Ethics CasesSport

Cases · Special Olympics / US Department of Education · 2017–2019

"Well-Supported by the Philanthropic Sector": The 2019 Special Olympics Funding Fight

In March 2019 the administration's budget proposed eliminating the Education Department's $17.6 million grant to Special Olympics. The money paid for Unified Champion Schools, which bring students with and without intellectual disabilities together through sport, not for the competitions themselves. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos defended the cut before Congress, saying the organization was well supported by private donors; lawmakers from both parties objected, and a public backlash followed. On 28 March President Trump said he had 'overridden my people' and the program would be funded. Similar cuts had been proposed in earlier budgets, and Congress had raised the grant each time. The case asks whether disability-inclusion programs are a public responsibility or a charitable one, and how leaders should defend hard budget choices.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver founds Special Olympics.
  2. Administration budgets propose cutting the grant; Congress raises it from $12.6 million to $15.1 million to $17.6 million.
  3. The FY2020 budget proposes cutting about $7 billion from the Education Department, including the Special Olympics grant.
  4. DeVos defends the cut before a House appropriations subcommittee.
  5. DeVos says Special Olympics 'is not a federal program' and raises more than $100 million a year.
  6. At a Senate hearing Durbin criticizes the plan; hours later Trump says the program will be funded.

The ethical issues

  • Public responsibility versus private charity for disability inclusion.
  • How a small budget line becomes a symbol.
  • Accuracy about what a grant actually funds.
  • Leaders defending decisions they say they did not make.
  • Who speaks for people with intellectual disabilities in budget debates.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Students with intellectual disabilitiesInclusion and friendships at school.
Students without disabilitiesLearning alongside peers and the benefits of inclusion.
Special OlympicsStable funding for school programs.
Education DepartmentMeeting budget targets and defending priorities.
CongressDeciding spending and representing constituents.
Taxpayers and donorsEffective use of public and private money.

The case

Background

Special Olympics was founded in 1968 by Eunice Kennedy Shriver to give people with intellectual disabilities opportunities in sport.[3] It is best known for its competitions, which are funded mainly by private donors and run by volunteers.[3][5] Separately, for about a decade, the US Department of Education had funded Special Olympics to run Unified Champion Schools, a program that brings students with and without intellectual disabilities together through sport, clubs and youth leadership.[4][5]

By 2019 that program operated in about 6,500 schools. About 272,000 students took part in Unified sports, 112,000 of them with intellectual disabilities.[4] Special Olympics said the federal grant paid only for this school work, not the competitions.[4][5]

The rules and governance

Under the US Constitution, Congress sets spending. A president’s budget is a proposal. Administration budgets had proposed eliminating the Special Olympics grant in earlier years, and each time Congress had ignored the request and increased it: from $12.6 million in 2017 to $15.1 million and then $17.6 million.[3][4] The grant was about 10% of the organization’s revenue, which CBS put at about $129 million in 2017.[3]

Decision point: defending the cut

In March 2019 the administration’s budget for fiscal 2020 proposed cutting about $7 billion, roughly 10%, from the Education Department, including the Special Olympics grant.[1][2] Education Secretary Betsy DeVos had to defend it before Congress.

At a House appropriations subcommittee hearing on 26 March, Democratic Representative Mark Pocan pressed her on how many children would be affected.[2][4] Representative Barbara Lee called the plan “appalling.”[2] A video of the exchange spread on social media.[4] On 27 March DeVos issued a statement: “The Special Olympics is not a federal program. It’s a private organization. Because of its important work, it is able to raise more than $100 million every year.”[2] She said it was “well-supported by the philanthropic sector.”[3] She added that dozens of worthy nonprofits supporting people with disabilities received no federal grant money.[2]

Decision point: the reversal

On 28 March, at a Senate Appropriations hearing, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin said whoever came up with the idea deserved “a Special Olympic gold medal for insensitivity.”[1][2] Asked whether she had personally approved the cut, DeVos said she had not.[1]

Hours later, President Trump told reporters: “The Special Olympics will be funded. I just told my people.” He added: “I have overridden my people.”[2][6] DeVos then said she was “pleased and grateful the president and I see eye-to-eye on this issue,” and that it was “funding I have fought for behind the scenes over the last several years.”[1][2] Pocan replied that it should not take “public outcry and shaming” to restore the funding.[2]

Aftermath

Special Olympics thanked the president and called the issue non-partisan.[2] Its chairman, Tim Shriver, said the federal money funded educational services in schools, distinct from the traditional program supported by philanthropy. The organization said it was on track to reach 7,500 Unified Champion Schools.[5] Congress, not the president, would decide the final appropriation.[2][4] Education Week noted that media coverage often showed adult athletes and images of the World Games, though the grant funded school programs.[4]

The core dilemma

A government trying to cut spending proposed ending a grant to a well-known charity, arguing that private donors could fill the gap. The program funded inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities in ordinary schools. Is that a public responsibility or a charitable one? And when a leader defends a decision in public, what does she owe about her own role in it?

Competing values

  • Fiscal restraint vs. public responsibility: cutting federal spending against funding inclusion in public schools [1][4].
  • Charity vs. entitlement: private generosity against inclusion as a right [3][5].
  • Symbol vs. substance: a small budget line against the message a cut sends [4].
  • Candour vs. loyalty: defending an administration’s budget against a leader’s own views [1][2].

Strongest arguments

For the proposed cut: the federal budget faced pressure, and many disability nonprofits receive no federal money [2]. Special Olympics raised over $100 million a year and could seek more private support [2][3]. Congress could still fund it [4].

Against the cut: the grant funded school inclusion, not the games, so private donations to the competitions were beside the point [4][5]. Inclusion in public schools is a public responsibility. Students with intellectual disabilities are more likely than most other students with disabilities to be taught outside general classrooms, so the program filled a gap [4].

On communication: DeVos defended a cut and then said she had fought it [1][2]. Critics saw that as evasion; supporters said a cabinet member must defend the budget she is given.

Applying the frameworks

Justice

A justice lens asks who bears the burden of a cut. Rawls’s veil of ignorance asks what rule you would choose without knowing whether you would be a student with an intellectual disability. Distributive justice favours protecting programs for groups that are historically excluded [4].

Utilitarian

A consequentialist compares $17.6 million against what it buys: inclusion for hundreds of thousands of students [3][4]. It also weighs the political cost of a cut that became a symbol of insensitivity [1].

Care

An ethics of care focuses on relationships. Unified programs are designed to build friendships between students who might otherwise be separated [4]. Care asks whether a budget treats those relationships as dispensable.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue. You are an Education Department budget official preparing for the 2019 hearings. Stakeholders include students with and without disabilities, teachers, Special Olympics, Congress, taxpayers and donors.
  2. Gather facts. Know what the grant funds (school inclusion, not the games), how often Congress has rejected this cut and the program’s reach [3][4]. Watch for framing bias: “Special Olympics” sounds like an athletics event.
  3. Test options. Option A: propose elimination again. Option B: keep the grant and cut elsewhere. Option C: propose moving funding to schools directly, with a transition.
  4. Check codes and law. Congress controls appropriations; federal law requires states to educate students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment appropriate. The letter allows a cut; the spirit of inclusion argues for care.
  5. Decide and document. Record who decided, the rationale, and the expected effect on students.
  6. Communicate and follow up. Be ready to say how many students are affected, own the decision publicly, and measure inclusion outcomes.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: the FY2020 budget proposed eliminating the $17.6 million grant; DeVos defended the proposal; Trump said on 28 March 2019 the program would be funded; Congress had increased the grant despite earlier proposed cuts [1][2][3].

Contested: whether inclusion programs should be publicly or privately funded, and whether DeVos’s account of her own role was candid.

Why this case matters

Disability sport often depends on public choices about who is included and who pays. Compare Paralympic Prize Money Parity and PGA Tour v. Casey Martin.

Key terms

Social model of disability
The view that disability comes not from impairment alone but from barriers, discrimination and exclusion created by society.
Distributive justice
Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Framing
How the choice of angle, language and emphasis shapes the way a story is understood.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.
Agenda-setting
Media coverage does not tell audiences what to think so much as what to think about.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Should government fund inclusion programs run by private nonprofits, or fund schools directly?
  2. Was DeVos's argument that Special Olympics can raise private money a fair one?
  3. Why did a $17.6 million item draw more attention than the rest of a $7 billion cut?
  4. Was it right for DeVos to say she had fought for the funding behind the scenes after defending its elimination?
  5. Did media coverage focus on the right Special Olympics program?

Sources

  1. Trump reverses course on Special Olympics funding cut after Betsy DeVos comes under fire — NBC News
  2. Special Olympics funding: Trump reverses proposal to cut federal funding for Special Olympics — CBS News
  3. Special Olympics budget controversy: behind the numbers at nonprofit — CBS News
  4. The Special Olympics Budget Clash: What Schools Could Have Lost — Education Week
  5. Special Olympics responds to proposed funding cuts for education programs in the United States — Special Olympics
  6. Trump backs off proposed cuts to Special Olympics: 'I have overridden my people' — Politico