Supreme Court asked to rule on controversial interpretation.(Guest editorial)

A petition is currently before the Supreme Court asking that it rule on a point of law arising out of a case filed by three Paralympic athletes. The athletes allege, under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973), the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) harms and is discriminating on the basis of disability when it provides benefits to Olympians and athletes competing in the Pan American Games, but none or inferior benefits to Paralympians. Benefits include health insurance, preferential access to training venues, scholarships (allowing athletes to train without encumbrances of full or part-time employment), money for medals, expense reimbursements and equipment. The suit was filed in the United States District Court, District of Colorado, in 2003. The District Court ruled for the USOC. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals was split equally when it rendered its opinion in January, 2008, so the District Court's previous ruling held.

The USOC does not deny it discriminates against Paralympic athletes, claiming it must do so to ensure the competitiveness of Olympic Teams.

In 1998, Congress increased the responsibilities and authority of the USOC to include overseeing and supporting participation in the Paralympic Games. Many thought this move would advance the Paralympic movement, but a decade of USOC control raises new doubts over the future of the movement in America. Additionally, this control is total. There is no other source to which the athletes of the Paralympics may go in seeking fair treatment to remain competitive on the world stage.

The concern by some who have followed the case is that the USOC's arguments for this institutionalized discrimination seem to mirror many of the justifications used prior to the passage of Title IX to limit women competing in sport from receiving fair consideration in allocations of the necessary resources. These also included funding, venues, qualified coaching, and so on. Specifically, in justifying the disparities between the Olympic and Paralympic programs, the USOC has argued that:

* Greater benefits are needed to provide incentives for American athletes who seek to take part in the Olympics;

* The grants and health insurance programs would be inefficient if Paralympic athletes were included;

* The Olympic Team would be "strapped for cash" if Paralympic athletes got any of these benefits;