Pregnant Athletes and Athletic Scholarships Essay Example

does have to apply for an additional year and medical redshirt status. A redshirt season is defined as a season where a player is listed on the roster but does not play an active role in the competition due to a medical reason. However, even though the NCAA does allow for an extra year and redshirt status, the keyword in the regulation requires the student-athlete to 'apply' for redshirt status. The athlete is ultimately responsible for reaching out to their coach and filling out all of the required paperwork and receiving a spot as a redshirted member of the team. The spot will most likely be awarded to the student-athlete but failure to meet the requirements would raise grounds for a school to have the rights to take away a student's athletic scholarship.

A situation that should be addressed is the possibility of Pregnancy after a Sexual assault. By no means do we think that an athlete should lose their scholarship under these circumstances. The situation would have been out of the student-athletes control. Continuing the pregnancy if chosen would be a right for the student with no consequences from the school or governing bodies. Under no regulations or laws would the athlete be forced to end the pregnancy. The student-athlete would have the right to choose that option, but should not feel that that is the only choice for fear of losing their athletic scholarship. In fact, both the NCAA and Title IX have specific clauses that protect students who have been made to feel this way. If any female student-athlete has felt forced under the regulations of her school to end her pregnancy or

lose her scholarship she has the right to file suit for emotional distress against the school or whoever expressed this ultimatum the student-athlete. The student-athlete would be protected from any and all retaliation.

A school should have the right to revoke or strip an athlete of their scholarship if the athlete were to become pregnant. However, this does not and should not keep the student-athlete from pursuing a case against the school and or the coach of her particular sport. In the case of Tara Brady v. Sacred Heart University and Edward Swanson, a student-athlete became pregnant and decided to keep her baby. She told her coach during a summer basketball camp, which was a job promised to her as a part of her scholarship and spot on the basketball team at sacred heart. In an interview, she said that her coach was fine with it at first, but later after talking to University officials her coach, Edward Swanson, informed Brady that she would only be a distraction for her fellow teammates and should ultimately leave Sacred Heart(Grossman, 2003). Brady then said that she applied for a redshirt status, but her coach never registered her for the status and her scholarship was stripped from her. The following year it was revealed that she had received medical redshirt status, but had never been notified. Brady then contacted the school and requested to be reinstated as a member of the basketball team. Her request was granted and she was placed back on the team. However, her coach refused to speak with her and would only communicate through an intermediary source. As a result of Brady eventually withdrew from

Sacred Heart University and began school at a Division 2 school where she played basketball and completed her degree. In this case, there is room for a case. Brady spoke to her coach about her pregnancy, applied for a medical redshirt status, and filled out the proper paperwork. But still, her scholarship was revoked. The school should not have revoked her scholarship. Brady's case is an excellent example of a pregnant student-athlete whose rights had been violated and deserved to keep her scholarship.

Under Title IX no one should be discriminated because of their sex or 'in the event of their pregnancy, childbirth, conditions related to pregnancy, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy or recovery therefrom, or parental or marital status,' thus a pregnant student-athlete cannot have her scholarship removed. Also under Title IX ', they must be offered reinstatement to the same position after pregnancy as they held before the onset of pregnancy'. However, using Title IX as a defense against a student losing their scholarship could be considered a stretch of the statute itself. The argument against the use of Title IX would be an extension to the Title VI argument and decision in the Supreme Court's decisions in Alexander v. Sandoval (Brake, 2008, p. 347). This case pertained to racial discrimination and the defendant filed a claim under Title VI. The court found that Title VI does not have enough reach to be disparate impact discrimination, and in turn, Title VI itself didn't give any support for an 'implied private right of action' to peruse disparate impact discrimination (Alexander v Sandoval). Title VI and Title IX are very similar. They both deal with discrimination

under the 14th Amendment. In turn, it gives proxy that Title IX's pregnancy regulation( Brake, 2008, p. 347), like its cousin Tile VI, doesn't reach any further than the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. This only pertains to the pregnancy because pregnancy is not under the constitutional ban on sex discrimination. Therefore using Title IX, as an argument for a student-athlete losing her scholarship because of an unplanned pregnancy exceeds the scope of what Title IX encompasses (Brake, 2008, p.348).

While discussing the NCAA it was mentioned that a student must apply for a Medical Red Shirt status. If a student fails to file the appropriate paperwork or contact the appropriate people, the school should be allowed to revoke the student's scholarship. An exception would be a case such as Tara Brady's, in which she followed every instruction. She ultimately lost her scholarship, but it was after obvious discrimination on the side of her coach, who made the decision to take her scholarship from her by not notifying the school or Brady of her Medical Redshirt Status. Another instance in which revoking a student-athletes athletic scholarship should be allowed would be during reinstatement or continued play. Title IX states that the new mother and athlete should be placed back in the position she held before her pregnancy. However, the NCAA has regulations on their scholarships. Each athletes scholarship has a yearlong duration after that year is up the student goes under reconsideration and must qualify for the scholarship again. If the post-pregnancy athlete is placed back on the team but cannot fill her spot, in whatever sport she plays, with the same quality as

before she became pregnant. A school should be able to remove her from the team and strip her of her scholarship. This would be considered equal treatment. All athletes must meet the requirements of their spot on the team. For example, if a baseball player comes back from a redshirt season but cannot compete on the same level as his fellow teammates, he can be taken off the team and lose his scholarship. Just because a pregnant athlete has to be reinstated to the same position she had before her pregnancy does not mean she should be automatically promised her spot, this would not have been on the table for her if she had never gotten pregnant. No athlete is promised automatic annual renewal from the NCAA, no matter their sex.

In conclusion, the decisions to revoke pregnant student-athletes scholarship is an underground topic. It is hard to determine many things and it truly dependent upon circumstance and responsibility of the athlete. The NCAA even says that they handle each pregnancy case individually because all of the circumstances differ. Each student-athlete faces their own set of struggles, but ultimately the school should be able to revoke their scholarship if they deem it appropriate. If a school does strip a pregnant student-athlete of their athletic scholarship the school should be required to provide solid evidence as to why they stripped the athlete of the scholarship. As well as prepare themselves for any legal avenue the student-athlete may want to pursue, whether that is a court case or a simple appeal to the NCAA on their own behalf. The right for the school to revoke the scholarship does

not revoke the students right to due process.