Double Standard??

[SLUDoubleDeuce]

Check out this story that ran on the local news this week:

In 2001, KU defensive tackle Eric Butler took time off when his daughter was born, and now he wants more playing time. The NCAA eligibility rule gives student athletes five years to play in four seasons of competition.
Butler said he has a problem with the NCAA's pregnancy exception, which states that if a female student becomes pregnant, she can get a year extension to compete in athletics.

Butler said he should be allowed the same yearlong extension.

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/sports/9704064/detail.html

Does he have a point or not? I tend to believe that he does. One of the big pushes of the NCAA is equality between men and women in sports and that there is no difference between the two and as a result should be treated equally on campus. But isn't this the NCAA admitting that they aren't? Either there is a difference between men and women or there isn't and their policies, and enforcement, need to reflect that. The NCAA is trying to have it both ways.

Anyone else have thoughts?

[Campbell]

That is interesting. No matter what happens it sounds like he made the right decision. I guess it boils down to the NCAA viewing pregnancy simply as a physical aspect. I think it would be a double standard if a woman finished the term of her pregnancy prior to the season and would be physically capable of playing, but may choose to sit out and care for her newborn. Would she then be granted an extension? If they allow that then they need to allow it for male athletes as well.

[Zeuslax]

Absolutely......especially since a lot of women make more than their husbands. It could be a matter of economics!

[Gvlax]

Absolutely......especially since a lot of women make more than their husbands. It could be a matter of economics!

Can we see evidence of this? Im pretty sure men typically make more than their wifes.

[Gvlax]

there is a man in saginaw MI fighting for his rights with unborn children. If women can have a aborition why cant men leave the baby if they dont want it.



http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/03/man-behind-roe-vs-wade-for-men.html

probably not under the right topic but i thought it was a interesting point.

[Zeuslax]

Gvlax wrote:

Can we see evidence of this? Im pretty sure men typically make more than their wifes.

I wasn't saying that women make more than men overall. What I said was a lot of women make more than thier husbands in this day an age. Thus, is may make finacial sense for the women to work.

[Hackalicious]

Check out this story that ran on the local news this week:

Does he have a point or not? I tend to believe that he does. One of the big pushes of the NCAA is equality between men and women in sports and that there is no difference between the two and as a result should be treated equally on campus. But isn't this the NCAA admitting that they aren't? Either there is a difference between men and women or there isn't and their policies, and enforcement, need to reflect that. The NCAA is trying to have it both ways.

Anyone else have thoughts?

It's a tough call and I sympathize for the guy. He took a year off to take care of his kid; not to give his team an unfair advantage.

I think if you stick to the letter of the law, they will treat pregnancy as a physical condition only. If a woman took a season off long after she had recovered from pregnancy and called it maternity leave, I don't think they'd let it slide. I doubt he will win his case for this reason.

But, it brings up one point: Athletes can take two years off for a religious mission and not lose eligibility. (BYU players, correct me if I'm wrong on that one.)

Why is taking time off to proselytize deemed acceptable, while raising your infant is not?

Now that I think of it, he should just say that he took a year-long "spiritual sabbatical". He'd win that one in court. Otherwise the NCAA would be discriminating in favor of certain religions over others.