Don’t ask for favors when fighting for equality
By Katie Johnson
sports editor

   Four years ago, when Katie Hnida became the first female to play college football, she changed sports for women forever.
   Now, she may change it back.
   Last week, Hnida asked the NCAA to extend her playing eligibility for another year.
   After the 2000 football season and a traumatic sexual assault, Hnida took the following two seasons off so she could deal with her emotional anguish. She returned to college football in the 2003 season playing for Arizona.
   According to NCAA rules, an athlete has only four years to play, no matter how long he/she stays in college. The four years start at the first season, regardless of whether the following seasons are played.
   Now, Hnida is asking the NCAA to change the rules for her.
   To be sure, exceptions to the rules are not a new thing for Hnida, considering a female even playing football was taboo four years ago.
   This time, however, Hnida’s request will undo all the progress she has worked for. The NCAA does not extend eligibility for male players for mental (or even physical) anguish.
   For example, if a male athlete’s parents died during his freshman season and he chose not to play the next season, he would lose one year of eligibility. The NCAA does not empathize; it only makes rules that must be followed.
   If the NCAA grants Hnida an extra year of playing time, it will essentially say females are emotionally weaker than males and, therefore, rules do not always apply.
   Everything Hnida worked for to create equal standing for women in sports will be pushed aside.
   Will the NCAA grant Hnida’s request? It is not likely. However, in consideration of political correctness as well as the publicity this case has received, the NCAA must think of the consequences its decision will have.
   If the group decides Hnida will not receive another year of eligibility, the NCAA will have to be very careful about the spokesman it chooses to announce the decision (preferably someone more educated on speaking and life than ex-UC coach Gary Barnett).
   On the other hand, if the NCAA rules in favor of Hnida, it opens the door for the rule to be challenged. Making exceptions allows for ambiguity and controversy over why one player’s emotional distress is higher than another’s.
   The result would be chaotic; no one would know which players were actually lying about their mental anguish or who did actually need time off. Psychologists would be called, and the entire ordeal would be ridiculous.
   For now, we should just hope that Hnida’s request is denied and that her attackers are brought to justice. The point is not whether her assault was traumatic, but rather that she should not be allowed exceptions because of it.