Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops N E W L O N D O N

[Dubious]

Sorry didnt see the date...its dated Sept 2000 but still an interesting read:


A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.

But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.

Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.

Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops - ABC News

At first I found it rather funny than a little scary- does this equate to yes boss soldiers and no questions asked? Next question asked what's the score to become a judge?

Just for jokes this seems like: Even prison guards are allowed higher IQ to figure out ways to smuggle things in for an extra tip?

Another article from 2013 suggesting the same:

Police Officially Refuse To Hire Applicants With High IQ Scores

By MBDOctober 30, 2013

It’s long been rumored amongst law enforcement critics, but did you know that police departments officially disqualify high-scoring applicants? That’s not to say that all cops are stupid… Just that if you’re too smart, the police simply won’t hire you.

The policy became solidified as a concrete federal ruling almost a decade and a half ago with little fanfare from the mainstream media. Back in 1999, a Federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by a police applicant who was barred from the New London, Connecticut police force. The reason for the disqualification was literally because he had scored “too high” on an intelligence test. The department made it clear, they didn’t want the bottom of the barrel in terms of intelligence, but they didn’t want anyone “too smart” either.

The ruling made public in September of the same year, with the ruling judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven confirming that it was in fact the case that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor’s degree in literature, was denied an opportunity to even interview for a job with the New London Police Department, solely because of his high test scores.

Judge Dorsey, however, ruled that Mr. Jordan that there was no protection offered to intelligent people from discriminatory hiring practices by individual police departments. Why? Because, Dorsey explained, it was proven that police departments held all to this same standard and thus rejected all applicants who scored high.

So next time you cross paths with a cop and wonder how someone so stupid could get hired by their department, you now know that their stupidity might be the very thing that qualified them for the job.

(Article by James Achisa)

Police Officially Refuse To Hire Applicants With High IQ Scores : Political Blind Spot

 

[VCheng]

Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.

And he failed to show that any discrimination occurred against him as he alleged in his lawsuit. The interpretation of laws is very precise.

 

[Dubious]

And he failed to show that any discrimination occurred against him as he alleged in his lawsuit. The interpretation of laws is very precise.

I am not bothered about the discrimination but the law itself....

Like I said :

At first I found it rather funny than a little scary- does this equate to yes boss soldiers and no questions asked? Next question asked what's the score to become a judge?
Just for jokes this seems like: Even prison guards are allowed higher IQ to figure out ways to smuggle things in for an extra tip?

The suing attitude of Americans is passed around as a joke in UK...at least most of my colleagues back then used to laugh at every article related to suing

 

[VCheng]

I am not bothered about the discrimination but the law itself....

Which law bothers you in this case?

 

[Dubious]

Which law bothers you in this case?

keeping low intelligent people to guard security of the people...

Like I asked:

does this equate to yes boss soldiers and no questions asked? Next question asked what's the score to become a judge?

Isnt the security of the people important enough to put in people who need to make quick decisions? Meaning intelligent people? Who probably also could add 2 and 2 and know trouble from hints thrown left and right rather than people to whom you need to spell it all out?

 

[VCheng]

keeping low intelligent people to guard security of the people...

There is absolutely no LAW that says that.

 

[Dubious]

There is absolutely no LAW that says that.

Did you read the article? Even if it is not the law it is the regulation or whatever that is implemented

Why? Because, Dorsey explained, it was proven that police departments held all to this same standard and thus rejected all applicants who scored high.

 

[VCheng]

Here is the judgement:

Jordan v. New London

SUMMARY ORDER

On consideration whereof, it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

On March 16, 1996, plaintiff Robert Jordan and 500 other applicants underwent a written screening process conducted by the Law Enforcement Council of Southeastern Connecticut, Inc. (“LEC”), a coalition of fourteen cities and towns, for a position as a police officer. That testing process operated as an initial screen for participating police departments. The testing material included the Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam (“WPT”), which purports to measure cognitive ability. An accompanying manual listed recommended scores for various professions and cautioned that because overqualified candidates may soon become bored with unchallenging work and quit, “simply hiring the highest scoring employee can be self-defeating.” Jordan scored a 33 on the WPT, above the median for any listed occupation, and well over the normative median of 21 suggested for a police patrol officer.

In the fall of 1996, Jordan learned that the city of New London was interviewing candidates. Upon further inquiry, however, he learned from assistant city manager Keith Harrigan that he would not be interviewed because he “didn’t fit the profile.” Plaintiff, who was 46 years old, suspected age discrimination and filed an administrative complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. The city responded that it removed Jordan from consideration because he scored a 33 on the WPT, and that to prevent frequent job turnover caused by hiring overqualified applicants the city only interviewed candidates who scored between 20 and 27.

Plaintiff brought a civil rights action in the District Court for the District of Connecticut (Dorsey, Judge) alleging that the city and Harrigan denied him equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 4, Section 20, of the Connecticut Constitution. On August 29, 1999, the district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding no suspect classification and that defendants had “shown . . . a rational basis” for the policy. We agree that New London’s use of an “upper cut” did not violate the equal protection clause and affirm the judgment of the district court.

Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We review the grant of summary judgment de novo on appeal. See Beatie v. City of New York, 123 F.3d 707, 710 (2d Cir. 1997).

As Plaintiff concedes, there exists no fundamental right to employment as a police officer. See Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 322, 65 L. Ed. 2d 784, 100 S. Ct. 2671 (1979) (“It is well settled that where a statutory classification does not itself impinge on a right or liberty protected by the Constitution, the validity of the classification must be sustained unless the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of [any legitimate government] objective.”). Under rational basis analysis, “a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.” Federal Communications Comm’n v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313, 124 L. Ed. 2d 211, 113 S. Ct. 2096 (1993) (citing, inter alia, Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 484-85, 25 L. Ed. 2d 491, 90 S. Ct. 1153 (1970)). We require no supporting empirical evidence and will not strike down a classification as unconstitutional unless “‘the . . . facts on which the classification is apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental decisionmaker.’“ Beatie, 123 F.3d at 712 (quoting Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 111, 59 L. Ed. 2d 171, 99 S. Ct. 939 (1979)).

In Dandridge, a case involving welfare benefits, the Supreme Court stated that “to approve the invalidation of state economic or social regulation as overreaching would be far too reminiscent of an era when the Court thought the Fourteenth Amendment gave it power to strike down state laws because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought.” Dandridge, 397 U.S. at 484 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court held that classifications need not be perfect, because “‘the problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations - illogical, it may be, and unscientific.’“ Dandridge, 397 U.S. at 485 (quoting Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61, 69, 57 L. Ed. 730, 33 S. Ct. 441 (1913)). The Court concluded that “ the Fourteenth Amendment gives the federal courts no power to impose upon the States their views of what constitutes wise economic or social policy.” Dandridge, 397 U.S. at 486.

Applying that lenient standard of review, we conclude that even absent a strong proven statistical correlation between high scores on the Wonderlic test and turnover resulting from lack of job satisfaction, it is enough that the city believed -- on the basis of material prepared by the test maker and a letter along similar lines sent by the LEC -- that there was such a connection. Plaintiff presented some evidence that high scorers do not actually experience more job dissatisfaction, but that evidence does not create a factual issue, because it matters not whether the city’s decision was correct so long as it was rational. The city could rationally have relied upon the guide to interpreting test results provided by the test maker as justification for reducing the size of the applicant pool with both a low and a high cut off. Even if unwise, the upper cut was a rational policy instituted to reduce job turnover and thereby lessen the economic cost involved in hiring and training police officers who do not remain long enough to justify the expense.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit.

Did you read the article? Even if it is not the law it is the regulation or whatever that is implemented

Yes, I am aware of the case and I have read that article too. The issue here is equality before the law, which was upheld. The departmental policy and its justification from a legal standard is correct. Please read up more on the case on the link I have provided, instead of jumping to incorrect conclusions just to serve any preconceived agendas.

 

[Dubious]

We require no supporting empirical evidence and will not strike down a classification as unconstitutional unless “‘the . . . facts on which the classification is apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental decisionmaker.’

because it matters not whether the city’s decision was correct so long as it was rational. The city could rationally have relied upon the guide to interpreting test results provided by the test maker as justification for reducing the size of the applicant pool with both a low and a high cut off. Even if unwise, the upper cut was a rational policy instituted to reduce job turnover and thereby lessen the economic cost involved in hiring and training police officers who do not remain long enough to justify the expense.

Did any of that make sense?

In layman's term it says we justify the hiring of dumb people to protect you people even if it may be wrong it is rational? The government does not find it wrong to have dumb people in charge of the security of the people? bravo!

The green part is based on assumptions that because you are clever instead of relying you may make better choices ...they lean towards you may get bored?

Now I know why you have a negative and cynical approach...Just look at crap the law makers make you swallow WHOLE without chewing!

 

[VCheng]

Did any of that make sense?
In layman's term it says we justify the hiring of dumb people to protect you people even if it may be wrong it is rational? The government does not find it wrong to have dumb people in charge of the security of the people? bravo!

It makes perfect legal sense: The claimant alleged discrimination but failed to prove it. That is all the case looked at.

 

[Dubious]

Yes, I am aware of the case and I have read that article too. The issue here is equality before the law, which was upheld. The departmental policy and its justification from a legal standard is correct. Please read up more on the case on the link I have provided, instead of jumping to incorrect conclusions just to serve any preconceived agendas.

Like I said just coz the department + judge thinks the decision is "rational" and constitution ...even if it may be wrong it was upheld!

It makes perfect legal sense: The claimant alleged discrimination but failed to prove it. That is all the case looked at.

Well sorry to say reading this crap..I just saw how screwed the system is!

If some bonkers wanna break America it just needs to pass a bill and let people fall in the trap coz the court will say it is constitutionally allowed...Very much like Pakistan there Thought at least America would be different ...guess I was wrong

 

[VCheng]

Like I said just coz the department + judge thinks the decision is "rational" and constitution ...even if it may be wrong it was upheld!


Well sorry to say reading this crap..I just saw how screwed the system is!

If some bonkers wanna break America it just needs to pass a bill and let people fall in the trap coz the court will say it is constitutionally allowed...Very much like Pakistan there Thought at least America would be different ...guess I was wrong

The law is the law. The rule of law has manifold greater advantages than any possible downsides. What you "saw" is only an indication of what you want to see, nothing more.

 

[Dubious]

The law is the law. The rule of law has manifold greater advantages than any possible downsides.

Well sorry I beg to differ...

I think the law should be flexible enough to see its own stupid notions!

 

[VCheng]

Well sorry I beg to differ...

I think the law should be flexible enough to see its own stupid notions!

You can have your own opinion as to how flexible laws should be, I have no problem with that. But in a US court, precision in interpretation and application are important, as the case shows.

 

[Dubious]

You can have your own opinion as to how flexible laws should be, I have no problem with that. But in a US court, precision in interpretation and application are important, as the case shows.

Well in such a case it is not about precision or interpretation its more about upholding the law be it weird or plain stupid...

Whats the IQ cut off point to be a judge? You know so you dont ask questions regarding stupid laws and uphold them with closed eyes?