Florida State University Libraries

)ORULGD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\/LEUDULHV

2021 Pregnancy Discrimination in Higher Education: A Structural Approach Emily Giovanna Pacenti

Follow this and additional works at DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION IN

HIGHER EDUCATION : A STRUCTURAL

APPROACH

EMILY PACENTI

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Women’s Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in the Major

Degree Awarded: Spring 2022 1

The members of the Defense Committee approve the thesis of Emily Pacenti defended on April 12, 2021. Signatures are on file with the Honors Program office.

Dr. Leslie Richardson

Thesis Director

Dr. Na’ama Nagar Outside Committee Member

Dr. Patricia Homan Committee Member

ABSTRACT

It is my argument that pregnant students at public and private universities are systematically disenfranchised by university systems, not primarily through individual interactions that involve prejudice and discrimination, but through the common structure of universities themselves. The primary research question this thesis will attempt to answer is how do structural aspects of universities disadvantage pregnant students? Perspectives of feminist theory and conflict theory will be utilized to look at what makes a group minoritized and what makes discrimination structural as opposed to interpersonal. Using these theories as guides, I will argue that pregnant students function as a minoritized or disenfranchised group at universities because there are structural elements, such as university wide policy and societal views of natalism/pregnancy, that put them at a disadvantage. Through a combination of theoretical analysis and fact collecting about the average American university’s resources and policies regarding pregnant students, it is clear that, on average, institutions of higher education are structured in a way that inhibits the success of pregnant students.

INTRODUCTION

The university in and of itself is a social system — a unique society and community with its own culture, norms, expectations, values, and institutions. In the university society, there are different hierarchies of oppression and privilege, just as there are in broader society, along with different opportunities and restraints within institutions. Various groups of people within the university system include undergraduate, graduate, and international students, staff, faculty, community organizations that operate with or through the

3 university, and all the identities that make up who these people are — racial, ethnic, religious, gender, and sexual identities, in addition to factors like ability status, citizenship, and age.

90% of female students who do not give birth (“About Teen Pregnancy”, 2018). Fewer than 2% of teen mothers will finish college by age 30 (“Teen Pregnancy Affects

Graduation'', 2013). This educational disruption can strengthen the motherhood penalty on educational and career momentum, contribute to the gendered wage gap, and have other lasting consequences for young mothers.

Pregnancy discrimination can exist at an institutional level as well as the individual and the structural barriers to pregnant people within universities create discrimination and obstacles regardless of whether or not an individual has directly discriminated against the pregnant person. For example, the way universities accommodate pregnancy in regards to missing work and class time can put a pregnant student at an immediate disadvantage whereas different medical conditions such as physical illnesses and injury may be accommodated much more readily by instructors and departments. This paper will frequently refer to this experience as structural discrimination, operating under the definition in which structural discrimination is what refers to macro-level conditions that

4 constrain the opportunities, resources, and well-being of socially disadvantaged groups

(Link & Phelan, 2001).

The primary research question this thesis will attempt to answer is how do structural aspects of universities disadvantage pregnant students? Further questions include, how does pregnancy discrimination occur at a structural level in institutions of higher education?

How does pregnancy discrimination affect female college students? What aspects of universities are structured in a way that fundamentally disadvantages pregnant students?

How are women as affected by structural pregnancy discrimination at universities in both the long and short term and how does it affect issues of gendered inequality such as the wage gap?

There will be some critical assumptions made throughout this analysis. While transgender men, nonbinary individuals, intersex people, and wide populations of folks with varying pronouns and identities can all become pregnant, this paper operates under the assumption that pregnancy discrimination primarily impacts women. Therefore, some passages may use the term “pregnant woman/women'' and some may use the phrase

“pregnant person.” When discussing reproductive rights and pregnancy, it’s vital to thoroughly acknowledge the fact that women are not the only people who can become pregnant. However, the paper will largely focus on the effects of pregnancy discrimination on women.

This research involves three key components. First, perspectives of feminist theory and conflict theory will be utilized to look at what makes a group minoritized and what makes discrimination structural as opposed to interpersonal. Using these theories as guides,

I will argue that pregnant students function as a minoritized or disenfranchised group at universities because there are structural elements, such as universitywide policy and

5 societal views of natalism/pregnancy, that put them at a disadvantage. Through the lens of conflict and feminist theory, we can view the pregnant student as someone who is inherently disadvantaged in the common university structure. The feminist perspective allows us to explore the disproportionate effects of pregnancy discrimination on women such as educational disruption, career disruption, a more costly motherhood penalty, etc.

Theoretically, we can propose that the difficulty pregnant students face in not just continuing to participate in their education, but to thrive in their studies as well, is due to structural oppression and barriers that prevent them from thriving in their studies while carrying a child, not individual discrimination. Additionally, the lens of disability theory will be utilized to examine the question of whether or not pregnancy is a disability and how that affects the varying ways in which universities can approach pregnancy discrimination on a sructural level.

Next, in order to best visualize the real world implications of this subject and provide an original example of pregnancy discrimination at the structural level, I interviewed a student that left Florida State University after becoming pregnant due to structural obstacles that made it impossible for her to succeed. This interview will show what it looks like in a step by step process for a pregnant student to be oppressed by university systems such as healthcare, housing, child care, disability accommodation policy, and more. This interview was conducted as a journalistic endeavor and does not qualify as human research under DHHS or FDA regulations.

The third and final component of the research is an analysis of university policies and resources across the United States in which I will identify characteristics that make a university structurally discriminatory towards pregnant students and furthermore identify how many schools had these characteristics and how many did not. The sample is made up

6 of 102 universities with two from each of the 50 states and Washington D.C., one public university and one private for each.

The primary goal of this thesis is to achieve two things — offer a set of solutions for addressing pregnancy discrimination in American universities and a new lens of viewing the university itself as its own social system.

For the set of solutions, this paper will establish and argue for distinct changes in policies and resources that will help solve the research problem of pregnant students failing to thrive in university environments due to factors outside of their control. Some examples include: universities should provide the same physical accommodations to pregnant students that they would any other temporarily injured, disabled, or ill student that provides medical documentation of a doctor’s recommendation for reduced physical activity or certain physical restraints. Universities should have a universal and comprehensive policy regarding academic accommodations for students who miss class due to pregnancy rather than leaving this up to the discretion of individual professors and instructors. University health centers should offer obstetric medical services, accept in-state Medicaid, and allow uninsured students to be seen, along with providing resources to help uninsured students reduce the cost of their care. University Title IX offices should be proactive in making sure students are aware of how Title IX protects their rights as pregnant students, what those rights are, and how to report when those rights are violated. These are all solutions I intend to argue extensively for in this paper, hopefully providing a body of support that could help convince university administrations to implement said solutions.

This paper also aims to establish a lens and perspective of the university as not just one of many institutions in our overall society, but also a social system in and of itself. The university can encompass a student’s entire life. Their social circle of friends, their

7 housing, their healthcare, their food, their education, even their faith. These make up many of the major institutions that socialize us, but for a college student, they are all coming from one singular institution — the university. By using this lens, we can more accurately examine the culture that is created within universities and better analyze issues such as racism, classism, sexism, and their varying intersections on college campuses.

There will be points in this paper where the line between pregnancy and early parenthood blur together — for instance, accessibility of lactation rooms and changing tables will be discussed. While the focus of this paper is largely on pregnancy, these factors can contribute to the campus culture regarding how pregnancy is seen and supported. In addition, because a typical undergraduate career is four years and pregnancy is nine months, pregnant students are also looking for institutions that they can continue to succeed in after the arrival of their child.

PREGNANT AT FLORIDA STATE : HOW INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS

HINDERED ONE STUDENT’S SUCCESS

To best illustrate the various structural barriers a pregnant student can encounter, I spoke with a former student at Florida State University who became pregnant while attending FSU and subsequently transferred after struggling to find help and resources related to her pregnancy. To protect her identity, I will be referring to her by first name only.

Aubrey entered Florida State University when she was 18 years old as a biochemistry major. She had become pregnant in April of 2019 and chose to attend Florida

State for the upcoming summer semester after reading online about the campus daycare facility and the extensive bus routes that looked as if they would help her get around easily

8 while pregnant and after the baby. However, once enrolled, Aubrey found that there was little to no help available to her nor were the resources she’d read about as accessible as she had hoped.

One of the largest institutional barriers Aubrey faced was healthcare. Like many health centers at both public and private universities, the FSU Health and Wellness Center does not accept Medicaid (“University Health Services,” 2021). This is not entirely uncommon — 18% of universities in this study’s sample did not accept Medicaid — but this put Aubrey in a disadvantaged position. Medicaid also comes with local restrictions often and Aubrey found that no one in Tallahassee would provide her care because she was outside of her home county.

“My biggest issue and the thing I will remember most was with the Health Center on campus that I had to pay for in my tuition, but couldn’t use because they didn’t take

Medicaid and I would have to pay out of pocket. I saw there was a women’s clinic there,” said Aubrey. “For over 3 months, I had no prenatal care because the Medicaid I was given was local to the county I lived in and no one in Tallahassee would take it.” Aubrey had hoped the university would help her access much needed healthcare, but found herself out of luck.

She went to the Women’s Clinic at the University Health and Wellness Center to ask if there were any outside resources that could help her, but got very few answers. “I went into the women’s clinic and I remember they said they couldn’t do anything to check on the baby, but I was so worried being 12 weeks and having no ultrasounds or care and being constantly active that I went into the clinic.”

“I left the clinic feeling more hopeless and wondering how could I ever advocate for my son if people wouldn’t let me advocate for myself.”

The issue Aubrey encountered wasn’t just the inaccessibility to health services, but also an environment that was ill equipped to help students like her. The Health Center was unsure of what to tell her about what resources existed in the community or where she might be able to seek prenatal care or financial assistance elsewhere.

Another issue arose with transportation. The bus system, as public transport often is, was frequently running late or generally unreliable, leading to Aubrey walking to her classes and errands. This is not the end of the world at first, but as the pregnancy progressed, Aubrey failed to gain weight and her pregnancy was labelled high risk at the four month mark. “The bus system at FSU was something else during the summer, they would stop it at five. They were never on time, so it wasn’t reliable. I had to walk so much during the summer. It was exhausting in the heat, up and down the hills that make up the

FSU campus,” said Aubrey. “I even remember when I finally found my prenatal doctor, they yelled at me a lot because of how little weight I had gained in the first 4 months of pregnancy and they were very concerned.”

Eventually, Aubrey discovered that the FSU Office of Accessibility Services was able to offer her rides to class. This was a lifesaver, but it took her months to discover the service even existed despite scouring the university website and various department pages for resources that could help pregnant students.

Still, Aubrey badly wanted to continue her education at Florida State, but the obstacles kept coming. FSU has not had family housing since 2015. Many apartments in the Tallahassee area as well do not allow children. At the time, before the global coronavirus pandemic, none of Aubrey’s degree areas were available online, so taking classes remotely was also not an option.

She reached out to the daycare — one of the resources she had first seen when researching FSU in the first place, but found it was nearly impossible to get in to. “I got on the waitlist in May before I even came to FSU. I went once during the summer to see if they had any openings and they said it wasn’t guaranteed that I would have a spot when I would need it in February 2020. I also went back in the fall in person again, trying to find an opening for my son.”

Despite having applied nine months in advance, right when she found out about her pregnancy, Aubrey was unable to secure childcare at the campus facility. “I never got a call back even though I went there three times in person at various times to check on the process.”

Whether or not a student parent can access university child care can make or break their ability to attend while parenting. The daycare on campus offers discounted rates for

FSU students — $800 a month for infants. The rate for non-students is $1,000 a month.

However, the average cost of child care for children under three years old in Florida is

$725 a month, meaning students are still paying above the state average even with the discount (Im, 2018). Essentially, the daycare is not an accessible or practical option.

Stressed and frustrated, Aubrey tried to make use of another invaluable campus resource — the counseling center — but found once again that the center was unprepared to advise a student in her situation.

“During the summer, I went to the Counseling Center for help. The counselor didn’t know what to do for me and wouldn’t listen to my feelings really,” Aubrey said in reference to her counselor’s supervisor. The supervisor at first offered to help her find prenatal care out in the community, but when Aubrey expressed concern about traveling exclusively by bus in the summer heat (as a high risk pregnancy), she reported being met

11 with condescension by the supervisor. “She made a comment about being a mother meant thinking of my child’s needs before my own because I wasn’t hopping on buses on the Star

Metro in the heat of the summer. That comment hurt the most. Here was the woman who took care of kids for counseling, a professional, commenting on my parenting skills and insulting me for not endangering myself and my son.”

For Aubrey, it felt like no matter where she turned to, there was little to no help to be found. “The University didn’t know what to think of me as a pregnant student with no support. Over the summer, I was going to every single department I could think of to get resources and ask for help. The University apparently got tons of emails from these departments and their solution was oh the girl seems overwhelmed, let’s send her home.

Luckily my case manager was there to explain to FSU that I had no home to go home to.”

Aubrey’s story exhibits some of the most common trends in what I argue constitutes institutionalized pregnancy discrimination. She was not necessarily turned away just because she was pregnant, but as a pregnant student, she had no easy access to health care, campus child care services, accessible transportation, or resources for parenting and pregnant students. She notes that there were a few things she found at FSU that did prove helpful, citing her personal case worker and the financial aid offices as the best support she received in addition to the campus food pantry.

Aubrey did end up dropping out of FSU to attend another university that did have the resources she was looking for. The difference was night and day.

Transferring to the University of Florida, Aubrey found that there was a resource page for students with dependents right on the Dean of Students websites. Numerous bachelor degree programs were offered fully online and the food pantry was extensive — even including supplies such as baby formula and diapers. The University of Florida has

12 six different family housing locations (“Housing - University of Florida,” 2020). There are two daycares on campus, both on reliable bus routes, and classes on childbirth, breastfeeding, and newborn care at the university hospital. Aubrey found that here, her child could qualify for free swim lessons and the campus is well equipped with lactation rooms and changing tables — something else Florida State lacked in most campus buildings. Aubrey was thrilled to find even more basic resources such as links to recommended activities for parents and children in the Gainesville area.

These are two very comparable universities — top public universities in the state of

Florida only a few hours apart — yet the experience for Aubrey as a pregnant student was vastly different at each. While some of these resources are expensive — day care facilities and university hospitals (which many campuses are not equipped with) — others are as simple as a web page. Neither one of these universities actively shunned Aubrey for being pregnant nor did the University of Florida invite her in because of her pregnancy. One university was equipped to help and support students like her and one was not.

From Aubrey’s experience, we can see how pregnancy discrimination is not just an interpersonal interaction — it is systemic. By not training faculty and staff to be aware, sensitive, and even proactive regarding student pregnancy and student parents, the university unwittingly creates a hostile environment for students like Aubrey. It wasn’t that the Health Center on campus did not want to help her or that they wanted to deny her healthcare — they were not trained to assist her and were not prepared with outside resources that could help her in their place. It’s not that she wasn’t allowed to get on a bus because she was pregnant — it’s that the bus routes stop at five p.m. in the summer, meaning even a pregnant student like Aubrey had to walk miles to class.

Moving forward in this paper, when I refer to structural pregnancy discrimination or structural barriers, these are the sorts of experiences to which I am referring to — things that are built into university systems that inherently exclude or are (at best) unequipped to include pregnant students.

TITLE IX AND PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION

Of course, we know that there are existing laws and institutions in place that address pregnancy discrimination and sex discrimination in education. Perhaps one of the biggest and most well known legal acts on this matter is Title IX. Title IX, enacted in 1972, famously prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex (Mink, Green, Bayh, 1972). While we associate Title IX most often with equality in sports, it also addresses pregnancy.

As discussed in the introduction, pregnancy discrimination is not always as blatant as complete exclusion of a pregnant person or an individual discriminatory action, but those are the forms in which it is most blatantly illegal. When we picture pregnancy discrimination in an educational environment, we may think of what commonly occurred prior to the 1960’s — pregnant students being frequently forced to drop out of school as soon as their pregnancy became visible (Ling, 2002). While law dictates a student can not be forced out of school for being pregnant, it does not specify how a school must accommodate said pregnancy. Title IX specifically prohibits the full exclusion of pregnant students from classes and related activities, but this leaves the door wide open for more subtle forms of discrimination. An instructor may not force a pregnant student to drop their class, but they can make it so difficult for the pregnant student to participate, that the student will be more likely to perform poorly or drop the class on their own. Title IX in particular states that pregnant students have both a right to reinstatement and a right to take

14 a leave of absence related to their pregnancy, but it does not provide a specific definition for the terms “reinstatement” and “leave of absence,” nor does it provide any guidelines for how these should be provided (McKnee, 2013).

The Department of Education has issued many additional regulations to build on

Title IX and elaborate on pregnancy discrimination such as Title 34, which states the following (“Title 34 - Education,” 1980).

“A recipient [school receiving federal funds] shall not discriminate against any student, or exclude any student from its education program or activity, including any class or extracurricular activity, on the basis of such student’s pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, unless the student requests voluntarily to participate in a separate portion of the program or activity of the recipient.”

While this provided more clarification as to how Title IX applies to pregnant students, it still did not tell universities how to accommodate them. Because of the vague nature of what constitutes pregnancy discrimination, pregnant students have rarely prevailed in court when they argue that they were discriminated against by their university.

In order to win a discrimination case, the pregnant student as the plaintiff has to prove that

“(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was performing the academic requirements at a level well enough to meet her educator’s legitimate expectations; (3) she suffered adverse treatment; and (4) the educational program continued to instruct and credit other students,” (McKnee, 2013).

Most cases of pregnancy discrimination we see today involve these two most common scenarios — professors not allowing pregnant students to make up work that was missed and taking away attendance points for students who miss class due to pregnancy-

15 related issues. Often, struggling pregnant students who decide to “stick it out” end up doing themselves a disservice by receiving a poor grade in a class they are not being allowed to fully participate in. This can harm further opportunities and scholarship status in addition to hurting their case for a discrimination claim by performing poorly in the class.

The majority of pregnant students who file a suit over pregnancy discrimination ultimately lose, since there are no strict definitions of what constitutes allowing a student to be “reinstated” or the specifics of the “leave of absence” they are entitled to. It is easy for professors and universities to argue in court that they allowed the pregnant student to participate in class and therefore did not discriminate against them — even if they had policies that explicitly made it more difficult for a pregnant student to succeed in a course.

For example, in the case of Darian v. University of Massachusetts Boston, the plaintiff, Rachel Darian, was a pregnant student in the nursing program. Darian was placed on doctor-ordered bed rest, which would prevent her from completing her twice a week on- site clinical requirement. The professor suggested Darian take an incomplete grade and return after the birth of her child, but this would prevent Darian from graduating on time.

Darian made the important claim that as a pregnant student, she was classified as a student with a disability at the time and was therefore covered by the protections offered in the

American Disabilities Act. The university offered different forms of make up work and a chance to take the class again, but ultimately, Darian did not complete the work required for the course and therefore received an F. This case is not necessarily about whether or not we believe Darian was discriminated against so harshly that she had no opportunity to succeed, but rather to point out how the lack of guidelines both for Darian and her university ultimately lead to a student being unable to succeed. Darian wasn’t fully aware

16 of exactly what she might be entitled to and her professor and university at large had no guidelines as to what accommodations exactly they were required to provide. Part of this case debated whether or not the plaintiff was protected under the ADA and made a rather inconclusive determination that while the ADA can apply to some pregnancy-related conditions, it does not explicitly nor inherently protect pregnant people. Not only would this case be easier to solve if there was a framework in place for how Darian should have been accommodated, but the situation may have been prevented entirely (“Darian v.

University of Massachusetts Boston, 1997).

For an example of a rare success in pregnancy discrimination cases, we can look at the very different case of Hogan v. Ogden. The plaintiff, Stephanie Hogan, was in a video production class while pregnant at Central Washington University. The class had mandatory attendance and explicitly offered no extensions or incomplete grades for work.

At eight months pregnant, Hogan had attended every single class thus far in the semester and turned in every assignment, but would need to miss an upcoming class to visit her doctor about pregnancy complications. She was told she would need a doctor’s note to excuse the absence, but upon visiting her doctor, Hogan was placed on emergency bed rest and missed an equipment test assignment in the class. The equipment test was a required prerequisite for a group project assignment that would comprise 55% of the student’s grade. Hogan requested to take the test from home since she was prepared to take it, but unable to travel due to her medical condition. The professor refused and recommended she withdraw from the course. The instructor continued to refuse several alternative plans proposed by Hogan, but allowed other students to make up tests in the meantime (“Hogan v. Ogden,” 2008).

Hogan won her case for several reasons. She had a stellar academic record in the class up to the point of her bed rest, while Darian did not have much work to show for her nursing class at the end of her semester. The professor proved discrimination by allowing other students to make up tests, but not allowing Hogan. This is a rare open and shut case of pregnancy discrimination that was well documented and rather obvious, but if Hogan had attempted to complete her semester without the test grade and ended up receiving a low final grade, her professor could have argued her score was based on her performance and not because of her medical condition. If the professor had not allowed students to make up tests under different circumstances, it may have been harder to prove discrimination. Most pregnancy discrimination cases are similar Hogan’s — a tension existing between the challenges facing a pregnant student and the rigid classroom policies of an instructor. The difference is, many students don’t even know that what they’re experiencing constitutes discrimination and many try to “tough it out” only to receive a bad grade in the end from juggling academic success with the demands and challenges of pregnancy.

Looking at these two example cases, we can see the need for guidance. Many universities have existing policies and guidelines in place for students with disabilities. At the university level, it would likely be easiest and well advised for them to take their existing framework for accommodating students with physical disabilities and apply them to pregnant students as well. As far as Title IX goes, its current protections are highly insufficient as they do not specify pregnancy discrimination as anything other than total and complete exclusion.

A statute defining pregnancy discrimination more clearly and defining what exactly constitutes reinstatement and a pregnancy related leave of absence are the bare minimum

18 necessary for creating a better legal framework for managing cases of discrimination against pregnant college students. In the solutions section, we will further explore steps that universities themselves can take to establish a standard for adequate accommodations for pregnant students. By doing such, institutions of higher education can better support the success of their students and guide their staff and faculty in cases like that of Rachel

Darian’s on how they should proceed providing reasonable accommodations to the pregnant student.

Just by observing all the various ways pregnancy discrimination can occur outside of its legal definition, we can see the structural nature of pregnancy discrimination in the higher education environment as typical attendance and participation policies right off the bat can make a pregnant student’s life difficult. The structure of the university is not well equipped to manage cases of student pregnancy, leading to pregnant students facing unnecessary difficulty.

PREGNANCY AS DISABILITY

There is a two-pronged argument for why pregnancy should be considered a disability in the context of higher education — recognizing pregnancy as a disability status would provide a legal framework for defining discrimination/accommodation and integrating pregnancy into existing university structures for students with disabilities would be an efficient and practical way of creating a system to accommodate, serve, and support pregnant students who want to pursue academic success. In addition, there is a theoretical argument to be made as to why pregnancy should be considered a disability status — temporary as it may be.

Regarding pregnancy as a disability is a matter of body politics. Body politics encompass a school of thought that arose in the feminist movement particularly during the second wave of the 1970s in response to the abortion debate. When we engage in body politics, we “seek to alleviate the oppressive effects of institutional and interpersonal power on those whose bodies are marked as inferior or who are denied rights to control their own bodies,” (Encyclopedia of race and racism, 2021). Disability and feminist theories alike have long engaged in the study of body politics, taking a critical perspective in which the disabled body and/or the woman’s body is marked inferior by society and the rights to control said body are frequently under attack. These lines of thinking intersect greatly when we discuss the pregnant woman.

The pregnant woman, depending on various aspects of her identity, is either placed on a pedestal or looked down upon by society. The white middle class married woman with her first child on the way is revered — her pregnancy viewed as beautiful and a congratulatory event by default. The pregnant teenager, alternatively, is cast out and looked down on — her pregnancy viewed as tragic, irresponsible, the girl herself stained by the

‘whore stigma’ as society itself passes judgement on her sexual choices (even when the intercourse resulting in her pregnancy may not have been her choice at all).

Similarly, the disabled body is often placed on a pedestal or outcast, dependent on a variety of conditions. Those permanently wheelchair bound may often face condescending pity or praise for their condition. Those in and out of mobility assistance face the judgmental stares upon parking in the handicapped spot as complete strangers speculate whether or not they are “really disabled.” Those inflicted with “invisible illnesses” such as fibromyalgia for instance are often disbelieved and dismissed entirely.

Both our sociocultural surroundings and our legal systems of governance frequently dictate what a woman can and cannot do and what a disabled person can and cannot do — not to mention the cruel double jeopardy faced by women with disabilities. Abortion is illegal after certain stages of pregnancy in the majority of states. Many doctors won’t tie someone’s tubes without a husband’s permission. Welfare and assistance for people with disabilities can be ripped away based on marital status, many losing access to Medicaid and

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) once they have a spouse (Stasio, 2020).

There is even a legal argument to be made that pregnancy is to be considered an injury. Khiara Bridges write in “When Pregnancy is an Injury: Rape, Law, and Culture,” that in cases of a sexual assault, a pregnancy will be evaluated as any physical injury would be in the same case. “The rapist who causes a woman to become pregnant will be treated as if he broke his victim's leg, gave her severe head trauma, or shot her with a gun. That is, the victim's pregnancy is treated the same as a broken bone, a concussion, or a gunshot,”

(Bridges, 2013). Of course, there is a plethora of complexities and implications of this regarding our societal values of natalism and how we as a culture view pregnancy in varying contexts, but from a practical point of view, we can see that many existing institutions address pregnancy using the same structures, guidelines, and infrastructure they may use to address other physical impairments, disabilities, or illnesses.

From a theoretical point of view, we can see the similarities in the positionality of the pregnant person and a person with a disability. Not only do both face varying degrees of physical impairments, but also varying degrees of social stigma, with their bodily autonomy constantly under fire. To address one of the most important theoretical arguments against viewing pregnancy as disability — the argument is often made that

21 pregnancy is a choice, while disability is not, and should therefore not receive the same benefits. This particular argument proves problematic in many ways, primarily with the complete erasure of rape and sexual assault, and then by imposing worth on a status based upon how that status came to be, rather than the condition itself. Following the same logic, one would have to argue that someone with lung cancer does not deserve to be treated or viewed as “sick” because their smoking habit caused the illness. It matters not how the condition came to be, what matters is the condition itself and what can be done to best aid the person with said condition, illness, or impairment. There is much to be discussed about the connotation of the word ‘disability’ in and of itself. For some women who experience a fairly easy pregnancy (by their own account), they may find it preposterous to label their pregnant status as a disability while other women whose pregnancies are more of a hindrance in their day to day life and/or education, labeling their condition as a disability can give them a sense of being validated and understood in their struggles related to their condition.

Now let’s put this directly into the context of the university environment. A student who breaks their leg and must use a wheelchair or crutches can almost always be accommodated — typically by the university disability or health center — and find assistance to get to and from their classes. A student with a pre-existing disability that impairs their movement will be readily accommodated by the university to ensure the campus is accessible, as is their right according to the Americans with Disabilities Act. A pregnant student whose condition prevents them from walking long distances or spending long amounts of time in the heat or cold, however, has no clear avenue to turn to for accommodation.

As part of the research conducted for this paper, one of the criteria I used to evaluate whether or not a university was accommodating of pregnancy was to record whether or not each university had resources to assist pregnant students with physical limitations. About one third of the 102 universities studied had an existing policy, program, or resource directing pregnant students with physical limitations on how they can be accommodated. Accommodations included transportation assistance, remote learning opportunities, and even other resources for young mothers on campus such as accessible lactation rooms. The universities that were prepared to accommodate pregnant students did so easily by encompassing pregnancy into their existing resources for “temporary impairments and conditions.” The simple act of allowing a pregnant student to access the same services as another student with difficulty travelling to and from classes costs the university little to nothing, but can make all the difference in a pregnant student’s success.

As was pointed out by Aubrey in the interview section of this paper, lack of reliable transportation around a university campus and surrounding community can cause not just strife and frustration, but can lead to health concerns and pregnancy complications related to excess walking and high temperatures.

Theorists may still make many an argument as to whether or not pregnancy should be truly seen as a disability status, but from a logistical point of view, it is in the best interest of universities and pregnant students alike that pregnancy be viewed as such.

Incorporating pregnancy into the existing infrastructures for impaired students — when it is a condition typically ignored at best and excluded at worst — both aids the university by providing a structure for reasonable accommodation and the pregnant student by opening clear accessible resources to help them participate in class to the best of their ability.

THE MOTHERHOOD PENALTY AND IMPLICATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL

DISRUPTION

In conversations regarding gender and society, or more specifically, gender and work, the motherhood penalty is a cornerstone of the theoretical conversation. A 2001 paper entitled “The Wage Penalty For Motherhood,” by Michelle Budig and Paula England is an early work that pushed this theory into prominence. The motherhood penalty, in these authors’ words, is when “Mothers may earn less than other women because having children causes them to (1) lose job experience, (2) be less productive at work, (3) trade off higher wages for mother-friendly jobs, or (4) be discriminated against by employers,” (Budig,

England, 2001). I believe this to be an important theory to touch on when discussing pregnancy discrimination as it applies to college students. In a mother’s career, this theory notes how she loses experience, productivity, and momentum. The very same is true for a mother in her education.

A pregnant student who experiences discrimination or struggles to fully participate in her classes due to structural barriers, may lose valuable classroom, clinical, field, or other experience. If she is not allowed to make up work missed due to medical appointments or is not able to participate in some assignments, she is losing productivity in comparison to her classmates. Should she receive a lower grade in a class she was not being allowed to fully participate in, she can absolutely lose educational momentum. While in one’s career, this might mean missing out on a promotion or a raise, for the student, this could cause her to miss out on opportunities such as awards, scholarships, honor societies, letters of recommendation, etc.

I would like to use the perspective of the motherhood penalty to further examine the impact that pregnancy discrimination can have on students. While we are focusing on

24 higher education, we can of course see this evident for high schoolers as well (who are at a further disadvantage due to their young age and lack of independence in cases of pregnancy). Pregnancy is the number one reason for women to drop out of school

(Shahidul, Karim, 2015). Of course, it is difficult for any young person to juggle preparing for a child with their education, but one of the most important commonalities among pregnant students who drop out of high school is that, “More than any other group of high school dropouts, girls who leave due to pregnancy report that they would have stayed in school if they had received greater support from the adults at school,” (Mangel, 2010). It is not insignificant that it was the adults at school who these students felt failed by. Whether in college or high school, pregnant students are largely at the mercy of their school, their instructors, and the policies (or lack thereof) regarding how to accommodate them.

Though they are not yet pursuing full time careers, these students are experiencing the motherhood penalty. By becoming mothers, they not only faced cultural stigma, but are subject to discrimination and difficulty solely due to their status as pregnant mothers. Their educational momentum is disrupted and, in many cases, comes to a grinding halt. Students who continue their education after the baby has arrived face many of the same difficulties as mothers in the workplace. It is hard to be as competitive and as productive as non- parenting students around you when you are responsible for taking care of an infant, or managing pick up and drop off for a child in daycare or preschool. Student mothers may have to miss a class because their child is sick. A recent development shared by many student parents in the coronavirus era of online education is proctoring software such as

HonorLock makes exam taking exceptionally difficult for students with children at home.

A baby crying in another room will raise flags for cheating because of the noise level and

25 the student will be unable to get up from her seat to care for the child without forfeiting her exam.

The motherhood penalty punishes women for caring for their children on and off the clock, whether it be explicitly (punishing parents who must leave class or work for child related reasons) or consequently (favoring non-parents who are considered more dedicated and available than their counterparts with children). Florida State University itself came under fire in 2020 for sending an email to its faculty and staff that it would “no longer allow employees to care for children while working remotely,” a policy that would no doubt disproportionately impact its female employees who largely carry the primary child care burden (Murphey, 2020). The university quickly retracted the email and issued a clarification that employees would still be allowed to care for children while working remotely after many national news outlets ran the story (Fortin, Taylor, 2020). This is an example of the disdain for pregnant people and for mothers that we see in the workplace and in education. Faculty, staff, and students who are pregnant or are taking care of children are no less driven, passionate, or dedicated than their peers, but they are frequently admonished at work and in school for attending to the responsibilities of pregnancy and/or child care.

The essential argument of the motherhood penalty is that there are losses to women in their career over time due to structural discrimination against mothers in a capitalist environment that overvalues productivity and profit above all else. As we look at how structural discrimination exists in the higher educational environment towards pregnant students and parents as well, it is essential to look at it through the lens of educational momentum — how do these barriers affect a pregnant student’s academic trajectory and

26 success in the long run? How may it affect their future careers and/or educational endeavors?

RESEARCH METHODS

To create a sample of 102 universities, I selected the top 4 universities from every state and Washington D.C. based on the Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education 2020 college rankings and randomly selected one public and one private university from those four. Out of this sample, one public institution and one private institution from each U.S. state and Washington D.C., the following criteria was asked of each university:

1. Is there a university health center that offers prenatal / obstetric services?

2. Does the university health center accept medicaid?

3. What are the resources for students who can not afford medical care?

4. Does the university have defined and accessible academic accommodations

available to pregnant students?

5. Does the university offer physical accommodations to pregnant students such as

rides to class?

6. Does the university have case management services available for pregnant

students?

In addition to these questions, I record whether or not the university is public or private and whether or not the school has a religious affiliation. This will help reveal if there is an additional pattern of schools being more or less accessible for pregnant students based on whether or not they are public, private, or religiously affiliated. As not all of these are yes or no questions, I mark the answer to each as being adequate, neutral, or inadequate. For example, the University of Alabama’s answer for question one is adequate

27 because they have a university health center that offers prenatal and obstetric care. Their answer for question one for the University of Alaska Southeast is neutral because they offer gynecology and pregnancy testing, but not obstetrics. This does not provide obstetric healthcare to pregnant students who need it, but it does help prevent unintended pregnancy and assist students experiencing early pregnancy in finding medical confirmation, so it is not necessarily negative. The answer for question one for Alaska Pacific University is inadequate because they have no health services for students. I am also recording which universities do not have any health centers, so that they can be compared to one another in a separate pool based on the answers to the questions unrelated to campus health services.

Using a numerical rating system that awards 1 point for ‘adequate’ answers, 0 points for

‘neutral’, and -1 points for ‘inadequate’, schools are scored on a scale from -6 to 6, allowing us to view how accommodating (or not) most American universities are for pregnant students.

DATA AND RESULTS

Table 1. Sampled University Rankings From Most to Least Accommodating For Pregnant Students

Rank University Score

1 The University of Alabama [Public] 6

2 University of California Los Angeles [Public] 6

3 University of Connecticut [Public] 6

4 University of Illinois at Chicago [Public] 6

5 Stanford University [Private] 5

6 Duke University [Private] 5

7 University of North Dakota [Public] 5

8 University of Utah [Public] 5

9 George Mason University [Public] 5

10 Rutgers University [Public] 4

11 Ohio University [Public] 4

12 University of Arizona [Public] 3

13 Kansas State University [Public] 3

14 Berea College [Private] 3

15 Louisiana State University [Public] 3

16 University of Maine [Public] 3

17 University of Michigan Ann Arbor [Public] 3

18 Portland State University [Public] 3

19 University of Arkansas [Public] 2

20 University of Miami [Private] 2

21 Northwestern University [Private] 2

22 University of Iowa [Public] 2

23 University of Missouri Columbia [Public] 2

24 Bellevue University [Private] 2

25 Dartmouth College [Private] 2

26 New Mexico State University [Public] 2

27 University of Dayton [Private] 2

28 Pennsylvania State University [Public] 2

29 Charleston Southern University [Private] 2

30 University of Washington [Public] 2

31 Concordia University Wisconsin [Private] 2

32 University of Wyoming [Public] 2

33 University of Notre Dame [Private] 1

34 University of Montana [Public] 1

35 North Carolina State University [Public] 1

36 University of Portland [Private] 1

37 University of Pennsylvania [Private] 1

38 Augustana University [Private] 1

39 University of Colorado Boulder [Public] 0

40 Yale University [Private] 0

41 University of Delaware [Public] 0

42 Wesley College [Private] 0

43 University of Nevada Las Vegas [Public] 0

44 University of Buffalo, SUNY [Public] 0

45 University of Mary [Private] 0

46 University of Rhode Island [Public] 0

47 Clemson University [Public] 0

48 University of Georgia [Public] -1

49 Emory University [Private] -1

50 Brigham Young University Idaho [Private] -1

51 Tulane University [Private] -1

52 University of Maryland, College Park [Public] -1

53 University of Minnesota Twin Cities [Public] -1

54 Belhaven University [Private] -1

55 Washington University in St. Louis [Private] -1

56 University of Nebraska Lincoln [Public] -1

57 Touro University of Nevada [Private] -1

58 University of New Hampshire [Public] -1

59 Cornell University [Private] -1

60 Brown University [Private] -1

61 University of Texas Austin [Public] -1

62 Brigham Young University, Provo [Private] -1

63 University of Vermont [Public] -1

64 George Washington University [Private] -1

65 University of Charleston [Private] -1

66 Colorado College, Colorado Springs [Private] -2

67 Hawaii Pacific University [Private] -2

68 Drake University [Private] -2

69 John Hopkins University [Private] -2

70 University of St. Thomas [Private] -2

71 University of Tulsa [Private] -2

72 Champlain College [Private] -2

73 University of Wisconsin, Madison [Public] -2

74 Alaska Pacific University [Private] -3

75 Florida State University [Public] -3

76 Baker University [Private] -3

77 University of New England [Private] -3

78 Harvard University [Private] -3

79 Andrews University [Private] -3

80 University of Providence [Private] -3

81 Navajo Technical University [Private] -3

82 Oklahoma State University Stillwater [Public] -3

83 Middle Tennessee State University [Public] -3

84 Baylor Universities [Private] -3

85 University of Richmond [Private] -3

86 Gonzaga University [Private] -3

87 Wyoming Catholic College [Private] -3

88 Prescott College [Private] -3

89 Boise State University [Public] -4

90 Purdue University [Public] -4

91 University of Kentucky [Public] -4

92 Salem State University [Public] -4

93 Princeton University [Private] -4

94 Vanderbilt University [Private] -4

95 University of the District of Columbia [Public] -4

96 University of Alaska Southeast [Public] -5

97 University of Hawaii at Manoa [Public] -5

98 Mississippi State University Starkville [Public] -5

99 South Dakota State University [Public] -5

100 West Virginia University [Public] -5

101 Samford University [Private] -6

102 Harding University [Private] -6

Table 1 contains the total scores of all universities sampled for this paper. Each university was individually evaluated based on the aforementioned six criteria in the

32 research methods section. With each of these six categories for every individual university being scored as -1, 0, or 1, this left each university with a lowest possible score of -6 and a highest possible score of 6. We can observe close to a normal distribution in this data set, with most universities falling around the middle of the scale. Out of 102 universities, only four scored the maximum possible 6 points and serve as outlying shining examples of exceptional accommodation practice for pregnant students. Only two universities scored the lowest possible -6 points on the scale, offering no accessible resources for pregnant students whatsoever. The distribution of these scores is recorded in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Normal Distribution of University Total Scores

This figure places all the total scores on a bell curve in order to display their distribution. We can see that the average score of exactly -0.314 can be most closely rounded to 0, which is the center of the scale. Essentially, this shows that there are a minority of schools who are incredibly exceptional when it comes to providing for pregnant students and a minority of schools who are not accommodating at all. This is significant because with the majority of sampled schools scoring in the middle, this shows that the basic criteria used in this study for pregnancy accommodation is achievable and reasonable for many universities. Some schools had exceptional healthcare, but few policies regarding discrimination or physical and academic accommodations related to pregnancy. Other schools had comprehensive and outstanding policies and case management resources, but had inaccessible healthcare, or lacked physical resources on campus such as transportation assistance.

Table 2. Religiously Affiliated University Rankings From Most to Least Accommodating For Pregnant Students

RANK UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION SCORE

1 Duke University [Private] Methodist 5

2 Berea College [Private] Christian 3

3 University of Dayton [Private] Catholic 2

4 Charleston Southern University [Private] Baptist 2

5 Concordia University Wisconsin [Private] Lutheran 2

6 University of Notre Dame [Private] Catholic 1

7 University of Portland [Private] Catholic 1

8 Augustana University [Private] Lutheran 1

9 Wesley College [Private] United Methodist Church 0

10 University of Mary [Private] Catholic 0

11 Emory University [Private] Methodist Episcopal Church -1

12 Brigham Young University Idaho [Private] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -1

13 Belhaven University [Private] Christian -1

14 Touro University of Nevada [Private] Jewish -1

Brigham Young University, Provo 15 [Private] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -1

16 University of St. Thomas [Private] Roman Catholic -2

17 University of Tulsa [Private] Presbytarian -2

18 Alaska Pacific University [Private] Methodist -3

19 Baker University [Private] United Methodist Church -3

20 Andrews University [Private] Seventh-day Adventist -3

21 University of Providence [Private] Roman Catholic -3

22 Baylor Universities [Private] Baptist -3

23 Gonzaga University [Private] Catholic -3

24 Wyoming Catholic College [Private] Catholic -3

25 Samford University [Private] Christian -6

26 Harding University [Private] Churches of Christ -6

To identify any commonalities among schools that performed exceptionally well or performed very poorly, I looked to see if religious affiliation would have any effect on how well universities accommodated pregnancy. None of the universities who scored a full 6 points were religiously affiliated, but both schools who earned a -6 were Christian universities. This is interesting because of the many religious associations with issues such as sex and abortion. Given that many of these institutions have pro-life values aligning with their religion, I was curious to see if they would have better resources in place to encourage students who are keeping a pregnancy to succeed and manage their schooling while preparing for the child. They did not.

When we place the total scores of only the religiously affiliated schools on a bell curve in

Figure 2, we find that the average score was exactly -0.962, best rounded to -1 points. This is one full point lower than the average score of the full sample . In comparison to all of the sampled schools, both private and public, that did not have a religious affiliation, the distribution of these scores is displayed in Figure 3. For all non-religious universities, the average score was -0.091, which can be rounded most closely to 0. This distribution is close to that of the sample in its entirety, but in comparing religiously affiliated schools with non-religiously affiliated, we can see the average score for religious universities is slightly lower than secular universities, but this difference is not statistically significant (p=.200, two-tailed test). However, the sample size of religiously affiliated schools is relatively small (N=26), so in a larger sample of universities future studies may find further evidence of a difference by religious affiliation.

Figure 2. Normal Distribution of Religiously Affiliated University Total Scores

Figure 3. Normal Distribution of Non-Religiously Affiliated University Scores

The next comparison I wanted to make was between public and private schools.

The sample was comprised of 102 total universities, 51 private, and 51 public. To see if there was a significant difference in how accommodating public and private universities were for pregnant students, I recorded the distribution of their scores in Figure 3 and

Figure 4.

When we compare the distribution of total scores between public and private schools, we find that public schools outperform private schools by about one point with the public university average score being 0.353, and the private university average being -0.98, we see about the same difference in performance as we do when looking at religious schools versus non-religious. There is a difference of 0.87 points for religious versus secular and

1.33 for public v. private, making the public versus private difference is meaningfully larger than the religious difference. Therefore, seeing as all religiously affiliated schools are private entities, it is not so much a matter of religion, but of public versus private to explain this discrepancy. Public universities seem to outperform private ones when it comes to accommodating pregnant students, perhaps due to public universities having to conform to stricter guidelines regarding discrimination. Public universities score higher than private universities on the pregnancy resources scale and a two-tailed t-test of the means indicates that this difference is statistically significant at the p < .05 level.

Figure 4. Normal Distribution of Private University Total Scores

Figure 5. Normal Distribution of Public University Total Scores

SOLUTIONS TO STRUCTURAL PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION IN HIGHER

EDUCATION

The typical college environment is not built to best serve pregnant students.

Throughout this paper, we’ve explored many different types of barriers that are built into university systems — from lacking family housing to denying Medicaid, from pressuring pregnant students to drop courses to not allowing them to make up work. There is not a one size fits all solution for pregnancy discrimination and every university is different, but there are a few things that can improve university conditions as a whole for the pregnant student.

The first is simple. Universities should familiarize themselves with the rights of pregnant and parenting students and make this information accessible. Every University should have a Title IX office or a similar case management system that is easy to locate through the University website and other campus institutions such as health and counseling centers. This office should be well versed in what the student is entitled to and be able to advise the student on the best course of action for maintaining their studies. This includes standard policies that define ‘leave of absence’ and ‘reinstatement,’ and terms regarding make up work and nonconsecutive absences from class. By having a standard policy for how to accommodate pregnant students, the burden will not be placed on individual professors nor students and a more equal approach can be taken, as opposed to every pregnant student having to work out individual understandings with each of their instructors, departments, etc. On a broader scale, legislation is needed to expand upon the rights of pregnant students and better define the rights to leaves of absence and reinstatement thereafter, but until such a policy is enacted on a federal level, this is a change that is well within the capabilities of institutions of higher education to implement on their own.

Another core solution to the structural nature of the pregnancy discrimination faced by college students is healthcare accessibility. Not every university has its own health provider on campus, but the majority of college campuses with large populations and the vast majority of the sample used in this paper, have a university health center that provides students with care. Accepting Medicaid is a minimum requirement for all university health centers unless said university covers all health services provided via tuition or a student health fee. Having great prenatal care and obstetrics right on campus is a dream come true for many young college students experiencing pregnancy, but this resource is of no use if they do not have access to the services due to financial barriers. A university health center should exist to serve the students and it is up to the universities to ensure all students can access the care on their own campus. Many universities require health insurance for enrollment and offer discounted rates for student health care plans, but for students covered by Medicaid, and other students who struggle to afford the high cost of healthcare in the

U.S., accessing campus services can still be a trial. Many universities offer basic gynecological services and a minority offer healthcare all the way from conception to childbirth. Even for universities that do not or are unable to offer all of these services, health center staff should be well versed in the existing resources for pregnant students who cannot afford or are struggling to find care. As discussed in Aubrey’s story, she was unable to afford the healthcare on campus at Florida State, which did not accept Medicaid, and the

Women’s Clinic in the health center was unable to direct her to any resources as to how to find affordable care elsewhere.

Physical campus resources also offer a variety of opportunities to provide a more parent friendly campus. Best practices include changing tables in at least every men and

41 women’s first floor bathrooms of every building, lactation rooms, and campus food pantries can carry baby food, diapers, and other nonperishable necessities.

The quality of transportation around campus is also an accessibility issue. Disability centers and accessibility offices that offer transportation assistance to students with injuries or physical impairments should offer the same services to pregnant students. As we saw with Aubrey, the excess walking required to navigate a typical university is enough to lead to pregnancy complications and a lack of healthy weight gain. The more the buses run on time, the more diverse their routes, and the later they run can also make all the difference in a pregnant student’s ability to get around campus without endangering themselves.

Finally, it is necessary to build a supportive culture on campus both among administrators and instructors. There are too many stories of ambitious students who become pregnant and are subsequently pressured into dropping courses or dropping out of school altogether. A pregnancy is no indication of a student’s drive, dedication, or academic ability and the primary goal of universities in the cases of pregnant students should be to help them succeed. By implementing policies that specify the students’ rights to accommodation, instructors can be best informed on how to handle pregnant students in a way that encourages them to strive for success, not pressure them to drop academic pursuits.

Through the process of gathering the data for this paper, I found many shining examples of universities with creative and dedicated approaches to serving pregnant students. Portland State University, for example, has an easy to find “student pregnancy and postpartum assistance and accommodations” policy that includes a list of reasonable adjustments a pregnant student is entitled to request via the Disability Resource Center. In addition, the university has a department of Services for Students With Children (SWC) to

42 help the student adjust to their academic pursuits and obligations after the birth of the baby.

The policy includes stipulations regarding how to accommodate pregnancy in lab classes where potentially harmful chemicals are handled, alternate furniture in classroom settings

(the typical lecture hall desk is not a pregnant person’s go-to apparatus), and lactation services (“Student Pregnancy and Postpartum Assistance and Accommodations Policy,”

2018).

The National Women’s Law Center has an online toolkit of pregnant and parenting student’s rights. The pamphlet outlines what pregnant and parenting students are entitled to under federal law and according to Title IX along with information on how to handle specific pregnancy and postpartum needs. It includes several pages of ‘frequently asked questions’ by pregnant students including how pregnancy can affect federal aids and loans, student rights for those in on-campus housing, how to deal with lactation on campus, and much more (“Pregnant and Parenting Students' Rights Tool Kit,” 2016). Every university should have an easily accessible web page such as this one where pregnant students can find vital information. Given that this exhaustive resource already exists, the university does not even necessarily have to create the literature themselves, excluding any university- specific policies and information that should be included.

There is much to be done on the legislative level in regards to pregnancy discrimination and our sociocultural environment surrounding pregnancy and natalism can not be reformed over night, but there are many practical and simple ways that universities can provide resources for their pregnant students to help them achieve success. For smaller universities who can not offer the luxuries of large transport systems and health care facilities, simply providing direction, information, and support can be the difference between a pregnant student finishing their degree or putting their education on hold.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that pregnancy discrimination is not just an exchange in which a pregnant person is turned away or excluded, but rather a culture. Societal values of natalism, puritanical views of sex, sexist notions of motherhood being of utmost importance to women as opposed to education and career, all contribute to a society in which the pregnant person is in a vulnerable position. We can see this in the college environment through the issues of subpar legislation defining pregnancy discrimination and what accommodations they are entitled to. We can observe it in campus health and child care disparities, poor transportation, lack of case management resources, and lack of faculty readiness to understand accommodate pregnancy in the classroom. We know what a difference the support of an adult can make in the education of a pregnant student, as discussed in the study by Mangel, where pregnant high school dropouts noted the lack of supportive adults at school was a key reason for them failing to continue their education (Mangel, 2010). In

Aubrey’s story, we saw how a pregnant student who was determined to finish her degree still ran into barrier after barrier due to her pregnant status.

In a collection of data from 201 universities, we found that most schools fall somewhere in the middle between being horribly equipped to handle pregnancy or outstandingly prepared, displaying that a variety of resources are very much possible and reasonable for the average university to implement — as the majority of universities at least had a few necessities for accommodating their pregnant students. For a detailed breakdown of each university’s score in all six individual categories of accommodation, see

Appendix.

Essentially, pregnancy discrimination is structural. It’s built into the very fabric and infrastructure of society and the culture of a college campus is no different. To address a structural problem, there must be structural change.

APPENDIX

University Pregnancy Accommodation Scoring By Category Prenatal / University Obstetrics at Health University Care Health Medicaid Financial Academic Physical Case University Center? Acceptance Aid Accommodations Accommodations Management Total The University of Alabama [Public] 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Samford University [Private] -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -6 University of Alaska Southeast [Public] 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -5 Alaska Pacific University [Private] 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -3 University of Arizona [Public] 0 -1 1 1 1 1 3 Prescott College [Private] 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -3 University of Arkansas [Public] 0 -1 0 1 1 1 2 Harding University [Private] -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -6 University of California Los Angeles [Public] 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Stanford University [Private] 1 0 1 1 1 1 5 University of Colorado Boulder [Public] 1 -1 1 0 0 -1 0

Colorado College, Colorado Springs [Private] 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 -2 University of Connecticut [Public] 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Yale University [Private] 1 -1 0 0 1 -1 0 University of Delaware [Public] 0 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 Wesley College [Private] 0 1 1 -1 -1 -1 0 Florida State University [Public] 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -3 University of Miami [Private] 1 1 1 0 0 -1 2 University of Georgia [Public] 0 1 1 0 0 -1 -1 Emory University [Private] 0 0 -1 0 1 -1 -1 University of Hawaii at Manoa [Public] 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -5 Hawaii Pacific University [Private] -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -2 Boise State University [Public] 0 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -4 Brigham Young University Idaho [Private] -1 -1 0 1 1 -1 -1 University of Illinois at Chicago [Public] 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Northwestern University [Private] 0 -1 0 1 1 1 2 Purdue University [Public] -1 -1 -1 0 0 -1 -4 University of Notre Dame [Private] 0 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 University of Iowa [Public] 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 2 Drake University [Private] -1 -1 1 0 0 -1 -2 Kansas State University [Public] 0 -1 1 1 1 1 3 Baker University [Private] 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -3 University of Kentucky [Public] 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -4 Berea College [Private] 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 Louisiana State University [Public] 0 -1 1 1 1 1 3 Tulane University [Private] 0 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 University of Maine [Public] 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 University of New England [Private] 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -3 University of Maryland, College Park [Public] 0 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 John Hopkins University [Private] 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 -2

Salem State University [Public] 0 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -4 Harvard University [Private] 1 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -3 University of Michigan Ann Arbor [Public] 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 Andrews University [Private] 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -3 University of Minnesota Twin Cities [Public] 1 -1 -1 0 0 0 -1 University of St. Thomas [Private] 0 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -2 Mississippi State University Starkville [Public] -1 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -5 Belhaven University [Private] 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 University of Missouri Columbia [Public] 1 1 1 0 0 -1 2 Washington University in St. Louis [Private] 0 -1 0 1 1 0 -1 University of Montana [Public] 0 1 1 0 0 -1 1 University of Providence [Private] 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -3 University of Nebraska Lincoln [Public] 0 -1 0 1 0 -1 -1

Bellevue University [Private] 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 University of Nevada Las Vegas [Public] 0 -1 -1 1 1 0 0 Touro University of Nevada [Private] -1 1 -1 0 0 0 -1 University of New Hampshire [Public] 0 -1 0 0 0 0 -1 Dartmouth College [Private] 0 -1 0 1 1 1 2 Rutgers University [Public] -1 1 1 1 1 1 4 Princeton University [Private] 0 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -4 New Mexico State University [Public] 0 -1 0 1 1 1 2 Navajo Technical University [Private] 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -3 University of Buffalo, SUNY [Public] 0 -1 0 1 1 -1 0 Cornell University [Private]* 0 -1 1 0 0 -1 -1 North Carolina State University [Public] 0 -1 0 1 0 1 1 Duke University [Private] 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 University of North Dakota [Public] 0 1 1 1 1 1 5

University of Mary [Private] 0 0 1 0 0 -1 0 Ohio University [Public] 1 -1 1 1 1 1 4 University of Dayton [Private] 0 1 0 1 1 -1 2 Oklahoma State University Stillwater [Public] -1 -1 0 0 0 -1 -3 University of Tulsa [Private] 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 -2 Portland State University [Public] 0 -1 1 1 1 1 3 University of Portland [Private] 0 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 Pennsylvania State University [Public] 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 University of Pennsylvania [Private] 0 0 1 0 1 -1 1 University of Rhode Island [Public] 0 -1 0 1 1 -1 0 Brown University [Private] 0 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 Clemson University [Public] 0 -1 0 1 1 -1 0 Charleston Southern University [Private] 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 South Dakota State University [Public] 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -5 Augustana University [Private] 0 -1 -1 1 1 1 1

Middle Tennessee State University [Public] 0 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -3 Vanderbilt University [Private] 0 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -4 University of Texas Austin [Public] 0 -1 1 0 0 -1 -1 Baylor Universities [Private] 0 -1 -1 0 0 -1 -3 University of Utah [Public] 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 Brigham Young University, Provo [Private] -1 -1 0 1 1 -1 -1 University of Vermont [Public] 0 -1 0 0 0 0 -1 Champlain College [Private] 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 -2 George Mason University [Public] 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 University of Richmond [Private] 0 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -3 University of the District of Columbia [Public] 0 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -4 George Washington University [Private] 0 -1 0 0 0 0 -1 University of Washington [Public] 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 Gonzaga University [Private] 0 -1 -1 0 0 -1 -3

West Virginia University [Public] 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -5 University of Charleston [Private] 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 University of Wisconsin, Madison [Public] 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 -2 Concordia University Wisconsin [Private] -1 0 1 1 1 0 2 University of Wyoming [Public] 0 -1 1 1 1 0 2 Wyoming Catholic College [Private] 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -3

WORKS CITED

About Teen Pregnancy. (2018). Retrieved September 27, 2020, from Centers for Disease

Control

and Prevention website: https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm

Bridges, K. (2013). When Pregnancy Is an Injury: Rape, Law, and Culture. Stanford Law

Review,

65(3), 457-516. Retrieved October 6, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23530158

Budig, M., & England, P. (2001). The Wage Penalty for Motherhood. American

Sociological

Review, 66(2), 204-225. Retrieved October 6, 2020, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657415

Darian v. University of Massachusetts Boston (US District Court for the District of

Massachusetts - 980 F. Supp. 77 1997) (Justia US Law, Dist. file).

"Encyclopedia of race and racism." (2021, March 01). Retrieved March 02, 2021, from

https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts- and

-maps/body-politics

Fortin, Jacey, and Derrick Bryson Taylor. “Florida State University Child Care Policy

Draws

Backlash.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 July 2020,

www.nytimes.com/2020/07/02/us/fsu-telecommute-remote.html.

Housing - University of Florida, www.ufl.edu/student-life/housing/.

Im, Jimmy. “Americans Are Having Fewer Kids Because It's Too Expensive - Here's How

Much

Child Care Costs in Every State.” CNBC, CNBC, 9 July 2018,

www.cnbc.com/2018/07/06/how-much-child-care-costs-in-every-state-in- america.html.

Ling, Tamara, Comment, Lifting Voices: Towards Equal Education for Pregnant and

Parenting Students in New York City, 29 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 2387, 2390–91

(2002)

(“Until the late 1960s, more than two-thirds of the school districts throughout the country

maintained formal policies expelling pregnant students from school.”).

Link, B., & Phelan J. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 272,

363-385

Mangel, Linda. “Teen Pregnancy, Discrimination, and the Dropout Rate.” ACLU of

Washington,

19 July 2017, aclu-wa.org/blog/teen-pregnancy-discrimination-and-dropout-rate.

McNee, Emily, Pregnancy Discrimination in Higher Education: Accommodating Student

Pregnancy (November 26, 2013). 20 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 63, 2013

Mink, Rep. P., Green, Rep. E., & Bayh, Sen. B. TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION

AMENDMENTS OF 1972. , CHAPTER 38-DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX

BLINDNESS § (23AD).

Murphey, Jacob. “FSU Employee Memo about Childcare Raises Concerns by Faculty.”

Https://Www.wctv.tv, WCTV Tallahassee, 29 June 2020, 10:42 p.m.,

www.wctv.tv/2020/06/30/fsu-employee-memo-about-childcare-raises-concerns-by- facult

y/.

Pacenti, Emily G. “Interview With ‘Aubrey’ : Student Pregnancy At Florida State

University.”

Feb. 2020.

“Pregnant and Parenting Students' Rights Tool Kit.” National Women's Law Center, Aug.

2016,

www.pdx.edu/students-with-children/sites/g/files/znldhr3491/files/2020-

07/Final_Aug20

16_nwlc_PPToolkit.pdf.

Shahidul, S. M., and A. H. M. Karim. “FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SCHOOL

DROPOUT

AMONG THE GIRLS: A REVIEW OF LITERATURE.” International Islamic

University of Malaysia, European Journal of Research and Reflection in

Educational

Sciences, 2015, pp. Vol. 3 No. 2.

Stasio, B.J. “People with Disabilities and the Federal Marriage Penalties.” Institute on

Community Integration Publications, Impact | Volume 23, Number 2,

publications.ici.umn.edu/impact/23-2/people-with-disabilities-and-the-federal- marriage-p

enalties.

STEPHANIE M. HOGAN, PLAINTIFF, v. MICHAEL R. OGDEN, LINDA BEATH,

AND

CORWIN KING, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES,

DEFENDANTS. (Edward F. Shea United States District Judge July 30, 2008).

“Student Pregnancy and Postpartum Assistance and Accommodations Policy.” Portland

State

University, Office of Global Diversity and Inclusion, 1 May 2018.

Tamara S. Ling, Comment, Lifting Voices: Towards Equal Education for Pregnant and

Parenting

Students in New York City, 29 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 2387, 2390–91 (2002)

(“Until the

late 1960s, more than two-thirds of the school districts throughout the country maintained

formal policies expelling pregnant students from school.”).

Teen pregnancy affects graduation rates. (2013). Retrieved September 27, 2020, from

National

Conference of State Legislatures website:

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/teen-pregnancy-affects-graduation-rates-

postcard.aspx

Title 34 - Education, 34 CFR § 106.40 § Chapter I - Office of Civil Rights, Department of

Education-Part 106.40 (Cornell Legal Information Institution 2020).

University Health Services, Florida State University,

uhs.fsu.edu/health-care/fees-and-payments.

“Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education College Rankings 2020.” Times Higher Education

(THE),

28 Sept. 2020, www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united- states/2020#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats.