pregnancy like a sports injury blurs the line of privacy the situation demands; personal circumstances become school business. This new amendment almost endorses pregnancy if the student-athlete is looking to become a mother but wants a way to pay for school.
Besides, students who end up pregnant and do not play a sport receive no aid from the school but are expected to produce the same quality of work. If a student-athlete-turned-mother still wants to play after she has a kid, she should have to try out like everyone else and prove that she deserved a scholarship in the first place.
In the past, pregnancy was something that schools dealt with on an individual basis. Some schools chose to stand behind their student-athletes, while others abandoned them. The idea of losing money by investing in someone who cannot perform prevents sports from competitive excellence by denying money to other athletes who are interested in attending the school.
The new regulation is beneficial if scholarships are awarded on an annual basis, so it doesn't prevent schools from retracting the money the next year. It's understood that the student will need help making their way through college with a child, but they should be receiving academic assistance instead of being awarded an athletic scholarship.
Some athletes who were put in the position of having an unborn child or having their scholarship chose the money over the baby. This is a depressing consequence, but it is a decision many young women make without any added pressure. As a result, we must not blame rules for making life difficult, but the people who make life-changing decisions.
Be the first to comment on this article!