Does the special olympics count for being "separate but equal"?

Think of it not in terms of “separate but equal” but more like, “if there were no Special Olympics (or something like it), the disabled couldn’t compete at all.” SbE addressed an inconsequential difference, making more of it than it was worth. But the differences between the abled and the disabled are not inconsequential, which is why wheelchair ramps are commonplace.

No, it is not separate but equal. It is not trying to be equal. Separate, but equal would be if there was a separate Olympics for Asians for instance. If they were not allowed in the regular Olympics.

@Nullo You might be thinking of the paralympics?

@JLeslie No, I actually helped out at a Special Olympics event once. I saw it as a sort of parallel to the more commonplace track meet. I suspect that, had SO not arisen, there would be something similar in its place.

To me this seems the same as the difference between segregating men’s and women’s sports.

Edit: maybe that sounds sexist, but that isn’t how I mean it. Just an analogy. Not saying women are handicapped.

@Nullo Just checking. Since you mentioned wheelchairs, I thought maybe you were thinking physically disabled rather then mentally disabled.

@JLeslie I see. Fear not, I was just using the wheelchair in its common role as the symbol for disability.

Separate but equal segregated facilities by race. Separating people by ability is wholly different.

Keeping me out of grand master chess tournaments, Wimbledon and the Navy SEALS is a pretty good idea.

Keeping my kids out of a school for our ethnicity is not.

Separate but equal has way too much negative baggage to be attached to the Special Olympics. The Special Olympics is making no attempt to suggest its participants are equal to anyone else. It is instead about the aphorism, “Be all that you can be.”

You are thinking of publicly funded activities, as opposed to private donations. The rules that refer to participation are valid with a private entity.